As we know, the grey belt concept caused a seismic shift in Green Belt policy when it was introduced in December 2024.
The Green Belt has been a concept for decades, designed to prevent unrestricted sprawl of major conurbations and latterly to prevent towns from merging among other things.
The public perception is that the space is sacrosanct – a green space that has intrinsic nature value akin to a national landscape. In reality it holds a fundamentally different purpose that is not well understood by the general public.
The grey belt principles introduced in 2024 aim to address that misunderstanding. They create greater flexibility by allowing decision-makers to identify land within the Green Belt that does not meaningfully contribute to its stated purposes.
Yet as with any major policy shift, new misconceptions have arisen!
There is the fallacy that all land within the Green Belt has value and should be preserved. Conversely, we’re also seeing the misconception that all land could be grey belt. That is simply not the case – there are still tests that must be applied.
The Tests Still Matter
Before a site can be considered under the grey belt policy, it must first be assessed against some of the Green Belt purposes (taken together). Beyond that, decision-makers must evaluate the implications for heritage assets, protected open spaces, and flood risk to ensure there are no strong reasons for refusal.
If a site clears those hurdles, it must still pass the cumulative grey belt test in paragraph 155 of the NPPF. A critical element of this is whether the site can genuinely be considered sustainable—with reference to NPPF paragraphs 110 and 115.
Sustainability Remains a High Bar
Many clients approach us with rural sites they consider to be sustainable, often for major development schemes. In reality, many such sites lack meaningful bus connections or footpaths into the settlement and are largely reliant on the private car.
Paragraph 110 recognises a distinction between urban and rural areas, but that does not necessarily mean remote and only accessible by car – certainly not for major developments.
Recent appeal decisions have reinforced this. In several of our cases involving major development in rural villages—settlements with very limited facilities and only temporary or uncertain bus services – Inspectors concluded that the lack of certainty around long term bus provision and limited availability of local services would result in car-dependent development. Consequently, even with regard to paragraph 110, the schemes were deemed unsustainable.
Appeal decisions provide a good foundation for the determination of what can be considered to be sustainable when considering grey belt principles; decision making must be both robust and consistent in this regard.
Making Rural Sites Truly Sustainable
For rural sites to form part of a credible grey belt argument, they must demonstrate a realistic prospect of sustainable travel. This may include:
- A reasonable and reliable bus service, or scope to improve connectivity through bus stop provisions
- Good footpath connections to settlements with services
- Opportunities to provide or upgrade footpaths and other connectivity infrastructure
- A surrounding road and transport network capable of supporting safe, sustainable access.
It is not enough to simply catalogue a site’s pros and cons; the surrounding infrastructure and road network must be considered, along with whether there is genuine scope to improve facilities to make a site sustainable.
Importantly, the infrastructure required to make a site sustainable is often costly and these costs should be factored into early appraisals. Relying on viability arguments in grey belt development should be a last resort. The last thing you want to be doing is battling on grey belt and viability fronts.
Need Advice?
If you would like an informed view on the grey belt potential of a site, we would be happy to assist. Get in touch and our team can help you navigate the policy with clarity and confidence.
