Countryside Campaigners Voice Dismay over NPPF and Most Political Parties Agree

Published on: 19 Dec, 2025
Updated on: 21 Dec, 2025

Green belt land in Normandy currently subject to a new controversial housing proposal.

By Martin Giles

Campaigners wishing to protect Surrey’s green belt from further development has responded to the Government’s announcement of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Andy Smith, of Surrey Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE Surrey), said: “The changes to the planning system announced by the Housing Minister [Matthew Pennycook] this week are unlikely to meet the Government’s aim of speeding up housebuilding but will certainly blight more of our countryside with the shadow of unwanted development.

“Yes, we need more affordable housing but these proposals won’t achieve that. What we will see is a further increase in speculative development which boosts the profits of developers but will not produce the housing or public services that we really need.

“Why, when across England there is space for at least 1.4 million new homes on brownfield sites, does the Government still want to reclassify much of the Green Belt as ‘grey belt’ and build on it? Why do Ministers want us to lose farmland and open spaces to the developers?

See also: Second Normandy Survey Shows Huge Opposition to Plan for 950 Homes

“Why is there no legally enforceable ‘Brownfield First’ policy to make sure the majority of new homes are built on previously developed land?”

But Anne Rouse of Guildford Labour felt the green belt could not be excluded from potential development sites. She said: “Guildford [Borough] is over 80 per cent green belt, so excluding green belt means all development has to take place on just 20 per cent of the land in the borough. And of course much green belt is not AONB [Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, now classified National Landscapes] or even close.”

The CPRE CEO criticised the Government’s approach, saying: “The minister said in the House of Commons that one of the aims of the changes is to put an end to a planning system that allows people to ‘come back again and again if they don’t get the outcome they want’, but it is the developers themselves who do this, not, as he suggests, local communities.

“If a local council in Surrey approves a planning application, that’s usually the end of the story, as we, the public, have no ‘third-party’ right of appeal. But if an application is refused by the council, the developers can indeed ‘come back again and again’ with appeals, and revised, often barely changed, planning applications, aiming to wear down the objectors.

“Nor is there usually the option of a legal challenge by the local community to a planning decision. The cost and complexity of going to court means that, despite what the Secretary of State suggests, there are actually very few Judicial Reviews brought by local objectors to developments. The proportion of legal challenges to developments is tiny compared to all the developments that are pushed through.

“All these changes will do is play into the hands of speculative developers.”

Anne Rouse, Guildford Labour

Anne Rouse countered: “New housing is not something which is desirable but an absolute necessity here, both for our young people and for Guildford to be able to recruit the teachers, nurses, dentists, care-assistants, retail staff, and all the other essential workers that we all need.

“I’d like to see the CPRE working with the council to identify the areas they consider acceptable for development. It should be possible to find common ground. Not to bind anyone on where to build the homes we need but to move forward with some sense of partnership.

“Let’s try to turn this into a positive.”

But the Labour party spokesperson had no support from other local parties.

Thom Van Every

The chair of Guildford’s Conservatives, Thom Van Every, was unequivocal: “We completely agree with the CPRE that these changes will simply play into the hands of speculative developers.

“To speed up development, the government would do better to put penalties on developers with planning permissions, who are land banking. And we agree that permission should never be granted for greenfield sites when there are brownfield sites available.

“Homes are needed, but they need to be built in the right place with the right infrastructure. Housing targets need to be fair, with sensible community-led housing growth. Doubling the size of our villages is not the answer.

“We also believe there should be stricter controls around the provision of appropriate infrastructure to support development, and that developer funding should be spent promptly, where it is needed, not left sitting in councils’ bank accounts.”

Graham Drage

Graham Drage, chair of Guildford’s branch of Reform UK, was singing from a similar hymn sheet: “We believe that there is ample evidence that significant brownfield capacity exists, particularly within urban areas and town centres, which could be prioritised before any further pressure is placed on the green belt.

“The problem is not a lack of land, but a planning system that too often favours volume housebuilders over communities, infrastructure and long-term sustainability.

“Too many brownfield sites remain undeveloped because they are less immediately profitable or require remediation, while greenfield and green belt land offers quicker returns. Rebranding protected land as “grey belt” risks entrenching that imbalance rather than fixing it.

“The planning system should start from first principles: regenerate towns, reuse previously developed land and ensure development genuinely serves local need. Weakening green belt protections, whether by government or well-meaning campaigners, shifts power further towards developers and away from residents — and that is precisely what must be resisted.”

Sam Peters

Sam Peters of the Green Party highlighted the environmental cost of developing green field sites and questioned the logic of the Government’s policy.

He said: “As the CPRE notes, proposed planning changes will not tackle the housing crisis, but hugely threaten our natural spaces and biodiversity. Indeed, some changes have been labelled ‘a licence to kill nature, with no evidence to suggest this would in any way help our economy’ by experts including Surrey Wildlife Trust’s CEO.

“The UK has over one million empty homes, while developers sit on approvals for many more and ‘landbank’ to drive profits higher still. Treating housing as a commodity for big developers, super-rich investors and corporate landlords to profit from, rather than a basic human right and public good, is the ultimate cause of this crisis.

“Without tackling this fundamental failure, no amount of tinkering will fix our broken system. We can build, refurbish and bring back into use enough high-quality, genuinely affordable, energy-efficient and well-connected homes for all, without destroying green belt – what we lack is the political will.”

Guildford Liberal Democrats were also invited to comment.

See other CPRE stories here.

Share This Post