Grey Belt Land: Definition and Application

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will say two things in respect to that, and I will come on to detail how the approach works in relation to decision making very shortly. In general terms, developers can make whatever claims they like about any particular site across the country; it is for the local authority to assess whether, in its view, that site constitutes grey belt, if that is part of the application that is submitted. Where there is disagreement and it goes to appeal, I have set out exactly how planning inspectors need to determine such applications.

It is crucial to note that where grey belt is identified, it does not automatically follow that it should be allocated for development or released from the green belt, or that development proposals be approved in all circumstances. Other considerations in decision making are relevant, as I will expand upon shortly. I also want to stress that any alterations to green belt boundaries must promote sustainable patterns of development by ensuring that any alterations, taken together, do not fundamentally undermine the five green belt purposes of the remaining green belt when considered across the plan area. Considerations also include giving priority to the release of previously developed land in the green belt, then considering low-quality grey-belt land, which will include disused petrol stations and other previously developed land of that kind, although not necessarily be limited to it, and only then exploring other green belt locations.

To respond to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam on whether allocating grey-belt land for development will necessarily lead to the cumulative erosion of the green belt over time, I would point out two things. First, as I have already mentioned, development proposals on grey-belt land must respond to a demonstrable unmet need—I will come to his points about the standard method shortly. Secondly, it is precisely to avoid the situation that we inherited—which was a haphazard and piecemeal approach to green belt land designation and release—that this Government have implemented the approach that we have. Its effective working is predicated on ensuring that designation and release take place in a strategic manner over time through local plans with a 10-year horizon, and in due course—because they are just as important—through spatial development strategies with a 20-year horizon. We want the approach to be plan-led.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I know that the Minister recognises the point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) was making to him is that, although we all want this to be a plan-led process, the NPPF still allows for grey belt designation to be achieved through an individual application, and that is what the Conservatives are also concerned about. I wanted to test him on this question of cumulative impact. He may come on to this later, in which case I apologise, but I put to him in my speech that if we look at an individual application or site, it may be difficult to make a credible argument that building there would undermine the purposes of the green belt across the plan area. On the other hand, if we look at a series of grey belt applications and their cumulative impact on the green belt across the plan area, it might be easier to demonstrate. Can he clarify which of the two the Government believe it should be?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to do so; it is a fair question. In terms of the sequential approach that local authorities need to take with grey belt assessment and green belt release through local plans, the test of fundamentally undermining is at a plan level. Local authorities look at all the sites they have assessed through a review to constitute what is grey belt and then select those that they might need to bring forward to meet assessed housing need. I cannot go into detail, but the joint local plan for south Warwickshire, which includes the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency, is instructive in that regard. It has gone through its regulation 19 consultation and the authority is looking towards submitting that emerging local plan. That will release land equating to 1.54% of Stratford-upon-Avon and 6.99% of Warwick. That is a plan-led approach to green belt release that will meet need in that area. I will come on to speak about decision making, but that is the test, in terms of fundamentally undermining the five purposes in the remaining green-belt area. I will briefly speak about what the guidance says in that respect as well.

There have been several questions about decision making. It goes without saying that we want local planning authorities to get up-to-date plans in place. I repeat that ad nauseum; we inherited a dreadful situation, where less than a third of plan coverage was up to date. We cannot have a plan-led system with such low levels of coverage; we are doing lots as a Government to ensure that we are driving towards universal coverage, including intervening where necessary. However, when development proposals come forward outside of a local plan, the NPPF also provides a limited route for development proposals of grey-belt land in the green belt in certain circumstances.

When considering development proposals, decisions should be informed by green belt assessments, as I have previously referenced. Where grey-belt sites are not identified in existing plans or green-belt assessments, authorities should consider evidence, informed by our guidance, on whether the site strongly contributes to the relevant green belt purposes.

It is important to note that where a site is judged to be grey belt, development proposals on grey-belt land must also respond to demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. If that does not exist, that is grounds for the local authority to refuse. It must also be sustainably located and meet our golden rules, which, as hon. Members are aware, require additional benefits to be provided to local communities— including higher levels of affordable housing, new or improved green spaces and improved local infrastructure where the green belt is developed—in recognition, and rightly so, of the value placed on that type of land.

As previously mentioned, the contribution that a specific plot of green-belt land makes to the relevant green belt purposes is only one consideration involved in the decision on whether to develop there. Decisions should also be informed by an overall application of the relevant policies in the NPPF. That includes policies in the natural environment chapter, which safeguard areas of importance for the landscape, geodiversity or biodiversity value, including protected landscapes and designated sites for nature.

To assist local planning authorities and other decision makers in both plan making and decision making, and to support a consistent approach to determine whether land is grey belt, my Department published updated planning practice guidance on 27 February last year. That PPG sets out a range of considerations to help to determine whether land is grey belt and how to consider proposals on potential grey-belt land. When considering how any given land performs against the relevant green belt purposes, the guidance also sets out illustrative features to help to inform judgments.

The PPG does not—we have been challenged on this point, so I want to address it head on—provide an exhaustive or overly prescriptive list that accounts for all possible scenarios. It is ultimately for the decision maker to consider those factors in accordance with national policy and guidance. It is right that they exercise their judgment in doing so, given that local context and development-specific considerations will vary markedly across the country. We want that flexibility to allow expert local judgment to be applied. The more prescriptive we get in national policy, the more edge cases and difficulties we will create. Our system is discretionary in nature; it is for local authorities and decision makers to make that judgment in the round.

To the point made by the hon. Member for Woking, in instances where a given application goes to appeal, and the relevant inspector is asked to determine whether a site is classified as grey belt, they will consider relevant legislation and national planning policy, including the NPPF and PPG, and any relevant local development plan policies and material considerations.

I want to briefly address the standard method and the urban-rural balance. This issue is put to me frequently in debates and I attempt to set the record straight, but it appears in the next debate none the less. The targets we have introduced are ambitious—they entail uplifts in many areas, and we expect rural areas to play their part in providing the homes the country needs—but the formula does direct housing growth to larger urban areas. It does not, though—this is the significant change we made—direct it by applying an arbitrary 35% urban uplift to the 20 largest cities and urban centres. That was the previous Government’s approach; we think it was arbitrary.

Instead, the standard method that we have introduced increases targets by 20% across city regions. It also better directs housing growth to a range of urban areas, including smaller cities and other areas of growth, as well as to the larger cities. We think that is a fairer approach. It is not the case that we have uniformly dropped housing targets across metro areas.

Before I conclude, I want to touch briefly on villages—

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Before the Minister does that, I understand his point earlier about guidance, and I am certainly not asking him to comment on an individual application, but the purpose of the point that I made to him earlier was to suggest that the reality of grey-belt designation is that grey-belt sites are likely to be further away from urban settlements rather than closer to them, because those closer are more likely to remain as green belt. As the Minister says, there are three purposes—A, B and D—that would enable a site to remain as green belt rather than be designated grey belt. Can he see circumstances in which a field in my constituency that is not on the outskirts of an urban settlement could possibly satisfy the test of those three requirements and remain as green belt rather than be redesignated as grey belt?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific question in due course. Before I do so, I want to put on the record the policy in relation to villages. He can rest assured that I will address the point; if he is unsatisfied, he is more than welcome to intervene again.

A number of hon. Members mentioned villages. The PPG that I have referenced throughout my remarks makes it clear that, in assessments of contribution to the relevant purposes, large built-up areas and towns do not include villages. However, neither the NPPF nor the PPG includes a definition of a large built-up area, town, historic town or village. Considering whether any particular settlement constitutes a village is, again, a matter for the given local planning authority to judge, and it may be informed by the adopted local settlement hierarchy in that area. Where authorities may wish to restrict development in villages for other reasons, a range of tools are available, such as conservation areas or normal development management policies.

On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific point, I say to him directly that I do not recognise his assertion that grey-belt land, in every part of the country, is likely to be predominantly in open countryside. The guidance that I have referenced is clear that land that is likely to be assessed as grey belt is more likely to include “existing development” or “other urbanising influences”, with land that is free from development more likely to make a strong contribution to the three relevant green belt purposes listed in policy GB2.

A point that needs to be made generally is that this issue is incredibly place-specific across the country. It will vary widely, given the significant variation in how green-belt land is constituted in different geographies throughout the country, so it is very hard to apply a blanket or generalised approach, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has, to say, “In all circumstances, such will apply.” It varies across the country and, as I have said, our policy as a whole ensures that development is directed towards sustainable locations, which will act to prevent development from coming forward in isolated or unsustainable locations. That hopefully clears up the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about open countryside—one of three.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman one last time, but I am more than happy to set out the full policy in writing.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

That may be very helpful, and I am genuinely grateful to the Minister, because I know he is doing his best to provide clarity. I know he would accept that the starting point for all these decisions will be the NPPF definition. I accept his point about guidance and the other qualifying criteria; we have spoken a little about the limitations that there might be on those qualifying criteria.

The substantial point remains, does it not, that the definition in the NPPF of grey-belt land overwhelmingly—perhaps not in every instance, but overwhelmingly—will be met by fields, farms and greenfield sites that are not near to urban settlements. A, B and D in the list clearly each relate to the fringes of urban settlements, and the Minister knows that the green belt encompasses more than just such sites. It is inevitable, is it not, that the starting point will be that grey-belt land will be those sites that are not on the fringes of urban settlements, which is of course the direct antithesis of how the Government originally described the concept.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. I am afraid I do not agree with his characterisation of the policy, which is, again, in essence that grey-belt land in every part of the country is more likely to be found predominantly in open countryside.

All I can do is to repeat again our approach: land that is likely not to make a strong contribution to the relevant green belt purposes is likely to contain existing development or other urbanising influences. But I say again that it is for individual local planning authorities to make green belt assessments and to make judgments about sites that might constitute grey-belt land. If some of those sites—in most cases not all of them, but some of them—are required to meet demonstrable unmet need, it is for the authority to select the most appropriate and sustainable sites from that list. I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his local plan, which is hopefully on the verge of submission—a small percentage of green belt will be released over the plan period to meet demonstrable unmet need.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Will the Minister give way again on that specific point?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I am testing the Chair’s patience. I will give way one more time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am sure the Chair will remind the Minister that we have plenty of time left in this debate.

On the specifics of the local plan, the Minister is right, of course, to point me to the specific statistics in relation to my local plan area. But he will recognise that, as was said earlier, there is a difference between decisions that a local authority makes about what to seek to extract from the green belt, and subsequent decisions about whether part of the green belt is in fact grey belt. The Minister has referred me to statistics relating to the former, not the latter.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This is where I come back to the importance of having up-to-date local plans. If a local planning authority has in place an up-to-date local plan, it may or may not include grey-belt sites, as the policy feeds through the system. At the point that an authority has a plan in place that meets demonstrable unmet need, it has robust safeguards against grey-belt applications that come through the decision-making route. That is why we are encouraging local areas to get local plans in place.

We have inherited a situation in which we have extremely low up-to-date local plan coverage. That has exposed communities to speculative development, and it is happening all over the country. We have to put in place policies that, through the decision-making route, allow homes still to be brought forward in that interregnum, but then we have to push heavily to drive towards universal plan coverage. At that point, the protections are in place. Over the 10-year plan period and, as we roll out spatial development strategies on a sub-regional level, over a 20-year horizon, that will ensure that there is a strategic plan for green-belt land designation and release.

To come back to the point I made earlier, it is not as if no green-belt land was released before 2024. I know the Conservative party likes to give the impression that it did not, but it oversaw plenty of green belt release, in a completely haphazard and unplanned way. We are taking a strategic approach, which we think is right.

I have addressed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about what is likely to constitute grey-belt land. Let me directly address his other two specific points. Is this a significant policy? Absolutely, and it has been judged as much by the Office for Budget Responsibility and other external commentators. Is it deliberate? Absolutely. We want, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman asserted, to release more land into the system. This is where I take a principled different view from the CPRE and other commentators that say we can simply meet housing need through existing brownfield land. There is not enough land on existing brownfield land registers to meet the volume of homes that our country needs, let alone enough that is viable and in the right location. Where it is necessary, we want to see green-belt land released to meet demonstrable unmet need. It is right that when we look to release green-belt land, we focus on the lower-quality grey-belt land that does not make a strong contribution to those purposes.

To conclude, I again thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for securing the debate, and other Members for their contributions. I hope that, while I may not necessarily have been able to convince Members in my response, I have been able to provide some valuable clarity on the national policy with respect to grey-belt land, and particularly the different approaches to plan making and decision making.

As set out in the Government response to the consultation on the new NPPF that was published last month, we have already recognised that further guidance may be helpful to support spatial development strategy-led strategic reviews of the green belt, and we will consider producing guidance on the considerations that should inform that process. As we update PPG to fully reflect the changes made in the new NPPF—and we absolutely must do that—we will of course consider whether any further clarity might be helpful to inform decision makers. To that end, I will reflect on a number of the points made in the debate.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Jeremy Wright

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In opening the debate, I set out at some length the reasons why the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interests of time, I do not intend to reiterate at any great length the points I have made previously. I will instead focus my remarks on expanding the Government’s arguments in key respects, and on addressing any points raised in the debate that I did not cover in my opening remarks.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially so early in his remarks. I apologise to him and to the House for not being here for his opening remarks, which he has just mentioned. In them, he talked a little about Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 31. I am grateful to him for the concession that the Government are making and for the moves they intend to make. However, can I make just two criticisms of Government amendments (a) and (b)? The first is very minor; Government amendment (a) refers to the

“Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028”.

That should, of course, be 2018. I know that the Minister will be able to correct that error in due course.

The more substantive criticism is about data collection. The Minister will know that is the only substantive difference left between the Government’s proposal and the one that I made on Report in this place and that Lord Borwick made in the other place. When we seek to improve access for people with disabilities to charging infrastructure, we should be able to keep track of progress. If the Minister is not minded to do that in the context of this Bill, will he consider other ways in which we can be sure that progress is being made in the direction that he and I both want to see?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will of course pick up the drafting error that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has identified and rectify that. I am more than happy to take the data point away and reflect further. With the amendment in lieu that we have proposed, there is obviously a process around the regulations that come forward with further opportunities to feed in. I very much appreciate his recognition that the amendment in lieu goes a long way to addressing the points that he raised.

I will pick up a number of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, starting with those relating to Lords amendment 1. For the purposes of clarity, I will lay out again the reassurances I have given to the House, both on Report and today. Where the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to a national policy statement, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at that Committee. On Report, I talked about that being wherever practicable to account for the usual scheduling challenges that all Ministers face, but I hope it is noted that I withdrew those comments. We expect Ministers to make themselves available to the relevant Committee in all instances, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.

Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days. That is 21 sitting days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change proposed through the reflective route should be enacted.

On who makes the decisions, it is the relevant Secretary of State who will decide whether a change falls into one of the four categories, but the categories are closely defined. They include: relevant published Government policy, a change to legislation and a decision of the court. The intent of the relevant clause is not to evade parliamentary scrutiny, but to address the fact that, on average, the Select Committee inquiry process adds around five months to the process of updating a national policy statement. That is as things stand. We want to ensure that Select Committees are engaged and that we have regular and timely updates. I can happily confirm, as I have made clear, that where a Select Committee returns recommendations during that consultation period, they will be taken into account. However, we need this change to make reflective amendments to the NPS to ensure that things can be kept up to date.

Airports are a good example of where a full NPS review would have to take place. That would not be allowed to take place through the reflective amendment process, and that is not the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must lay the proposed amended national policy statement in full before Parliament and specify a relevant period. If within that relevant period, either House passes a resolution or a Committee makes recommendations on the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State must respond, and that response must be laid before Parliament. There are two different processes.

Turning to chalk streams, we have to be clear about the intent of Lords amendment 38. It is not a broad blanket statutory protection for chalk streams; it implies specific requirements on chalk streams in spatial development strategies brought forward by the relevant authorities. We think there are important practical reasons why those authorities are not the relevant bodies to bring such protections forward.

In his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) referenced a number of cases where other legislation or other Government agencies are ultimately responsible for addressing some of the problems in question, not the spatial authorities that will bring forward SDSs. We therefore do not think that Lords amendment 38 is the right way to proceed. National policy is the way to proceed in the Government’s view. While I accept that chalk streams are not currently mentioned explicitly in national policy, the NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value, and local plans should:

“Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks”.

In addition, when determining planning applications local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, in the last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. The application of these protections extends beyond strategic plans, to all types of plan and, crucially, to decisions on planning applications. As I said, the Government acknowledge the case for giving explicit recognition to chalk streams in national planning policy, although I cannot go further than the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box today that we will lay out and consult on proposals to include that explicit recognition and in so doing make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams. That will be part of the consultation.