Rainbow Bright: How are Green Belt, Grey Belt and the Golden Rules being interpreted so far....

The New NPPF has been in effect for decision-making for a few weeks now, which means that the appeal decisions made under the new rules are already starting to filter through.

This post takes a look at some of the decisions featuring Green Belt, Grey Belt and the Golden Rules to see how PINs* is interpreting those policies on the ground, and whether we can draw any common threads from those decisions…. or if it is still too early to draw any firm conclusions

Land South of Leighton Road: Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/24/3347529

This appeal decision is dated 24 December 2024 and, as such, is one of the very first appeals decided under the new Framework.

The appellant was seeking permission for a an Integrated Retirement Community in the Basildon Green Belt. The proposed development comprised 99 extra-care units, including 30% affordable housing, and a 66 bed care home.

The appeal parties agreed that the site was in the Green Belt, and also that it didn't comply with the ‘Golden Rules’. As such, the main issues in the appeal were as follows:

• "the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the 
  purposes of the Green Belt;
• the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the 
  area;
• whether the development is suitably located with regard to its accessibility
  to services and facilities; and
• would the harms to the Green Belt, and any other harms, be clearly 
  outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special 
  circumstances required to justify the development."

The Inspector's Green Belt analysis is set out at paragraphs 46 to 50 of the decision, which are set out below:

"Green Belt Balance and Conclusion

46. I have given careful consideration to all the considerations identified. In 
summary, the proposal would cause significant harm to the Green Belt by 
virtue of its inappropriateness, its harm to openness and the conflict with one 
of the purposes of the Green Belt. Substantial weight should be given to any 
harm to the Green Belt. The harm to the character and appearance of the area 
also carries considerable weight. 

47. The site, as set out above, does not make a strong contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt relating to unrestricted sprawl, the merging of towns or the setting of historic towns. Moreover part of it is currently developed. As a whole, it would therefore meet the definition of grey belt in Annexe 2 of the 
Framework. Nonetheless, this does not affect my conclusions on its inappropriateness, and its harms to openness and one of the purposes of the 
Green Belt, so has little bearing on this appeal.

48. Weighed against that are the benefits set out above. Overall, I find that the 
other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harms to the Green Belt, and the other harms, identified. They do not therefore amount to the very special 
circumstances required to justify the development. 

49. I have also had some regard to the 2015 Written Ministerial Statement which 
states that unmet housing need is unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt. It is noted that this advice has not been incorporated into any of the revised versions of the Framework since that time. Nonetheless it remains to be a material consideration.

50. I conclude that the proposal would fail to accord with the development plan as 
a whole. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. As such, the appeal is dismissed."

It is important to note that all parties had agreed that the proposed development in this appeal did not meet the “golden rules”. 

As such, the site could not take advantage of the policy presumption in paragraph 155 of the new NPPF that development on grey belt land should not be regarded as inappropriate provided that:

• There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed;
• The development is in a sustainable location; and
• Where they apply, the Golden Rules are met.

That concession may also explain why the Inspector did not spend more time grappling with these particular paragraphs of the revised Framework.

Something to bear in mind as we continue on with this post.

Woodside House: Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/W/24/3347328

The Woodside House appeal decision was granted on 10 January 2025. 

This is a small-sites appeal. The appellant was seeking permission to demolish one house (and some related outbuildings) and build two houses and a detached garage in its place.

The site was located in the Tandridge Green Belt. The main issues in the appeal were stated to be as follows:

• Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies; and
•  The effect of the proposal on protected species. 

Having first concluded that the proposal was not for a replacement dwelling and did not meet the policy criteria for “limited infilling”, the Inspector then turned to an analysis of Grey Belt policy:

"Grey belt and other tests (Framework paragraph 155(a)-(d))

20. The Framework defines ‘grey belt’ as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143, and excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting 
development.

21. The existing dwelling fronts onto the highway. There is a dwelling to the north, and agricultural land to the south and beyond the site’s rear boundary. Through its linear layout, adjoining agricultural land and dwellings, the appeal site is typical of the area’s character.

22. The proposed development would be contained within the existing boundaries of the dwelling plot and would not result in the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, the merging of towns, nor affect the setting and special character of historic towns. Logically, I must therefore conclude the site does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) and (d) of paragraph 143 of the Framework. In addition, the proposal would not affect areas or assets in footnote 7 of the Framework (other than Green Belt). The proposal would therefore utilise grey belt land.

23. The scale of the proposed development would provide a similar overall quantum of development in terms of footprint and volume to the permitted extensions and existing dwelling. However, the built form would be spread across the site and would be accompanied by hardstanding and domestic features and would intensify its use. The spatial impacts of the proposed development on Green Belt openness would therefore be greater than the existing dwelling, and the fall-back position offered by the permitted extensions.

24. The site is well-screened by existing, mature boundary vegetation, and would not be visually prominent within wider views of the landscape. Views of the development would principally be experienced from passing vehicles and would not be conspicuous from public vantage points or within the wider landscape.

25. The front dwelling would be visible from the site’s frontage and the rear dwelling would be partly visible, set back in the site. The site contains existing residential development, and there are other nearby dwellings, and therefore the magnitude of visual change would be small. Nonetheless, the increased built form on the site would have a marginally greater visual impact than the existing development.

26. The spatial and visual impacts of the proposed development would result in a small loss of Green Belt openness. However, the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the planning authority’s area. Therefore, the proposal would comply with criterion (a) of Framework paragraph 155.

27. The Council accepts it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing and delivery of housing has been below 75% of the housing requirement for the past three years. The appellant draws on the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report to conclude the Council has a housing land supply equivalent to 1.92 years. Therefore, there is a significant shortfall in past delivery and future supply. Consequently, for the purposes of criterion (b) of Framework paragraph 155, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.

28. This section of Copthorne Bank has a rural character but, due to the presence of existing dwellings in the vicinity of the site, the proposed development would not be in an isolated location. Furthermore, the highway connects the site with nearby settlements including Copthorne with Burstow, Smallfield, and Domewood.

29. Whilst there are bus stops nearby, Copthorne Bank is subject to a 50mph speed limit and there are no footpaths along this section. Future occupants would therefore be dependent on use of a private car to meet their day-to-day needs. However, paragraph 110 of the Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.

30. The proposal would result in a net increase of one dwelling on the site, and therefore the volume of traffic movements associated with the proposed development would be small. The proposed development would utilise the existing vehicular access and there would be space for the parking and turning of vehicles within the site. The local highway authority did not object to the proposal. Therefore, I am content the proposal would not have significant impacts on the capacity of the transport network, congestion, or highway safety.

31. Within the context of its rural location, I am satisfied the proposal would be in a sustainable location, as required by criterion (c) of Framework paragraph 155, that fulfils the requirements of paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.

32. The proposed development is not major development, and therefore the requirement of criterion (d) of Framework paragraph 155 to satisfy the ‘Golden Rules’ are not applicable to the appeal proposal.

33. As set out above, the proposal would utilise grey belt land, there is a demonstrable unmet need for housing, and the development would be in a sustainable location. The Golden Rules are not applicable. The proposal would therefore satisfy criteria (a)-(d) of paragraph 155 of the Framework. Consequently, the proposed development would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

34. As set out above, the proposal would not meet the requirements of Policy DP13 for replacement dwellings, limited infilling, or redevelopment of previously developed land. However, Policy DP13 pre-dates the publication of the Framework and includes no provision for development of grey belt land. The weight to be afforded to the scheme’s conflict with Policy DP13 is therefore diminished.

35. The proposed development would utilise grey belt land and would satisfy all criteria of paragraph 155 of the Framework. For this reason, the proposed development would not be inappropriate development.

36. The proposal would therefore comply with TLP Policy DP10 which protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development."

Land off Chapel Lane: Appeal Ref: APP/V4630/W/24/3347424

The last appeal decision we are looking at today was granted on 13 January 2025 and centred on whether or not to grant permission for a temporary 49.35MW battery energy storage facility in the Green Belt around Walsall.

The main issues in the appeal were stated to be:

1. " whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the GB having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies,
2. the effect on openness,
3. the effect on the character and appearance of the area,
4. the effect on heritage assets,
5.  the effect on the living conditions of residents with particular reference to noise,
6. the effect on the supply of agricultural land, and
7. whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal."

This is a fascinating appeal decision, and I strongly recommend reading it in full**, however this is a post about grey belt. That analysis is set out in paragraphs 19 to 43 of the decision. 

First, the Inspector looked at the definition of grey belt and assessed whether the site strongly contributed to Green Belt purposes (a), (b), or (d). Having concluded that it did not, he then turned to the requirements of Para 155 of the new NPPF.

This takes us to paragraphs 27 to 43 of the appeal decision, which are set out in full below:

"Conclusion on Grey Belt Status

27. Based on these conclusions, the site falls to be considered as Grey Belt.
However, for the proposal to be considered as not inappropriate development it must satisfy all of the criterion, a to d, listed in Framework paragraph 155.

Criterion A

28. This criterion requires that the development would not fundamentally 
undermine, the purposes, when taken together, of the remaining Green Belt 
across the area of the plan. I take this to mean an assessment of the proposal against all 5 of the purposes of the GB.

29. The impact on Purposes (a) and (b) is been considered above, concluding 
there would be no conflict. As to Purpose (c), encroachment, it is common ground that the BESS would result in harm to this purpose. Given the relative scale of the site and Parcel B93, the harm resulting from encroachment would be negligible. On Purpose (d), it is agreed that the site does not contribute to this purpose.

30. Regarding Purpose (e), this was assessed in Appendix 3 of the GB study. 
Here, a substantial number of individual parcels of land, excluding the site,
were assessed. The study came to a global conclusion that all parcels make 
an equal and strong contribution to this purpose. The manner in which this 
part of the Study was undertaken does not assist in assessing the effect of 
this development on Purpose (e).

31. What is more useful, is the Alternative Sites Assessment (ASA) prepared by 
the applicant in September 2023 and updated for the appeal in October 2024. 
The development of a BESS has one key locational requirement. That is the 
availability of and proximity to a grid connection. Access to the local grid is 
the biggest constraint facing the alternative energy supply and associated 
infrastructure industries. Sites need to be located close to a point of connection (POC) to the grid, so as to minimise the loss of energy during transmission and the grid must have capacity to absorb the electricity discharged at times of peak demand. The intended point of connection to the grid is some 550m from the site and then by existing underground cable to the Bustleholme sub-station.

32. The ASA considered a search area of some 2km from the POC. In my 
experience, this is generally the maximum distance for a connection before its 
viability, both in terms of electricity transmission and cost, becomes 
questionable. Undertaking what I consider a robust assessment, the ASA concludes that there are no alternative sites suitable for this scheme. I have no reason to dispute that conclusion, and no one presented the inquiry with an alternative location for consideration. In the absence of an alternative site, there would be no conflict with Purpose e to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

33. Drawing all of the above together, I conclude that the development would not 
fundamentally undermine, the purposes when taken together of the remaining 
GB in the plan area. Criterion A of Framework paragraph 155 is met.
 
Criterion B

34. Here, a demonstrable unmet need for the development proposed is required. 
Although all forms of electricity storage5 were removed6 from the definition of nationally significant energy generating stations under the Planning Act 2008, National Policy Statement (NPS) EN-17 refers to the role of electricity storage. Whilst NPSs are national policy for energy projects that are defined as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) identified by the 2008 Act, NPS EN-1 indicates that it may be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act (1990 (as amended). Thus, whilst a BESS is not an NSIP and the specific provisions that NPSs make for them, they do provide a context to assist in the determination of a planning application.

35. NPS EN-1 indicates8 that energy storage has a key role to play in achieving net zero and providing flexibility to the energy system, so that high volumes of low carbon power, heat and transport can be integrated. Storage is needed to reduce the costs of the electricity system and to increase reliability by storing surplus electricity in times of low demand to provide electricity when demand is higher. Storage can provide various benefits, locally and nationally. These include maximising the usable output from intermittent low carbon generation (e.g. solar and wind), reducing the total amount of generation capacity needed on the system; providing a range of balancing 
services to the National Electricity Transmission System Operator (NESO) and Distribution Network Operators (DNO) to help operate the system, reduce 
constraints on the networks and help to defer or avoid the need for costly 
network upgrades as demand increases.

36. NESO is a publicly owned energy body responsible for energy planning in 
Great Britain. When NPS EN-1 was published in November 2023 it noted that 
there was around 4GW of operational electricity storage in Great Britain, of 
which some 1GW is battery storage. NESO recently published Clean Power 
2030 Advice on achieving clean power by 2030. The “clean power pathway”, 
sees a 4-to-fivefold increase in demand flexibility with, amongst other things,
an increase in grid connected battery storage from 5GW to over 22GW. NESO 
predicts that unprecedented volumes of clean energy infrastructure projects 
are needed to meet the Government’s energy ambitions. Whilst the NESO 
report is not government policy or has the same status as the Framework, it 
does provide supporting context for decision making.

37. Framework paragraph 161 indicates that the planning system should support 
the transition to a low carbon future and support, amongst other things 
renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. Given the 
context provided by NPS EN-1 and the NESO research, it is not a huge leap to 
conclude that a BESS project represents much needed associated infrastructure.

38. One of the constraints to the early development of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure is the ability to access the local grid. In some places, notwithstanding the appetite to develop projects, grid connections are not available until the mid to late 2030s. This project has a 
grid connection offer of 2028. Thus, given the imperative of mitigating climate change and achieving net-zero, this project has the ability to make an 
early and material contribution to the clean power pathway required to 
achieve net zero. Whilst the appellant has not provided “…quantifiable 
evidence…” of an unmet need, the above context provides reason to show 
that the requirement of criterion B of Framework paragraph 155 is met.

Criterion C 

39. Criterion C requires that the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. Framework paragraph 110 indicates that significant development should be focussed on locations that are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel. This paragraph goes on the say that opportunities to 
maximise transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and 
this should be taken in to account in both plan-making and decision-making. 
Framework paragraph 115 seeks to ensure amongst other things, that 
sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the type of 
development and its location, safe access can be achieved and any significant 
impacts on the capacity of the highway network or highway safety can be acceptably mitigated.

40. The thrust of Framework paragraph 110 appears to relate to development that would generate significant level of vehicle movements, particularly by car. With this development there would be 2 phases, the construction phase and the operational phase. During the 40-week construction phase the development would lead to an increase in traffic on the road network of, on average, three, 2-way vehicle movements per day. During the operational phase, there would one van accessing the site on 2 occasions per month. This level of traffic movement is not significant, nor would it have an unacceptable effect of highway capacity or safety. The Highway Authority has no objection on access or traffic generation grounds. Moreover, given the nature of the development, whether it was located in a rural or urban area, the scale of traffic generation could not be limited or changed to alternative transport modes. The requirement of criterion C of Framework paragraph 155 is met.

Criterion D

41. Criterion D, the “Golden Rules” does not apply here.

Conclusion on Issue 1

42. The relevant criteria contained in Framework paragraph 155 are met and this development does not fall to be considered as inappropriate development in the GB. As such there would no conflict with WSAD Policy GB1."

Interestingly, the Inspector then went on to consider what would happen if the site was inappropriate development in the Green Belt after all, including the very special circumstances put forward in support of the application, and found it was capable of being granted even if it wasn't grey belt land after all.

Land at Landon Road, Basildon: Application Ref :24/00762/OUT

And finally, I thought it might be good to see at how local planning authorities are grappling with the new policy requirements of the NPPF.

The above application seeks outline permission for up to 250 homes on a site in the Green Belt near Basildon. According to Planning Resource the council resolved to grant the application at planning committee last week. The permission has yet to be granted*** but the officer's report is another fascinating read.

The grey belt analysis is contained in paragraphs 5.1.4 to 5.1.65 of the Officer's Report. It follows a very similar structure to that taken by the Inspector in Chapel Lane.

First, the planning officer considered the definition of grey belt in the NPPF and whether the site made a strong contribution to Green Belt purposes a), b) or d). This discussion drew heavily on the findings of Green Belt assessments that the council had conducted in 2017 and 2023 to support the officer's analysis.

The officer then, having concluded that the land was grey belt, turned to the requirements of paragraph 155 of the revised NPPF, stating that:

"5.1.48 In the opinion of officers, it is not considered that the proposed development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan and therefore complies with paragraph 155 (a) of the NPPF 2024.

5.1.49 In respect of 155 (b), there is clearly a demonstrably unmet need for new housing across the Borough as the current five years supply is only 1.88 years (the unmet need is expanded upon within the report below but the supply has dropped 
following the latest changes to the standard method). In respect of 155 (c), the development is located in a sustainable location whereby sustainable modes of travel will be enhanced by public realm infrastructure enhancements and financial contributions secured through the development (again this is expanded upon below). Additionally, safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users, with significant impacts from the development being suitably mitigated. 

5.1.50 The recent changes to the NPPF 2024 also introduced new ‘Golden Rules’ for major development involving the provision of housing on Green Belt land which is set out at Paragraph 156 of the NPPF 2024 and states: 

“Where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed on 
land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, or on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application, the following contributions (‘Golden Rules’) should be made: 

a. affordable housing which reflects either: (i) development plan policies produced in accordance with paragraphs 67-68 of this 
Framework; or (ii) until such policies are in place, the policy set out in paragraph 157 below; 
b. necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure; and 
c. the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that 
are accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces.”

5.1.51 Paragraph 157 is also relevant to the ‘Golden Rules’ and states: 

“Before development plan policies for affordable housing are updated in line 
with paragraphs 67-68 of this Framework, the affordable housing contribution 
required to satisfy the Golden Rules is 15 percentage points above the highest 
existing affordable housing requirement which would otherwise apply to the 
development, subject to a cap of 50%. In the absence of a pre-existing requirement for affordable housing, a 50% affordable housing contribution should apply by default. The use of site-specific viability assessment for land within or released from the Green Belt should be subject to the approach set out in national planning practice guidance on viability.”

5.1.52 In respect of NPPF paragraphs 156 (a) and 157, the applicant has increased their affordable housing offer to 45% (113 units based on a 250 unit scheme). Whilst 
this is less than the 50% required within paragraph 157, given that the length of 
time that the application has been in the system for and that the application has 
‘crossed the paths’ of both the 2023 and more recent 2024 versions of the NPPF, 
officers consider that the 45% affordable housing offer is in keeping with the ethos 
of the 2024 NPPF ‘Golden Rules’ which requires enhanced levels of affordable 
housing and is therefore acceptable. 

5.1.53 In respect of paragraph 156 (b), the proposed development will provide the 
necessary improvements to local infrastructure which are set out in the main body of the report below. The proposal therefore satisfies paragraph 156 (b) of the NPPF.

5.1.54 In respect of paragraph 156 (c), the proposed development will provide high qualityopen green spaces and will open up the site for public use. Both existing and new residents will be able to access good quality green spaces, including play spaces, within a short walk of their home, therefore the proposal is in accordance with paragraph 156 (c) of the NPPF.

5.1.55 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF 2024 states: 

“A development which complies with the Golden Rules should be given significant weight in favour of the grant of permission.”

5.1.56 Paragraph 159 of the NPPF states:

“The improvements to green spaces required as part of the Golden Rules should contribute positively to the landscape setting of the development, support nature recovery and meet local standards for green space provision where these exist in the development plan. Where no locally specific standards exist, development proposals should meet national standards relevant to the development (these include Natural England standards on accessible green space and urban greening factor and Green Flag criteria). Where land has been identified as having particular potential for habitat creation or nature recovery within Local Nature Recovery Strategies, proposals should contribute towards these outcomes.”

5.1.57 The proposed development is landscape led in its design, and through Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements will support nature recovery. As illustrated on the indicative landscaping plan and as set out at paragraph 5.20.50, a good level of green space will be available across the site which will ensure future residents have good access to local areas of green space within the development.

5.1.58 Therefore, to reiterate and conclude, it is considered that the site constitutes grey belt land and is therefore development which is not inappropriate."

Again, as the Inspector did in Chapel Lane, the officer's report then goes on to consider the alternative - namely whether very special circumstances existed to justify the grant of permission in the event that it was inappropriate development in the Green Belt after all.

Conclusion

It is probably too early to draw many firm conclusions from what is, after all, only a handful of decisions. However, there do seem to be some common themes that are starting to emerge:

1.  There is absolutely no consensus on whether ‘grey belt’ should be capitalised or not. As a result, this post does both, which I fully accept might be somewhat annoying.
2. The Golden Rules are not being treated as applicable to minor development in the Green Belt
3. There is a clear pattern emerging as to how grey belt analysis is conducted:
   1. First you apply the grey belt definition; and then
   2. The paragraph 155 tests (including the Golden Rules)
   3. It is only when ALL of these requirements are met can you conclude that it is not inappropriate development in accordance with paragraph 155
4. Where they apply, the Golden Rules are being treated as key to unlocking the benefits of paragraph 155; and
5. More often than not, if a decision is seeking to grant consent for development, the decision-maker has also conducted the relevant analysis for inappropriate development in the Green Belt and whether very special circumstances can be found to support the proposals.

This last point is actually an extremely sensible way of making a decision harder to challenge. If there are very special circumstances that would allow the development to proceed even if it were inappropriate development in the Green Belt, in any event, then the JR risks of making an error in your grey belt analysis are heavily reduced!

*and one local planning authority

** if only because the Inspector found a typo in the NPPF!

 To quote footnote 4:

"4 There appears to be a typographical error in this Footnote. In the December 2023 edition of the Framework, 
Footnote 7 to paragraph 11 d (I) refers to, "…those sites listed in paragraph 187”. Paragraph 187 refers to 
types of sites that should be given the same protection as habitat sites. In the December 2024 Framework, 
Footnote 7 refers to paragraph 189. However, Paragraph 189 refers to National Parks etc. The equivalent to 
the December 2023 paragraph 187 in the December 2024 Framework is paragraph 194. 

At the time of writing, this apparent mistake has not been corrected.
 

*** which is not unusual. The s.106 Agreement has yet to be completed.