Grey Belt Definition - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Grey Belt Definition
It is not going to be easy to identify and map Grey Belt land, particularly as many Green Belt parcels will be only partly affected by footnote 7 matters e.g. LB’s and their settings or areas at risk of flooding; and of course, these constraints can change over time – quite quickly in the case of areas at risk of flooding. It also appears that whether such land is Grey Belt or not will now (as opposed to the draft definition consulted on) depend on the development proposed and so in fact cannot be preidentified at all? It’s not even going to be as simple as setting out the development types that might or might not ‘provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development’ as the scale/design/layout of a particular scheme would be relevant - such that one scheme on the same site could be on Grey Belt land and another of the same type not? A scheme could be amended following negotiation (or at appeal to overcome some reasons for refusal) such that it becomes Grey Belt all of a sudden? The most we could do is map non-footnote 7 Grey Belt parcels/land and then have another set of parcels/land that might or might not be Grey Belt depending on the specific proposals put forward – all subject to change over time?
I look forward to the guidance on identifying Grey Belt to be issued later this month?
Hi Elizabeth
I agree that this is not going to be easy and the guidance will be key. I am not confident!!
Given the permanent nature of GB which remains in Para 142, the idea of Grey Belt doesn't really sit well with this.
When the consultstion draft came out I always saw Grey Belt as a 'decision making' issue, rsther than a Plan Making one. That's becasue due to the permanent nature of Green Belt, you would actually change Green Belt through plan making only to facilitiate development (maybe also to rectify boundaries if needed). The GB would then actually be changed and the development plan would render it no longer green belt, but allocated for another use.
With Grey Belt, the land would not be removed from green belt. Grey belt is by definition a part of the green belt. So if through decision making, some GB land was conisderd appropriate for development because it met the Grey Belt definition and an application for say housing was allowed, when built, that housing would be in the green belt.
This is why I really see it being very unhelpful/awkward defining land as grey belt in a plan if you are not actually allocating it for a certain use. And if you are allocating it for a certain use then do that and remove it from green belt in the plan, as part of the plan-led system.
This was always going to be very messy. Authorities with large areas of green belt will have small pockets of Brownfield land in them. Are those locations, which could be very remote, 'sustainable'? The NPPF is still based on 'sustainable development'. So you can have a small pocket of housng pretty much in the middle of nowhere and car dependent.
I may be wrong (what do you think?) but I think from recollection the draft definition was that ALL BF land was grey belt and then also greenfield land which didn't contribute to the 5 purposes. I can't remeber the exact worrding. But it's now changes to 'does not strongly contribute' to a,b and d. Importantly though the 'does not strongly contribute to a,b or d)' now applies to both BF and GF becasuse they have added in 'in either case'. So, where the consutlatinon version was that all BF land was Grey Belt, now because of the phrase 'in either case' it has to be any land which does not strongly contribute to a,b or d, whether BF or GF. It does make you wonder why they didn't just say grey belt is land in the green belt which does not strongly.....etc. Why even mention BF or GF if it applies to both?
I am not sure exactly what you mean about not beign able to defing Grey Belt without knowing what the proposal is? Could you expand?
Jon