BY ALEXIA JAMES
A revolution is unfolding across England’s cherished Green Belt, but not the one ministers promised. When the government introduced the concept of ‘grey belt’ land in late 2024, the public was assured it would target the unsightly and unused: disused petrol stations, abandoned car parks, and ‘poor-quality scrubland’ on town fringes. The reality, as stark new research from the countryside charity CPRE reveals, is a policy being used as a Trojan horse for large-scale development on unspoilt countryside.
The analysis of planning appeals since the policy’s inception paints a concerning picture. Of 1,250 homes approved on land deemed ‘grey belt’ by government inspectors, a staggering 88% are destined for greenfield sites—previously undeveloped countryside. Just 152 will sit on genuinely previously developed ‘brownfield’ land. This starkly contradicts the policy’s stated intent and public assurances. As CPRE Chief Executive Roger Mortlock states, “In practice, the government’s ‘grey belt’ policy has not been about building on petrol stations but an existential threat to the protections of the Green Belt.”
The mechanism is clear. Where local councils refuse applications in the Green Belt, developers are increasingly appealing, successfully arguing their sites qualify as ‘grey belt’. The CPRE study found that 13 out of 15 major residential appeals deemed ‘grey belt’ were approved, often overruling local democratic decisions. This is not a marginal trend; these schemes constitute over 90% of the homes granted permission on ‘grey belt’ sites through this appeal process.
The consequences are visible on the ground. In Tonbridge, Kent, 57 homes have been approved on former nursery land within the Green Belt, despite local objections about the loss of Grade 1 agricultural land—some of the country’s most fertile soil. In Castle Point, Essex, permission has been granted for 47 houses on a designated Local Wildlife Site, threatening grassland and hedgerows that form a vital corridor for bats, badgers, and birds. These are not abandoned wastelands; they are functioning, valuable parts of the rural and ecological fabric.
This greenfield emphasis extends beyond housing. The research shows non-residential appeals—predominantly for renewable energy and battery storage—have permitted 421 hectares of greenfield development versus 77 hectares of brownfield. While the national need for clean energy is a powerful argument, the scale of land-take and the subjective, inconsistent application of the ‘grey belt’ definition is troubling. Inspectors themselves are wrestling with a policy CPRE describes as “vague, subjective and misleading.”
There is a bitter irony here. Separate CPRE research has demonstrated that England has enough previously developed land for 1.4 million new homes, almost half of which already have planning permission. Targeting the Green Belt, therefore, is a political choice, not a necessity to meet housing targets. As Emma Marrington, CPRE Policy Lead, emphasises, “The Green Belt is the countryside next door for almost 30 million people… these places play a vital role in helping to deliver the government’s target of 30% of land protected for nature by 2030.”
The policy does show one early, positive sign: the linked ‘Golden Rules’ appear to be driving up affordable housing quotas in approved schemes to 47%, significantly above the national average. However, with many permissions only in outline, delivery is not guaranteed. This silver lining does little to mitigate the fundamental flaw: a policy billed as a pragmatic tool for recycling derelict land is instead enabling the consumption of open countryside.
The ‘grey belt’ is becoming a loophole, not a solution. It risks eroding the fundamental purposes of the Green Belt—checking urban sprawl, preventing towns from merging, and safeguarding the countryside—under a banner of misunderstood terminology. Once this land is lost, it is lost for good. The government must act to tighten the definition, enforce a genuine ‘brownfield first’ principle, and ensure that high-quality farmland and critical wildlife habitats are definitively off the table. The future of the countryside next door depends on it.