Comment

Brown to grey to green: A sequential test for the Green Belt with added sustainability

One of the most anticipated topics in the recently published NPPF consultation is the grey belt. The concept was road-tested a few months ago in the Labour Party’s Housing Plan and the revised NPPF now provides a definition and a proposed policy approach. But what is the grey belt and what other changes are being proposed to the Green Belt? Senior Director, Mike Best; Head of Landscape, Joanna Ede; and Associate Director, Fiona Lee-McQueen explain.

It is a significant change and should be seen in the wider context of the reversal of the December 2023 changes to the NPPF, the introduction of mandatory housing targets and the new standard method, which together mean it is inevitable that more local authorities will have to review their Green Belt to meet their development needs.

Outlining the new approach in a letter to housing industry stakeholders issued alongside the NPPF, the Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook said “we will ask local authorities to prioritise sustainable development on previously developed land and other low quality ‘grey belt’ sites, before looking to other sustainable locations for meeting this need. We are defining grey belt land through reference to specific reasons for which the Green Belt exists, so that it captures sites that are making a limited contribution to the Green Belt’s purposes with additional guidance set out in the consultation”.

A sequential approach

This new approach is three-tiered with brownfield first, then the new grey belt (which is defined in the consultation), and only then other Green Belt sites. New paragraph 144 (former 146) in the NPPF adds these categories, each with the rider “in sustainable locations”. We will get onto that later, but first the definitions.

Brownfield first is a well-established cross-party principle but the NPPF consultation is looking at broadening the definition to potentially include hardstanding and glasshouses, whilst also relaxing restrictions on ‘limited infilling’ within Green Belt. Combined with the intention to make brownfield development acceptable in principle across the board, this should see more previously developed land (PDL) come forward in the Green Belt.

‘Grey belt’ is referred to as “low performing sites” which are defined in the NPPF glossary. This is where it gets interesting. There are two types of grey belt, the first being PDL which would be considered brownfield and therefore in the first priority category.

The second type is “any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes”. This would specifically exclude any landscape designation included in footnote 7 of the NPPF (other than of course Green Belt) but may also exclude areas identified within Local Nature Recovery Strategies subject to the consultation feedback.

This immediately begs the question what does ‘limited contribution’ mean? The consultation attempts a definition, again in two parts.

1. The first simply refers to land which does not “strongly perform” against any Green Belt purpose.
2. The second refers to four features, two which are also Green Belt purposes which duplicates the first criterion? The other two refer to “substantial built development” which would already be considered as PDL, or land “dominated by urban land uses, including physical development”. This might suggest uses like open storage, but again it strays into PDL. Former petrol filling stations and car parks were also mooted earlier in the year.

Our view is that this opens up much wider possibilities that land could be released from the Green Belt where its low performance is judged (quite rightly) against it planning objectives rather than its appearance (as earlier commentary around the grey belt seemed to suggest).

The final tier of the sequential approach is qualified in paragraph 18 of the consultation which says the policy should not restrict “development of specific opportunities which could be made more sustainable (for example, on land around train stations)”. This recognises that not all PDL or grey belt sites will be in sustainable locations, and therefore local planning authorities are to be empowered to “make decisions that best support the development needs and sustainability objectives of their area through the plan-making process”.

Added sustainability

The NPPF consultation suggests that its definition of grey belt will ensure that it “accurately identifies land with a high sustainable development potential”. However, the definition has no sustainability criteria, so the identification of “grey belt sites in sustainable locations”, as new paragraph 144 of the NPPF states, will require a further judgement about a site’s sustainability. This puts an important emphasis back on promoting ‘sustainable patterns of development’, which features in the unchanged part of NPPF paragraph 144 (former 146). Again, we support this approach as brownfield and grey belt sites are unlikely to be inherently sustainable.

Undermining the function of the Green Belt as a whole

Another important change is the test introduced to paragraph 142 (former 144) which states: “…authorities should review Green Belt boundaries and propose alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that such alterations would fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole”.

On the face of it, this is quite a low bar as alterations to boundaries would have to have wider consequences for the Green Belt as a whole, rather than just their localised effect.

This adds further to the sense that these are quite significant changes to Green Belt policy.

A short-term route

As most of these changes will take time to come into effect through the plan-making process, the Government is proposing another radical twist in the short term by creating a “clear route”, as Matthew Pennycook’s letter describes it, for grey belt sites to come forward through the application process, effectively bypassing the requirement to demonstrate very special circumstances.

This would only apply to PDL or grey belt sites where:

• a planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply or is delivering less than 75% against its Housing Delivery Test, or 
• there is unmet commercial or other need; and
• the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt as a whole. 

This is another very significant shift in Green Belt policy.

Golden rules

Government has made clear, however, that wherever development is permitted in the Green Belt or land is released for development through plans, ‘golden rules’ will apply to ensure that the community benefits. These are in three areas with an additional commitment to “exemplary design”.

1. Housing schemes will have to provide “at least 50% affordable housing” with an appropriate proportion of social rent, subject to viability.
2. All schemes will have to deliver “necessary improvements to national and local infrastructure” including schools, nurseries, surgeries, transport links and care homes to deliver “well designed, connected places”.
3. They will have to provide new or improved “local green spaces” that are accessible to the public with new residents assured of good quality spaces within a short walk of their homes.

All three golden rules apply much more to housing although, given the changes to the NPPF apply equally to meeting commercial needs, it suggests that the focus for non-residential development where Green Belt is released will be on providing the necessary infrastructure and improvements to greenspace.

Viability

Of the golden rules, there has been much commentary already about the 50% affordable requirement. There is reference in the consultation to limited use of viability assessments and it includes a section on the possible introduction of Benchmark Land Values to ensure consistency as to how this is approached, with three options set out. The prospect of compulsory purchase being considered to bring forward ‘policy compliant schemes’ is also a sign of the Government’s intentions to be proactive.

Other matters

The ‘invention’ of grey belt of course runs the risk that some landowners may seek to allow their land to despoil so that it is perceived as ‘grey’. The consultation states it wants to avoid “providing incentives to allow the degradation of existing Green Belt land” and hopes that its definition does that, by referring to ‘limited contribution’ to Green Belt purposes. It is not clear how this would work, so they ask whether any additional protections or requirements are necessary.

The obvious question would be, given that grey belt has two distinct definitions, if a site makes a limited contribution already, does it need to be degraded to qualify?

Arguably, existing Green Belt Reviews should be picking up sites which make only a limited contribution or do not strongly perform, but often these are being overlooked by authorities. Current practice tends to review smaller parcels around the urban edge and larger parcels within the main body of Green Belt, whereas there will need to be a more fine-grained approach to identify what will inevitably be smaller grey belt sites. Does this run the risk of ‘nibbling away’ at the Green Belt rather than making more strategic releases? Either way, a more consistent methodology for Green Belt Reviews, given their enhanced significance, would be welcome.

The consultation also makes clear that these changes should not undermine existing protection of best and most versatile agricultural land.

What the revised NPPF doesn’t say

Turning finally to what the consultation and revised NPPF does not cover, there is little or no mention of ‘openness’ which is one of the essential characteristics of Green Belts. If the sequential approach is likely to release more sites which make a ‘limited contribution’ to Green Belt purposes, what does this mean for openness?

It is also apparent that much of the focus on how local authorities will meet their development needs in full is directed at the role of the grey belt as a new supply source. However, this is only applicable to those areas with a Green Belt. The many towns, especially in the south, which are under greatest pressure to find more housing land only have open countryside around them, but there is no equivalent of a sequential approach prioritising an equivalent to grey belt for them. How grey belt will be identified around London’s Metropolitan Open Land is another separate issue which will bear some scrutiny.

We will be reviewing these changes with clients and making representations by the deadline in September. If you would like to discuss, please contact Mike Best, Joanne Ede or Fiona Lee-McQueen. 

6 August 2024