CPRE Calls for Government Re-think on ‘Grey Belt’ Definition

Published on: 15 Aug, 2025
Updated on: 17 Aug, 2025

Green belt land in Normandy now subject to a new housing development proposal that, campaigners say, will double the size of the village.

By Martin Giles

The Surrey Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is calling on Surrey’s councillors and Members of Parliament to join together in pressuring the government to change its definition of what constitutes ‘grey belt’ land.

The countryside charity is also urging its members and supporters in Surrey to sign a petition on the government website seeking a change to the ‘grey belt’ designation.

This has come about because of what CPRE Surrey describes as “massively increased pressure on councils” to reclassify Green Belt countryside as ‘grey’, which has led to farmland and other open spaces losing their protection.

Writing in the latest issue of the CPRE magazine Surrey Voice, editor Andy Smith says: “When it comes to deciding which green belt sites can be downgraded to ‘grey’, only three of the five statutory purposes of the green belt are brought into play. These are: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another, and to preserve the setting of historic towns.”

“The other two purposes – preventing encroachment on the countryside and promoting urban regeneration – are not considered when deciding if a site is still ‘strongly performing’ or not. If a piece of green belt land does not perform ‘strongly’ in the three other purposes, it can be downgraded to ‘grey’. This is the new reality.”

Cllr Joss Bigmore

Joss Bigmore, leader of the Residents for Guildford and Villages (R4GV), has labelled the government policy a disaster. He told The Dragon: “Labour’s Planning Policies are a disaster for Guildford. Having recognised that the policies of the Conservatives had failed to deliver the types of homes we actually need, it is unbelievable that they have doubled all the housing targets without any other changes.

“That’s just pouring petrol onto the fire. By refusing to penalise developers for not building out permissions, and having no plan to deliver more social housing, it is open season on our countryside. Please Angela Rayner change tack before its too late.”

But a spokesperson for Guildford Labour disagreed: “All sides are aware that while nearly 90 per cent of Guildford borough is classified as green belt, not all of it is beautiful rolling hills. So it makes perfect sense to ensure the best is preserved. And there’s no question that we need more homes in Guildford and the challenge now – as it has ever been – is where to put them. This fundamental has not changed.

“Guildford Labour are unequivocally on the side of providing more homes for the residents of our town. If there are better alternatives – and blocking house building is not one of them – let’s hear it.”

However the Labour spokesperson was a lone voice amongst those asked to comment and Andy Smith said that many local residents and community groups have been in touch with CPRE Surrey for advice and support in recent months because there has been “a sudden dramatic increase in planning applications on green belt land since the 2024 NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) and 2025 Planning Guidance came into force.”

“In recent weeks, CPRE’s help has been sought by local communities through Surrey seeking to resist development threats, from Warlingham in Tandridge district, to Stoke D’Abernon in Elmbridge, and Normandy in Guildford borough,” Smith said.

“In all these cases, developers have argued that the land in question should be redesignated ‘grey belt’ because it does not prevent towns merging.”

Guildford’s Liberal Democrats, who run Guildford Brough Council, were sympathetic to the CPRE position. A spokesperson said: “Guildford Liberal Democrats understand the concerns of CPRE about the impact of so-called ‘grey belt’ and the threat to our green belt.

“The problem is particularly difficult in our borough because of the unrealistic housing targets imposed by the Labour government and the lack of suitable brownfield sites in Guildford.

“The government’s housing target means that we no longer have a five-year housing land supply in Guildford. It also means that the balance of decision-making on planning applications is even more heavily weighted in favour of development.

“The proper process would have been to evidence housing needs across the borough so that we could work with local people to meet those needs through the local plan update. For example, we know that there is a shortage of genuinely affordable housing. We support the principle that development should be in the right places and in sustainable, healthy communities where people can live in decent homes they can afford.”

Cllr Bilal Akhtar

Cllr Bilal Akhtar, deputy Conservative Group leader at GBC, who represents Worplesdon, agreed that the definition needed to change but had some criticism for the Lib Dems too. He said: “The definition of grey belt needs to be revised to better protect our valuable green belt, as it has been for decades.

“Labour’s planning policy changes and increased housing targets risk damaging Guildford. Instead, the government should be finding ways to ensure developers build out sites with existing planning permission, to ensure homes are provided without delay.

“The greatest need is for social housing, and it is frustrating that since the Conservatives lost control of Guildford Borough Council in 2019, very little progress has been made to push forward with projects that were ready to go.

“Even worse is the scandalous number of council houses that the Lib Dem council has allowed to remain empty, that should be providing much needed homes for Guildford residents.

Cllr Pat Oven

Unsurprisingly, the leader of the Guildford Greenbelt Group (GGG) also supported CPRE’s call to action. Patrick Oven said: “The Government must return to the full definition of ‘green belt’ as set out by Andy Smith.

By classifying land as ‘grey belt’, essentially anything that does not protect towns, a developers’ charter has been created to build in villages. These are now, effectively, without protection. The developers understand this.

“An application has already been lodged to build 135 homes on green belt, now grey belt land, under the new definition, in Send Marsh, which is conspicuously without suitable infrastructure to support such development.”

The Government has also hugely increased the annual target for builds in areas such as Guildford Borough, that are the most expensive. At a stroke this reduced Guildford’s Housing Land Supply below the five-year requirement. This in turn brings the “ tilted balance” into play – any adverse impact must now “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits of development. That makes it even more difficult to successfully oppose. That needs changing just as much as returning to the full definition of “green belt”.

Sam Peters

And Sam Peters of the Green Party was of a similar mind: “The Green Party strongly supports measures to protect our greenbelt spaces. It is deeply concerning to see potential for ‘grey belt’ designation – theoretically aimed at sites like former industrial parks or abandoned petrol stations – used to instead remove protections for biodiverse habitats and much-needed green spaces.

“Other changes, including Labour’s new planning bill, also open these floodgates, making almost any site liable to development for a nominal fee – even despite protections such as SSSI [Site of Special Scientific Interest] status. We completely agree with Surrey Wildlife Trust’s CEO, who called this bill “a licence to kill nature, with no evidence to suggest this would in any way help our economy”.

“Ultimately, the problem is a housing and planning system geared towards profit, rather than providing affordable, efficient homes to meet local people’s actual needs in a sustainable, environmentally positive way. Only the Green Party has the policies we desperately need to fundamentally change this broken system.”