Liberal Democrat motion slates Government "Grey Belt" policy at full council

15 Jul 2026

Liberal Democrat Councillors put forward a motion to Council slating the implementation of the government’s flawed ‘Grey Belt’ policy.

The motion argued that ‘although a policy to allow the redevelopment of previously developed land that has become unsightly and unproductive would be welcomed the current government Grey Belt policy goes well beyond that and it has enabled and encouraged a rush of speculative planning applications to secure planning consent irrespective of the harm this would have upon the openness of the Green Belt or the agricultural productivity of the land.’

Councillors spoke passionately about the harm they see being caused by these unplanned applications and the lack of Planning Committee powers to stop them now ‘grey belt’ can be used to allow building on sites that used to have green belt protection.

Cllr Chris Willmore (Yate North) said

“Our green belt is vital, to protecting our open countryside, Before most of us were born the government recognised the importance of ensuring we keep open areas around our towns, and created the green belts to protect us from urban sprawl, these grey belt rules are trashing a concept invited in 1935 almost a century ago. They say ‘safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’ isn’t important any more. Well it is to us, and to all our residents. It is taking a coach and horses through a century of carefully created protection for our towns and villages.”

Cllr David Goodwin (Frampton Cotterell) proposing the motion said

“The original intent of the grey belt term was to allow easier use of previously developed land in the Greenbelt. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that just 12% of grey belt cases have resulted in the use of previously developed land with the remainder being on Green field sites.

This can open up the floodgates of speculative development around our towns and villages like my ward of Frampton Cotterell without the protections of an issued local plan and the protections of established green belt. This could result in the merging of our towns and villages as the green space between them is used for speculative development. Ultimately, Bristol could be surrounded by a mega donut conurbation with its green belt buffer in between. I urge all present to get behind this motion to call upon the Government to clarify the implementation of grey belt.”

Cllr Jon Lean (Frampton Cotterell) said

“Coalpit Heath - one of the villages in my ward which is contiguous with the neighbouring village of Frampton Cotterell currently has over 1,300 homes proposed to be built on its Green Belt - a scale which would approximately double its size. Developers, of course, contend that the land around Coalpit Heath is Grey Belt. We contend that it is not, given the very important role it plays in stopping the towns of Yate and Emersons Green from merging. But this very designation of towns is troubling in Green Belt terms.

When the Government introduced the concept of Grey Belt it was widely believed that it would make it easier for developers to build on previously developed sites - or brownfield sites within the Green Belt - a sensible ambition and one that I'm sure many of us can get behind. But they went further than this, much further. When the legislation was written it removed all Green Belt protection from villages entirely.

And it’s easy to think that this might be a misinterpretation, or an unintended consequence that deserves the benefit of the doubt. But no - it's here in black and white in the guidance notes related to the legislation that talks about towns:

"Villages should not be considered large built up areas",

So it's not an unintended consequence. The guidance notes make it clear that the legislation has intentionally removed all Green Belt protection for villages in the green belt, historic or otherwise. If they don't sit between other towns that might be at risk of merging, it’s open season and they are unprotected. And this is wrong. We should be looking to protect villages and village life in the United Kingdom from speculative development. We should be looking to support our valued rural communities."

The Conservative group attempted to amend the motion however this was refuted by Cllr Willmore

“They clearly did not understand their amendment would weaken the ask of Government – all our communities need to be protected - be they hamlets, villages or small towns. This is too important to risk. The Tories seemed to want to ignore the needs of our hamlets and small rural communities. The conservative group attempted to water down the motion but the Lib Dems stood firm”.

The full text of the motion is below

Liberal Democrat Motion on the Implementation of the Grey Belt definition in Planning decisions

This Council notes that

Grey Belt is defined by government 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 the following purposes: to check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas [excluding villages] or to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another or to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

CPRE notes in April 2026 ‘The notion that grey belt policy is intended to enable the re-use of derelict land in the Green Belt – as it was communicated by government on its introduction – contrasts sharply with a strong greenfield emphasis to what is being approved. Of the grey belt cases approved, 10 sites (77% of the total) are greenfield, and these greenfield sites will accommodate the vast majority of the housing to be built (88%). The cases examined that have been determined since the policy was introduced provide 1,250 houses, of which just 152 are on previously developed land, brownfield (12%).’

This Council believes that

Although a policy to allow the redevelopment of previously developed land that has become unsightly and unproductive would be welcomed the current government Grey Belt policy goes well beyond that.

It has enabled and encouraged a rush of speculative planning applications to secure planning consent irrespective of the harm this would have upon the openness of the Green Belt or the agricultural productivity of the land.

These speculative developments are diverting limited resources away from bringing local plan sites to committee and to providing appropriate resource support to new town / growth zones development. They are upending settlement boundaries, as well as causing harm and distress to the communities which are affected, both within the green belt and adjoining it. This is leading to distrust of the plan led approach.

The Government’s Grey Belt criteria fail to give sufficient weight to all of the Green Belt’s purposes and in particular it completely omits purpose c) – ‘to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’ – from the Grey Belt assessment.

This Council therefore resolves

To call upon Leader of Council to write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government to express our concern that the current definition of Grey Belt is failing to achieve the governments intended aims. It risks permanently undermining the clear function of the Green Belt as established by the postwar Atlee government. The Leader of Council shall ask the Government to revise its ‘grey belt’ definition to:

Ensures purpose c in the assessment has equal weight with other Green Belt purposes.
Ensure that residential and economic development is focussed on previously developed land.
Protect productive farmland and important wildlife habitats from harmful development.
Set ambitious and legally binding targets for genuinely affordable and socially rented homes in all new developments, with developers held to account if they are not delivered.
Recognise the role in preventing coalescence of communities both with the urban area and with each other.