The most significant change is a strengthening of situations when land can be considered grey belt. Under the current NPPF, this has been restricted by certain decision-makers when applying paragraph 11, footnote 7, which lists areas or assets that would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

Footnote 7 refers to assets of particular importance including, but not limited to, National Parks, designated heritage assets, National Landscapes and areas prone to flooding.

Changing the definition of grey belt by removing reference to footnote 7

The draft NPPF’s definition of grey belt removes reference to this footnote. Its proposed exclusion from the definition is, in many ways, a logical refinement. If a particular designation or constraint would amount to a strong reason for refusal, the decision-maker would already be required to refuse permission on the basis of those specific material considerations. There is no need for the grey belt definition to duplicate that protection.

Instead, those constraints continue to operate in their own right (as set out under the draft NPPF policy S2, part 2), ensuring that genuinely sensitive assets are safeguarded without artificially narrowing the scope of land that can fall within the grey belt category.

Is grey belt defined by the land or the proposal?

The revision comes at an interesting point in time as there has been debate around whether the assessment against footnote 7 is land-based or proposal-based, i.e. can you take into account mitigation proposed as part of the development such as no build zones, setbacks or areas of public open space. This is demonstrated below by a recent permission for 69 dwellings in the grey belt, as the proposals included a significant amount of public open space in the eastern parcel. This was secured by Savills in January 2026 (Thurrock Council Ref: 25/00837/FUL).

In a recent appeal decision: the Boscobel Lane, Bishops Wood decision (Ref: APP/C3430/W/25/3363067, issued 13 November 2025), the Inspector took a clear position that grey belt is fundamentally a land‑based assessment. At paragraph 71, the Inspector stated:

“When considered together with the definition of grey belt, I consider that grey belt is an assessment of the land rather than the proposed development, and that the Council’s interpretation correctly reflects the definition of grey belt within the Framework. Consequently, even though the parties agree that the heritage harm would not be a strong reason for refusal, it is a strong reason for restricting the development and as such I conclude that the appeal site is not grey belt land.”

This meant that even though the proposal would not give rise to a strong reason for refusal under heritage policies, the Inspector concluded that the land was not grey belt because heritage policies could restrict development in principle.

A High Court hearing held on 9 and 10 December 2025, concerning a separate proposal, examined this issue in greater depth. In Wrotham Parish Council v SSHCLG (Ref: AC-2025-LON-000898), Ground 1 argues that the Inspector erred by applying the footnote 7 test by reference to the site alone, rather than considering the mitigation proposed as part of the development. That interpretation would have sterilised large areas of land regardless of what was actually proposed, as summarised at paragraph 55 of the appellant’s closing submissions:

“If the mere potential for harm, even if effectively mitigated, was sufficient to exclude a development from the grey belt designation, the policy would be entirely unworkable. Certainly, it would not succeed in unlocking much needed housing development in areas in which it had been effectively blocked by Green Belt designations, given the presence of Green Belt policies in footnote 7.”

The High Court published its decision on 30 January 2026 and concluded that the Inspector had erred in their judgment. It stated that, in the decision‑making context, when considering whether the application of the policies listed in footnote 7 provides a strong reason for refusing or restricting development, the assessment must focus on the proposal under consideration rather than the land.

Implications for Green Belt purposes

The learnings from the High Court’s decision extend beyond the clarification of footnote 7. While it does not expressly confirm that decision‑makers must assess Green Belt purposes by reference to the specific proposal, the principles it establishes carry across.

In practice, the degree to which a site contributes to Green Belt purposes often depends on how the proposed development interacts with the land. This is likely to influence how decision-makers evaluate Green Belt contributions, potentially widening the scope for development where harm can be reduced or mitigated through design.

Had the High Court instead endorsed a land-based approach, the assessment would have been far more rigid. The contribution of a site to Green Belt purposes would be judged without regard to the proposal. Such an approach would have constrained decision‑makers and limited opportunities for development even where impacts could be acceptably addressed, which would have been a huge blow to the government’s aim to deliver 1.5 million homes by the end of its term.

More can be read on the grey belt here, the fundamentals of which are set to change again in 2026.

Further information

Contact James Callaway