Westminster Hall
15 September 2026
Contents updated on 15 Sept 2026
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Official source
Offset
Transcript offset
0s
Text size
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
Westminster Hall House of Commons
Follow its sittings00:11 - 00:14
Speaker 1
Sir Jeremy Wright to move the motion.
00:14 - 07:43
Speaker 2
Thank you very much indeed, Dame Siobhain. It's a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to have the opportunity to introduce this debate about the definition of grey belt. Dame Siobhain, as you will know, shortly after its election, this government introduced a new concept into planning and development, that of grey belt land. And this would be a subset of land designated as green belt currently, which the government considered less worthy of protection than the rest of the green belt and on which it wanted to make development easier. And I have asked for this debate because I think it's important that we understand the significance of this new concept.
And specifically, what I'm interested in understanding, and I know the minister will do his best to help with all of these items, is first of all how different grey belt designation seems to be to what the government originally said that grey belt would be. Secondly, its likely impact on our countryside. And thirdly, how it combines with other changes the government is making to the balance of development in rural and urban areas. So, Dame Siobhain, let's start with the difference between what the government originally suggested grey belt would be and what their definition, published in the National Planning Policy Framework document, actually says it is. In July of 2024, the Right Honourable Lady for Ashton-under-Lyne, in her first incarnation as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, told the House that the government's intention was that, and I quote, "we will release lower quality grey belt sites, disused car parks and garages and ugly wasteland", end quote.
She also said that, and I quote again, "the land we are talking about, grey belt, which we will define in the NPPF consultation, is not agricultural land, it is disused garages and things of that nature", end quote. However, when the actual definition of grey belt land appeared in the NPPF of December 2024, the concept was considerably wider than that. Grey belt is now defined as land in the green belt that does not strongly contribute to three of the five purposes of the green belt which were included in the previous definition of green belt land. And those three purposes are: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and character of historic towns. In other words, to remain as green belt and not to be reclassified as grey belt, land must need protecting in order to prevent urban sprawl or to stop urban areas merging or to be near enough to a historic town to affect its setting or character.
Of course, even a moderate contribution to those objectives will not be enough to save the land from grey belt status; it must contribute strongly.
The remaining two purposes of green belt designation are no longer considered important enough to preserve green belt from becoming grey belt, namely, assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, or assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. So what, Dame Siobhain, can we conclude from all this about what is actually green belt and what is actually grey belt now? Well, I think we can draw two conclusions. First, I think we can conclude that quite a lot of what is now green belt will probably end up redesignated as grey belt, because the government has set the bar quite high to retain green belt status. Only a strong contribution to the three remaining effective green belt purposes will do.
And I'm not the only one who thinks that much of the green belt could end up as grey belt. A recent analysis from Channel 4 News suggested that 96% of the green belt around Guildford could be grey belt, along with 92% of the green belt around Stoke-on-Trent and 80% around Solihull. My second conclusion is that land which does continue to qualify as green belt, as opposed to grey belt, will largely be on the edge of urban settlements. And that is because grey belt is, in effect, all green belt land that does not contribute strongly to the three green belt purposes that only apply very near to urban settlements. It follows that land in open countryside currently in the green belt will be less able to meet one of those three purposes and is therefore more likely to be redesignated as grey belt land.
And much of this is, of course, agricultural land, which the Secretary of State, you will remember, Dame Siobhain, said green belt would not be. She also said to the House in a written statement on the 30th of July 2024 that much of the green belt, and again I quote again, is better described as grey belt, land on the edge of existing settlements or roads and with little aesthetic or environmental value, end quote. But given the actual definition of grey belt the government has decided upon, the opposite is surely true. The land on the edge of existing settlements or roads is in fact more likely to be green belt by their definition and land further from existing settlements is more likely to be grey belt. So why does any of this matter?
Well, it matters because grey belt designation is intended to facilitate more development. That's the point. The government is trying to release more land currently called green belt for housing and other things. So it matters which land the government is actually making it easier to develop with grey belt designation. And the reality is that the land the government is making it easier to develop is not disused car parks and garages, it's not ugly wasteland, it's agricultural land and open countryside.
And Dame Siobhain, we can see an indication of that in the decisions of planning inspectors in cases where developers have argued for grey belt status. The CPRE has examined cases in the year following the first definition of grey belt land in the NPPF of December 2024, and in that period, planning inspectors approved 13 developments of 10 or more houses on green belt land which they believed should be reclassified as grey belt in accordance with the government's definition. Of the 1,250 homes these schemes deliver, nearly 90% are in previously undeveloped countryside, not on wasteland or former car parks.