Green Belt protections

Question 133: Do you agree with proposals to better enable development opportunities around suitable stations to be brought forward? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree. Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.

What this means: This proposal would make it easier to build on Green Belt land if it’s near a railway station.

Why it matters: Building near stations might sound sustainable, but in practice it could mean losing open countryside and creating car-dependent sprawl without proper services or infrastructure.

Suggested answer:

Strongly disagree.

Text to copy / adapt: 

I oppose changes to Green Belt policy contained in draft policy GB3 to enable more development on Green Belt land around any railway station. This would lead to more sprawling suburban development and increased car usage, as there is no guarantee that the development would be in or next to an existing town and connected social facilities. It would also contradict policy GB5 on beneficial uses of Green Belt land, as building on land near stations would lead to the loss of open countryside that would be easiest for people from towns and cities to reach by train. I would support a policy that encouraged more housing development on previously developed or brownfield land close to railway stations in towns, as this would help regenerate existing towns.

Personalise your answer by mentioning:

• a local Green Belt or open space you value
• traffic or infrastructure pressures near you
• why easy access to the countryside by train matters
• an example of poor planning near a station locally

Question 136: Do you agree policies GB6 and GB7 set out appropriate tests for considering development on Green Belt land? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree. Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.

What this means: This asks whether the government’s new rules for allowing development on Green Belt land are strict enough.

Why it matters: If the tests are too weak or vague, more Green Belt land could be built on without strong justification.

Suggested answer:

Strongly disagree.

Text to copy/adapt:

I oppose changes to Green Belt policy contained in draft policy GB7 to allow more development on the basis that it is close to a railway station. This would lead to more sprawling suburban development and increased car usage, as there is no guarantee that the development would be in or next to an existing town and connected social facilities. It would also contradict policy GB5 on beneficial uses of Green Belt land, as building on land near stations would lead to the loss of open countryside that would be easiest for people from towns and cities to reach by train. I would support a policy that encouraged more housing development on previously developed or brownfield land close to railway stations in towns, as this would help regenerate existing towns.

Personalise your answer by mentioning:

• why Green Belt protection is important where you live
• pressure for housing locally
• concerns about gradual erosion of protections

Question 145: Do you agree that proposed changes to the grey belt definition will improve the operability of the grey belt definition, without undermining the general protections given to other footnote 7 areas? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.

What this means: The government wants to expand the idea of ‘grey belt’ land — parts of the Green Belt they consider lower quality and easier to develop.

Why it matters: In reality, this could include productive farmland or wildlife sites, making it easier for developers to build on land that still has real environmental or community value.

Suggested answer:

Strongly disagree.

Text to copy/adapt:

CPRE has major concerns about the ‘grey belt’ provisions introduced into Green Belt policy in the December 2024 NPPF. Despite claims made by the Prime Minister and others that the policy would only lead to the loss of supposedly ‘poor quality’ Green Belt land, CPRE research has, in fact, found that government planning inspectors have used the policy to permit development on high quality farm land and recognised local wildlife sites. I believe that ‘grey belt’, rather than being widened, should be removed from national planning policy, with major development only being allowed in the Green Belt if it is agreed through the new spatial development strategies. But if the policy is maintained, it should be narrowed to exclude high-quality farmland and local wildlife sites from being designated as grey belt, and grey belt development should not be allowed on appeal against local refusals of planning permission.

Personalise your answer by mentioning

• local farmland, wildlife sites or landscapes that are important to you and your community
• food security or nature concerns
• worries about developers exploiting loopholes

• local farmland, wildlife sites or landscapes you’d hate to lose

Rural affordable housing

Question 56: Do you agree our proposed changes to the definition of designated rural areas will better support rural social and affordable housing? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.

What this means: This would widen where affordable housing policies apply, so more rural communities can benefit.

Why it matters: Many villages and small towns struggle with rising house prices and a lack of genuinely affordable homes for local people.

Suggested answer:

Strongly agree.

Text to copy/adapt: 

CPRE’s State of Rural Affordable Housing report in 2023 showed a strong need for more genuinely affordable housing in rural areas, which is not being met by current planning policies. CPRE also showed that only about half of rural England can be considered a ‘designated rural area’ in the terms set in this question, but the need for affordable housing is acute everywhere. If the change is brought in, it will help address the problem by making clear to landowners and developers that they should include affordable housing within the smallest sites of 10 homes or less, which isn’t the case in half of rural areas at present.

Question 60:

Do you agree with our proposals to ask authorities to set out requirements for a broader mix of tenures to be provided on sites of 150 homes or more? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree. Please provide your reasons and indicate if an alternative site size threshold would be preferable?

What this means: Large developments would need to include a mix of homes — not just expensive market housing, but affordable and social homes too.

Why it matters: Without clear rules, many new estates mainly deliver expensive, executive homes that don’t meet local needs.

Suggested answer:

Partly agree.

Text to copy/adapt:

I agree strongly with the principle of requiring a broader mix of housing tenures (such as social rent and low cost ownership) on large housing sites being set out in national planning policy. Sir Oliver Letwin’s review in 2018 made a powerful case for just this kind of policy. Currently, too many developments in rural areas simply consist of large, expensive 4 and 5 bedroom houses for sale which are out of reach for most average wage earners. CPRE research has also shown that only 14% of new housing in rural areas can be classed as social housing for example, despite the particular need for this kind of housing in rural areas due to average incomes being lower than in urban areas.

My main concern is that the policy doesn’t go far enough because it relies too heavily on local plans being in place. CPRE research also found that most current plans in rural areas are inadequate with only 1 in 5 having any kind of policy seeking more new social housing, and many supporting housing market assessments being out of date or (in the case of Cornwall) absent entirely. The NPPF should therefore set minimum expectations for at least 10% social housing in all major new housing developments of more than 100 homes until plans are updated, and I also believe that the threshold can be set much lower, indeed as low as 50 units.

Personalise your answer by mentioning:

• estates near you that lack affordable homes
• the types of homes needed in your local area

Question 62:

Are any changes to policy HO7 needed in order to ensure that substantial weight is given to meeting relevant needs?

What this means: This asks whether the policy goes far enough to guarantee councils prioritise affordable and social housing.

Why it matters: If requirements are too weak, local plans may continue to under-deliver the homes rural communities really need

Suggested answer:

Yes.

Text to copy/adapt:

The NPPF should set minimum expectations for at least 10% social housing in all major new housing developments of more than 100 homes until plans are updated, and I also believe that the threshold can be set much lower, indeed as low as 50 units. (for reasoning see suggested response to question 60.)

Personalise your answer by mentioning: 

• long waiting lists for social housing locally
• a lack of smaller or genuinely affordable homes locally
• families forced to move away or priced out
• homelessness in your area

Valued landscapes

Question 181: Do you agree policy N2 sets sufficiently clear expectations for how development proposals should consider and enhance the existing natural characteristics of sites proposed for development? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree. Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.

What this means: This policy sets rules for how development should respect landscapes, farmland, trees and hedgerows.

Why it matters: If protections are vague, important countryside features — even outside National Parks or AONBs — could be gradually lost.

Suggested answer:

Partly agree and partly disagree.

Text to copy/adapt: 

I am concerned that the new policy N2 will be insufficient to protect valued aspects of our rural landscapes, especially those outside nationally protected landscapes which are covered by Policy N4. Valued aspects of landscapes are currently protected under paragraph 187 of the current NPPF. I therefore ask for N2 paragraph 1(a) to be amended to refer to ‘landscape character and value’.

I also do not believe that protection for our highest quality farmland is strong enough. 2022 CPRE research found that in the past 12 years we have lost over 14,000 hectares of prime agricultural land to development, including 287,864 houses — equivalent to the productive loss of around 250,000 tonnes of vegetables and enough to provide nearly two million people with their 5-a-day for an entire year. I call for policy N2 paragraph 1(b) to be changed to state a firm presumption against development of the highest quality (grades 1-3) farmland.

I welcome the new policy protections for established trees and hedgerows in policy N2 paragraph (1) (d), but call for the words ‘wherever possible’ to be removed as this will encourage non-compliance. CPRE is contributing towards the Environmental Improvement Plan’s hedgerow planting target through our Hedgerow Heroes campaign. It is important that this work is backed up by commitments on developers to retain hedgerows where new development takes place.

Personalise your answer by mentioning: 

• a landscape you love that isn’t nationally protected
• farmland or food production concerns
• local trees or hedgerows that support wildlife
• local action taken on hedgerows and why it’s important
• why everyday countryside matters, not just designated landscapes