Grey Belt Proves a Grey Area for Planners
Recent appeal decisions show that ‘Grey Belt’ continues to be subject to interpretation…
As we have previously reported, the latest updates to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) include significant changes to Green Belt policy, particularly regarding the definition and assessment of ‘Grey Belt’ land.
These changes aim to streamline the planning process for development on certain previously developed or underperforming Green Belt sites, while still maintaining the core principles of Green Belt protection.
The updated NPPF also emphasises the need to meet housing demands, including affordable housing, and encourages the development of previously developed land before considering greenfield sites.
But there seem to be almost weekly updates on how these new rules are being interpreted by councils, and planning inspectors at appeal.
Take the recent example of a Grey Belt appeal that was allowed by an Inspector, who ruled that a nearby settlement, which had been described as a “large built-up area”, was actually a village.
The outline proposal from Byond Homes for 270 homes on 15 hectares of green belt land near Smallfield in Surrey had been refused by Tandridge District Council in 2024.
However, the inspector overturned the decision when they concluded that the site adhered to the revised definition of Grey Belt land under national policy.
The initial application was rejected because it would contribute to urban sprawl – something the Green Belt rules are designed to stop.
However, because the updated PPG (Planning Practice Guidance dated February 2025) states that protections around urban sprawl no longer apply to villages, the appeal depended on whether Smallfield was designated as a village or a larger urban area.
In his consideration, inspector David Prentis ruled that despite Smallfield being described as a built-up area in a 2015 green belt review, with its 3,800 population it was actually closer to being a village.
He also considered that the public benefits of the proposed development outweighed any harm. These included 49% affordable housing, green spaces, flood alleviation and highways upgrades, and its situation in a sustainable location.
Other appeal decisions have focused on how to interpret whether a particular site contributes significantly to the three purposes of a Green Belt designation and maintaining openness by restricting urban sprawl, preventing the merging of towns or preserving the setting of historic towns.
Even here, where a local planning authority and an Inspector might agree, the Court has intervened; a case in point being the Broad Lane, Beaconsfield example, where the Planning Inspector’s decision regarding an appeal was quashed by the High Court with the consent of the Secretary of State and Buckinghamshire Council. In that particular case the High Court found that the Inspector’s decision failed to consider whether the site complied with the “Golden Rules” related to Green Belt development. This appeal will now be re-determined by a different inspector.
Paul Smith at Milton Keynes-based Apex Planning Consultants, comments: “The case has been fairly widely reported; however, I think it can be added that the new Grey Belt definition is still causing lots of debate as councils and developers continue to reach consensus on how it should be defined. And then how that definition is applied to individual sites, as well as the particular proposed developments on them.
‘’It makes it an interesting period, but one that is fraught with doubt. Indeed, there remain differences in how Grey Belt is defined even between the planning inspectors. As some people are saying, with a heavy pinch of dark humour, it bodes well for the lawyers!’’
If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.