Grey Belt and Heritage: How the Draft NPPF Is Changing the Picture

Since the Government published its consultation draft of the overhauled NPPF on 16 December 2025, the planning and heritage sectors have continued to debate the implications of removing the footnote 7 caveat from the Grey Belt definition. With consultation open until 10 March 2026, the Bonington Homes appeal and the broader interpretation of heritage‑related restrictions remain highly relevant.

One of the notable implications of the draft NPPF for those working with heritage assets and in historic environments is its proposed streamlining of the definition of Grey Belt following November’s Bonington Homes appeal decision.

Currently, the NPPF defines Grey Belt as previously developed land and/ or any other land that does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143 of the NPPF. However, it excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. Designated heritage assets are specifically referenced in footnote 7.

Typically, our advice would be that unless the effect on the designated heritage assets is likely to result in a refusal, the definition of the land as Grey Belt would not be precluded.

However, the dismissal of a Section 78 appeal by Bonington Homes against the decision of South Staffordshire District Council in November 2025 muddied the water and rightly caused heated debate in the sector.

In this case, while the appeal site is close to a Grade I listed church, the eastern part of the site is not proposed for development because of the harm it would cause to the Church (para 66) and there was no heritage reason for refusal. The Council argued this was a strong restriction on development and so the land is not Grey Belt, and that footnote 7 does not involve any consideration of the development proposed because the definition of Grey Belt could apply both to plan-making and decision-making, so related to the land rather than the development (para 67).

The appellant, however, referred to the PPG, which states that ‘it may only be possible to provisionally identify such land as Grey Belt in advance of more detailed specific proposals.’ It argued that the identification of Grey Belt should consider the specifics of the development proposed (para 69). Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that Grey Belt is an assessment of the land rather than the proposed development, so while heritage harm is not a strong reason for refusal, it is a strong reason for restricting the development. Therefore, it is not Grey Belt land (para 71).

This ruling had the potential to restrict the definition of Grey Belt in proximity to any designated heritage asset, and indeed any other areas and assets covered by footnote 7, with very wide-reaching implications for the sector.

While a Judicial Review of this particular decision in the High Court has now been requested, the draft NPPF removes the footnote 7 caveat and takes a much clearer approach on the Grey Belt definition. This should not only make the Bonington Homes decision academic but also more clearly support the delivery of the 1.5 million homes targeted by the government in its current term.

With the draft NPPF now out for consultation until 10 March 2026, the sector should treat the Bonington Homes decision as part of a rapidly evolving policy landscape rather than a settled principle. If adopted as proposed, the clarified Grey Belt definition would strengthen the Government’s push to accelerate delivery of new homes while reducing ambiguity around the role of heritage constraints.