London Green Belt Council – Green is now Grey

Please read this paper detailing grey belt sites: Green belt is now grey belt.

Foreword

The London Metropolitan Green Belt (LMGB) as a planning policy has been hugely successful in containing the capital and preventing urban sprawl. In 1940 London and Los Angeles were of a similar area and if London had been allowed to sprawl to the extent that Los Angeles has grown, it would stretch from Brighton to Cambridge.

The LMGB has many economic, social and environmental benefits, apart from its role to restrict urban sprawl and encourage urban regeneration. It protects the capital from flooding and provides opportunities for carbon sequestration, nature regeneration and biodiversity. It provides important physical and mental health and welfare benefits for the city’s inhabitants, and opportunities for recreation and sport as well as food security and rural activities.

The introduction of grey belt has already resulted in the loss of open countryside, often of high quality, as can be seen in the photographs in this paper. It is leading to speculative and piecemeal development with ten out of the twelve planning appeals in 2025 being allowed for proposed development in the London Green Belt where the sites were identified as grey belt.

These sites are not previously developed land, such as redundant petrol stations or car parks, as originally intended. The present definition of grey belt enables the revoking of protection of Green Belt, as is recognised by developers and their legal representatives.

The Government’s grey belt policy is leading to the destruction of the Green Belt whose benefits will not be enjoyed in future. If this policy is not reversed, future generations will live to regret it.

Richard Knox-Johnston
Chair
The London Green Belt Council
Peter Waine OBE
Chair
CPRE Hertfordshire

Useful links

Contact your MP

Contact the Councillor for where you live

Second open letter responding to Gagan’s position from Joint Residents’ Association

Dear Gagan,

Thank you for your letter of 4th March. We note, however, that you have not addressed the central questions put to you in our open letter of 2nd March: why did you undermine the draft Plan by criticising the evidence that supports it and why did you publicly support the Housing Minister’s decision to block public consultation on the draft Local Plan? It should be noted that the Housing Minister did not say TRDC’s Local Plan evidence is inadequate; he simply said he wanted to read it, to see if it justifies the draft plan.

More concerning still is what happened after you received our letter. You had the opportunity to raise Three Rivers at Prime Ministers Question Time and rather than use it to robustly defend our Green Belt, to demand that the Minister reverse his intervention and to back the evidence supporting the Plan, you seemed to be more interested in scoring a party-political point You state that you have “consistently defended our Green Belt.” We would respectfully point out that the single most effective defence of the Green Belt is a sound, adopted Local Plan and you have just backed the Minister’s decision to prevent one from reaching public consultation. Without a plan proceeding to examination and adoption, the district remains exposed to exactly the speculative development you say you oppose. Your position is contradictory: how you can you claim to defend the Green Belt while supporting the action that leaves it most vulnerable.

You claim the plan “lacked the evidence required to be deemed sound.” As we set out in our original letter, this does not withstand scrutiny. Consider the Stage 4 Green Belt Review recently undertaken at considerable cost which analyses the Green Belt under the new rules. This was prepared by one of the most highly regarded major consultancies, with recognised experience in this area. This review clearly identifies that development in several areas of the District’s Green Belt would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the wider Green Belt and therefore must be protected from development.

Every week without a Local Plan increases the risk to our Green Belt. Since your first question in the House on 23rd February, a new application to build 333 homes on Catlips Farm in Chorleywood has been published and a new development on the Horsefield in Bedmond has been announced. Speculative applications are flooding in across the district precisely because there is no adopted plan in place. Your constituents are paying the price for this delay, and your support for the Minister’s intervention is making it worse.

We are not naïve. With local elections approaching in May, we understand that the Local Plan risks being used as a political football by parties of all colours. However, when it comes to this issue, we would urge everyone to put party interests aside and all get to together behind it. The future of our Green Belt and the communities we live in is too important to be reduced to electioneering. We would urge you and all elected representatives to treat this issue with the seriousness and honesty it demands.

We repeat our call: please withdraw your support for the Minister’s action and publicly back the draft plan proceeding to consultation and examination without further delay. That is how you defend the Green Belt, not by blocking the very process designed to protect it.

The Three Rivers Joint Residents’ Association represents thousands of residents across every part of the district. Since your first intervention in the Houses of Parliament on this we have asked repeatedly to meet with you about this vital issue, and we again offer to meet with you at your earliest convenience to brief you fully on the plan and on why Residents’ Associations across Three Rivers are united in calling for it to proceed. We trust you will not decline.

Yours sincerely,

Barry Grant
Chair – Three Rivers Joint Residents’ Association


Read more

First open letter to Gagan Mohindra MP from Three Rivers Joint Residents’ Association (JRA)

Full letter from Housing and Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook here: IMPORTANT: Local Plan Reg 19 Suspended

Response to Housing Minister letter from Independent District Councillor Rue Grewal

Draft response to the Government’s consultation on National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Message from Colne Valley Regional Park.

Click to view draft response to each policy.

Our key points are:

  • The Colne Valley Regional Park is a special landscape, nature and community resource which deserves an overall protected designation, but does not currently have one. Although it is within the Metropolitan Green Belt, this still makes it vulnerable to piecemeal encroachment without adequate compensation. In the absence of this, the NPPF should say more to protect the Park in other ways.
  • The NPPF should say more about the cumulative impact of speculative (as opposed to planned) development, both authorised and unauthorised.
  • Cross-boundary cooperation should be strengthened at all levels of plan-making, not only for housing and economic growth, but also for environmental protection at a landscape scale.
London Green Belt Council.

Grey Belt Threats – Request for Photos. Deadline 16th January.

Message from London Green Belt Council.

An existential threat to the very concept of the Metropolitan Green Belt appears to be emerging as land owners, developers and local authorities alike have this year begun to use the NPPF December 2024 ‘grey belt’ definition to reclassify Green Belt sites for development. Far from the idea presented by government ministers of ‘grey belt’ as small sites, of low-quality and previously developed, many are extensive, agricultural land and/or highly biodiverse.

Can you help?

The London Green Belt Council is seeking photographs (using a mobile is fine) plus brief details of land now redesignated by LAs or argued by developers to be ‘grey belt’.

  • LOCATION (town/area postcode if known)
  • GREY BELT PROPOSAL REFERENCE (planning application/Local Plan)

And if details available:

  • Number of houses, energy infrastructure, solar farms etc, whether mixed development and size of the site you have photographed.
  • Any special features of the site, natural features, footpaths.

If you do not know all the details, the Location and Reference will suffice.

We hope to create a record of how the new NPPF affects our valuable countryside and present it to government and the media in February 2026.

Please send details plus photos as a separate attachment (jpg or similar) by email to info@londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk by Friday 16 January 2026.

Please keep it simple. See examples on page 2 in document below:
https://rickmansworthresidents.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/PHOTOS-OF-GREY-BELT-LGBC.pdf


See this previous article which signposts to sites in Rickmansworth:

https://rickmansworthresidents.org/2024/05/planning-and-local-plan/

Grey belt photos – question

Message received 28th November – via email.

I am willing to take photos.  However, where can we find details of land being designated ‘grey belt?

[ Regarding post: Grey Belt Threats – Request for Photos ]

RDRA response:

Very good question. We’ll have to go through all of the green belt sites in the local plan and see which ones are/can be reclassified as grey belt.  Also look into the developers proposed sites to see if they have been reclassified. At the moment it seems to be a tall order.

But many thanks for your offer of help. Much appreciated.


See this previous article which signposts to sites in Rickmansworth:

https://rickmansworthresidents.org/2024/05/planning-and-local-plan/

Joint Residents’ Association (JRA) news on Green Belt Review

Message from John Bishop from JRA.

The TRDC Green Belt Review is to be discussed at next week’s Local Plan Sub Committee. If you have not already looked at it, the report is attached. The outcome is probably more favourable than we had feared and looks to make sense. It should be noted that it will be hard to challenge the conclusions of the independent consultants unless we have very solid grounds as they are experts in this matter.

Link to access the next online meeting:
(Before next meeting is held, this link will show the last meeting where John Bishop talks from 4:30 to 10:32 minutes.)
https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_YzA2ODA0N2EtNDhmZS00OTI4LWE4NjAtZDE3OTBjOGJhMDli%40thread.v2/0?context=%7B%22Tid%22%3A%2258420664-1284-4d81-9225-35da8165ae7a%22%2C%22Oid%22%3A%22af1e2ce5-2a72-4c4f-aa26-781a4d347ddf%22%2C%22IsBroadcastMeeting%22%3Atrue%2C%22role%22%3A%22a%22%7D&btype=a&role=a

The overall view from the Joint RA Working Group is that even if TRDC use all the sites in the ‘new’ grey belt, they would still get nowhere near the 13,800 that the government demand. The achievable number based on this report could be well short of this, although we do not yet know the site specifics or numbers.

There is also a Site Hierarchy Document on the same agenda. Whilst the overall conclusions of this document make sense, there seems to be a large number of errors/inaccuracies in the detail of this document, and the Joint RA will be asking for it to be checked and corrected. Please do refer for your areas and come back with any items of particular concern.

We will be speaking at the LPSC meeting this Wednesday with the key points being based on the above. Hopefully this makes sense but, if you have anything else, can you please come back to me as soon as possible.

We also had a meeting with Gagan our MP. Some time ago Gary wrote to him about the disastrous Grey Belt definition. End of last week we got an email saying he was over this way and would we like to meet. He gave us half an hour on Tuesday. We invited along Jon Bishop from the Joint RA and Chris Berry from CPRE Herts.

Gagan thinks the picture is bleak and Labour will push Grey Belt and their required numbers to the n’th degree. He also thought there is a very strong possibility that if Local Plans are not found sound (DBC), or in TRDC’s case – submitted with Labour’s numbers, the plan process will be taken over and sites imposed in order to reach the higher numbers. Note – up to now Gov’s have threatened but not actually done it, but Labour may make an example of TRDC to ‘frighten’ other councils with no Local Plan. It was quite a depressing meeting.

However, a request was made to Gagan that if we got the Joint RA together, would he be prepared to be in a photo showing that he had met with us. This then grew into an idea of getting a cross party, apolitical meet together with Hertfordshire MPs and as many local community RA’s and groups as we can find, but not local councillors. Gagan asked that due to MP’s diaries, this could better be achieved at Westminster.

So we will now try to get together all the MP’s which cover DBC, TRDC, Watford, St Albans and Hertsmere, CPRE Herts, and community groups/residents’ associations. This group may also reflect those covering the new Unitary authority if Herts is split into two, which is possibly the most sensible cost saving option.

We are not sure what good, if any, such a meeting will achieve, but raising the issue of the loss of so much green belt in South West Hertfordshire, and aiming to get consensus across all the MP’s by showing we represent the views of thousands of Hertfordshire residents (and voters!), surely can’t do any harm.

RDRA meets with Minister for Housing

I was glad to meet with Lee Rowley MP, the Minister for Housing, alongside representatives from the Three Rivers Joint Residents Association and Dean Russell MP, to discuss the revised NPPF and the importance of protecting the Green Belt in our area.

The Minister listened to the concerns of representatives and spoke about his passion for protecting the Green Belt and the importance of prioritising building on Brownfield Sites. I will continue communicating with him about the importance of delivering a comprehensive Local Plan, which protects our Green Belt, being delivered by the Three Rivers District Council.