The new National Planning Policy Framework: what it means for Hanham's Green Belt

Meadows known as The Batch in Hanham, Bristol

On 17 August 2026, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published a completely rewritten National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It replaces the version published on 12 December 2024 — the one under which the recent appeal decision granting 140 homes on grey belt land at The Batch in Hanham, was assessed (although confusingly, the new Local Plan is being assed under the 2023 version of the NPPF).

This is the first time since the NPPF was introduced in 2012 that the whole document has been restructured, not just amended. For a group like ours, watching how Green Belt land around Hanham is treated through the Local Plan process and at appeal, it matters to understand both what has genuinely changed and what has simply been renumbered and repackaged. This article sets out the key differences and what they could mean locally.

1. A new structure — numbered policies, not narrative paragraphs

The old NPPF worked through numbered paragraphs (Green Belt policy sat broadly in paragraphs 142–160). The new NPPF abandons that format entirely. It is now organised like a development plan, with named, numbered policies grouped into thematic chapters and split between:

Plan-making policies (which councils must follow when preparing local plans and spatial development strategies), and

National decision-making policies (which apply directly when planning applications and appeals are decided).

Green Belt policy is now Chapter 13: Protecting Green Belt land, containing eight policies, GB1 to GB8. Broadly:

GB1 – establishing new Green Belts

GB2 – assessing existing Green Belt land (the five purposes)

GB3 – altering existing Green Belt boundaries

GB4 – defining Green Belt boundaries

GB5 – beneficial uses of Green Belt land

GB6 – control of development in the Green Belt (a decision-making policy)

GB7 – development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt (a decision-making policy)

GB8 – the Golden Rules

Practically, this makes the policy easier to quote precisely in objections and representations — "policy GB7(1)(g)" rather than a paragraph reference — but it is a repackaging exercise as much as a policy change. The substance of most of these policies continues directly from December 2024.

2. What has not changed

Some reassurance first, because it is easy to assume "complete rewrite" means everything is different.

The five purposes of the Green Belt are unchanged. GB2 lists exactly the same five purposes as before: checking unrestricted sprawl, preventing towns merging, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, preserving the setting of historic towns, and assisting urban regeneration. This matters because the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Green Belt Reviews covering Hanham sites were assessed against these same purposes, and that evidence base remains relevant.

The definition of "grey belt" is unchanged. It remains Green Belt land that is previously developed, and/or land that "does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d)" — sprawl, town merger and historic setting, but notably not purpose (c), safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. This is the definition that has already been used to justify grey belt release at appeal locally, and it continues unaltered.

The "very special circumstances" test for inappropriate development remains, as does the requirement that "substantial weight" be given to Green Belt harm (GB6).

The Golden Rules survive in essentially the same form — affordable housing, necessary infrastructure, and accessible green space — for major housing development on land released from, or within, the Green Belt (GB8).

3. What has changed — and why it matters for Hanham

a) A new route around the Green Belt: "well-connected stations"

This is the most significant new provision for Green Belt land generally. The new NPPF introduces policy for residential and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance (defined as around 800 metres, or a 10-minute walk) of a "well-connected station" — a rail, tram, underground or light rail stop with at least four services an hour (or two in one direction), located within one of England's top 80 Travel to Work Areas by economic output.

Two consequences follow:

GB3(4) allows a council to alter Green Belt boundaries around such stations (e.g. Keynsham) without having to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" at all — normally the core legal test for any Green Belt boundary change.

GB7(h) makes qualifying residential and mixed-use development "not inappropriate" in the Green Belt near such stations, sitting alongside — but separately from — the grey belt test in GB7(g).

Hanham does not currently have an operational "well-connected station" in the sense this policy defines. But the West of England region has an active pipeline of rail and mass-transit schemes (MetroWest phases, and wider mass-transit proposals for the Bristol travel-to-work area), and any future scheme bringing a qualifying stop within reasonable walking distance of Hanham or the wider East Fringe would open a route to Green Belt release that bypasses the traditional "exceptional circumstances" safeguard entirely. This is worth watching closely as transport plans for the area evolve, since it is a materially lower bar than anything that applied under the December 2024 Framework.

b) Renewable energy in the Green Belt explicitly confirmed as inappropriate development

GB6(3) now states explicitly that for renewable and low-carbon energy proposals, "very special circumstances" may include the wider environmental benefits of increased renewable generation — but such schemes remain, by default, inappropriate development requiring that VSC case to be made. Government commentary accompanying the new Framework frames this as a deliberate clarification, aimed at concerns that developers were using grey belt arguments to justify solar farms and similar schemes in the Green Belt. For a group monitoring land around Hanham, this is a modestly reassuring tightening, relevant if any renewable energy schemes are proposed on local Green Belt or grey belt parcels.

c) The presumption in favour of development has been rewritten

The old "tilted balance" at paragraph 11 — which could tip decisions in favour of development where a council lacked a five-year housing land supply — has been replaced by a new "permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development" (policies S3–S5). In outline:

S4 applies within settlement boundaries: proposals should be approved unless benefits are "substantially outweighed" by adverse effects.

S5 applies outside settlements, and only for a defined list of development types — but that list now includes the same "well-connected station" residential/mixed-use category described above, alongside previously developed land redevelopment, limited infilling, and exception sites.

This reframes the housing-pressure mechanism that has driven Green Belt release locally, without removing it. The underlying trigger for Green Belt boundary review — an authority being unable to meet identified need in full, having exhausted reasonable alternatives (now embedded in GB3(2)) — continues in substance, including the housing delivery test and five-year supply thresholds (below 75% delivery, or no five-year supply) that determine when grey belt sites become available for individual applications, not just through plan-making.

d) Safeguarded land and boundary definition made more explicit

GB4 now sets out, in more detail than before, how councils should define Green Belt boundaries — including an explicit requirement to identify "safeguarded land" for development needs well beyond the current plan period, and to sequence releases (previously developed land, then grey belt, then other Green Belt land). This is largely a clarification of existing practice, but the more prescriptive, numbered format may make it easier for both promoters and objectors to test whether a council's Local Plan has actually followed the required sequence — relevant to how South Gloucestershire Council's site selection for Hanham is scrutinised at examination.

4. What this means practically for our campaigning

Update representations. Objections and appeal statements should now reference the numbered GB policies (and Annex E for grey belt assessment methodology) rather than the old paragraph numbers, which no longer apply.

The core battleground is unchanged. Whether a site "fundamentally undermines the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt" — the phrase that determined the outcome of the recent 140-home appeal — remains the central test, now embedded in GB3(4)(a)(ii) and GB7(g)(i). Evidence quality on the five purposes, particularly purpose (a) contribution, continues to matter as much as it ever did.

Watch transport policy closely. The new "well-connected station" provisions mean that any future rail or mass-transit proposal serving the Hanham/Kingswood corridor could, in time, create a materially easier route to Green Belt release than grey belt release does today — one that does not require exceptional circumstances to be shown at all.

Renewable energy applications remain challengeable on Green Belt land unless a proper "very special circumstances" case is made — this protection has, if anything, been reinforced.

In summary

The 17 August 2026 NPPF is a significant re-presentation of national planning policy, but for Green Belt purposes it is more evolution than revolution. The five purposes, the grey belt definition, and the Golden Rules survive intact. The genuinely new element that deserves close attention locally is the "well-connected station" provision, which — should transport infrastructure plans for the area advance — represents a lower bar for Green Belt release than anything in the previous Framework.

We will continue to monitor the South Gloucestershire Local Plan examination and any transport proposals affecting the Hanham area in light of these changes, and will update members as matters develop.