“Inspectors Regain Powers to Recommend Green Belt Reviews”
- TP Editorial Team
- Oct 13
- 3 min read
Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook has written to the Planning Inspectorate confirming that inspectors can once again recommend local planning authorities undertake Green Belt reviews as part of the Local Plan examination process.
The announcement, made in October 2025, marks a significant shift in planning policy and restores a power removed more than a decade ago. It means that where a submitted Local Plan is found to fall short of housing or employment land requirements, Planning Inspectors may now advise councils to revisit
Green Belt boundaries to ensure that local needs can be met.
Restoring a critical tool
Pennycook’s letter formally revokes a 2014 ministerial instruction which had restricted inspectors from recommending Green Belt reviews. Under that earlier guidance, the responsibility for considering any Green Belt changes lay solely with the local authority, limiting the scope for constructive challenge during the examination process.
The new direction acknowledges the severe pressures within the planning system — with many authorities unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply or to bring forward sufficient development land within existing boundaries. Inspectors are now encouraged to show “an appropriate degree of flexibility” when assessing Local Plans, helping to unlock delivery where progress has stalled.
A pragmatic response to housing need
The decision aligns with the government’s wider objective of speeding up Local Plan preparation. Pennycook has set a 30-month target for authorities to complete new plans and has repeatedly highlighted the need for realistic, evidence-based approaches to meeting housing demand.
In practice, this means that if an authority’s plan is found to be unsound due to an insufficient housing supply or inadequate site allocations, the Inspector can now recommend that a Green Belt review be undertaken. This does not compel Green Belt release, but it reopens the conversation about where land might best be identified to meet local and national needs.
Implications for local authorities
Authorities with constrained boundaries — particularly those in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, and around London — may face renewed scrutiny of their Green Belt evidence bases. Where past assessments have been high-level or dated, additional technical work may now be required to demonstrate that land has been properly reviewed against the purposes of Green Belt policy.
For plan-makers, the message is clear: a credible Local Plan must now show that all reasonable options have been tested. Authorities that seek to avoid this stage entirely risk being directed by Inspectors to revisit their approach, adding time and cost to the examination process.
Balancing flexibility and protection
The revised position does not undermine the fundamental purposes of Green Belt policy, which remain enshrined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Framework still requires “exceptional circumstances” for boundary changes. However, Pennycook’s clarification ensures that inspectors can consider whether those circumstances exist, rather than being procedurally barred from raising the issue.
This shift also reflects the government’s recognition that the housing crisis cannot be resolved solely within existing urban areas. While brownfield land remains a priority, many councils have concluded that meeting needs sustainably will require some carefully managed release of lower-performing “grey belt” land — Green Belt that does not strongly fulfil its original purposes.
The wider significance
The move is likely to accelerate Local Plan progress across England and could mark the start of a more balanced approach between protection and delivery. By reinstating inspectors’ ability to recommend reviews, the government has effectively restored one of the key levers for ensuring Local Plans are genuinely deliverable.
For developers and landowners, this may open the door to renewed opportunities in areas previously constrained by policy alone. For local authorities, it serves as a reminder that up-to-date evidence and a transparent assessment process are essential to achieving a sound plan.
At Tyler Parkes, we welcome this pragmatic clarification. It recognises that the success of the plan-making system depends on evidence, balance, and flexibility — not rigid adherence to outdated boundaries. In a planning environment increasingly shaped by housing shortfalls and “grey belt” definitions, this is an important and timely correction.
Comments