The bill requires the Secretary of State to create and publish a public register of all land in England that is designated Green Belt as of 1 January 2026, and to keep that register updated when land is added or removed. It also bars local authorities from de‑designating Green Belt land that exists on that baseline unless they substitute equivalent land within their own area that meets size, adjacency and density tests, and it restricts higher‑density housing on land removed from the Green Belt.
This is a compact but consequential planning bill. It centralises a record of Green Belt boundaries, narrows local discretion to reclassify Green Belt, and builds a statutory test for permissible swaps — all of which affect housing supply, local plan making, and the balance of power between central government and councils.
Practically, the bill forces councils to find land for ‘like‑for‑like’ replacement before freeing up existing Green Belt for development, and it limits how intensively former Green Belt can be used for housing.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a public register of Green Belt land in England using a 1 January 2026 baseline and requires updates within two months of any designation change. Prevents local authorities from de‑designating baseline Green Belt unless they simultaneously designate substitute land in the same authority that is equal or larger in area, abuts relatively high‑density housing, and meets National Planning Policy Framework requirements; it also bars denser housing on Former Green Belt land than on adjoining housing.
Who It Affects
Local planning authorities in England who prepare local plans, landowners and housebuilders seeking to convert Green Belt to development, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (as the register owner), and planning consultants and NGOs engaged in Green Belt advocacy or challenge.
Why It Matters
The bill reduces local flexibility to reallocate Green Belt and makes Green Belt boundaries more administratively visible, which will influence plan‑making choices and developer investment decisions. By imposing a statutory substitution test and density cap for Former Green Belt, it creates new legal hooks for judicial review and for central oversight of local plan changes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill has four short parts. First, it imposes a clear baseline: the Secretary of State must publish a public register listing every parcel of land in England that is Green Belt on 1 January 2026.
That register is not static — the department must mark land added after that date as New Green Belt and land removed as Former Green Belt, and it must reflect any change within two months.
Second, the bill changes the rules for taking land out of the Green Belt. If a local authority wants to de‑designate land that was Green Belt on the 2026 baseline, it cannot do so unless it first designates substitute land inside the same local authority area.
The substitute must be at least as large as the land being removed, must abut land where housing already exists at an above‑average density for that authority, and must comply with any Green Belt requirements that the Secretary of State places in the National Planning Policy Framework. The bill also makes land designated after 1 January 2026 (New Green Belt) immune from de‑designation under these rules.Third, the bill limits how Former Green Belt can be developed for housing: a local planning authority may not grant permission for housing on Former Green Belt at a higher density than the housing that adjoins it.
That creates a statutory cap on intensification when Green Belt is released to development.Finally, the bill’s interpretation and extent clauses reach back to the 1938 Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act for the technical meaning of Green Belt land and state that the Act will come into force two months after Royal Assent and will extend to England and Wales. Taken together, the provisions centralise record‑keeping, constrain swaps of Green Belt land inside local authority borders, and restrict densification on land that has been removed from the Green Belt.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of State must publish a register of all land that is Green Belt in England as of 1 January 2026 and mark subsequent additions as New Green Belt and removals as Former Green Belt.
Any change to Green Belt designation must be reflected on the public register within two months of the change.
A local authority may not de‑designate baseline Green Belt unless it substitutes land within the same authority that is equal or larger in area, abuts land with above‑average housing density for that authority, and meets Secretary of State NPPF requirements.
Land designated as Green Belt after 1 January 2026 (New Green Belt) cannot be de‑designated under the bill’s substitution regime.
Planning permission for housing on Former Green Belt is prohibited if the proposed housing density would exceed that of any adjoining or contiguous housing.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
National register of Green Belt land
This section requires the Secretary of State to establish and publish a register listing all land in England designated as Green Belt on 1 January 2026, and to mark later designation changes as New or Former Green Belt. Practically, the department will need a mapping standard and data model for parcels, and to set processes to capture local plan changes. The two‑month update requirement creates a short statutory deadline for reflecting local plan decisions or inspectorate determinations on the public record.
Restricting de‑designation: substitution and tests
These paragraphs bar a local authority from removing a parcel of baseline Green Belt unless it designates substitute land within its own area that meets three tests: (1) equal or greater area; (2) abuts housing where the adjoining housing density is above the local authority’s average; and (3) satisfies any Secretary of State Green Belt requirements in the NPPF. That creates a statutory ‘like‑for‑like’ swap with a built‑in adjacency and density screen, shifting substantive judgment from ad hoc plan justification to bright‑line conditions that councils must satisfy before releasing Green Belt.
Density cap on Former Green Belt housing
This provision prevents granting consent for housing on Former Green Belt at a density higher than any adjoining or contiguous housing. The rule is framed as an absolute comparison to neighbouring densities rather than a broader metric of land efficiency, which will constrain schemes that propose urban‑scale intensification next to lower‑density suburbs.
Definitions, extent and commencement
Section 3 adopts the 1938 Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act definition and supplements it with a catch‑all for other land kept permanently open to prevent or restrict development. Section 4 sets commencement at two months after Royal Assent and states the Act extends to England and Wales. Those drafting choices produce interpretive questions — for example, the register and most substantive controls target English Green Belt but the extent clause includes Wales — and they leave scope for litigation about the boundary of ‘other land’ captured by the definition.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents adjacent to existing Green Belt: They gain stronger statutory protection against local plan reclassification and a cap on denser housing on land that is removed from the Green Belt, which preserves local character and views of openness.
- Environmental and conservation NGOs: The national register and the tighter substitution test provide clearer evidence and legal footing for challenging de‑designations and for campaigning to prevent Green Belt loss.
- National policymakers and data users: Central government, researchers and policy analysts benefit from a single, public dataset of Green Belt boundaries, improving transparency and comparability across authorities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local planning authorities in England: Councils must identify and designate substitute land that satisfies area, adjacency and density tests before any baseline Green Belt can be removed, increasing plan‑making complexity and potentially blocking sensible reallocations.
- Housebuilders and developers: The swap requirement and density cap limit sites that can be released for higher‑density housing, reducing available development land and altering investment decisions.
- Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (central government): The department takes on operational duties to create, maintain and publish the register and to interpret the bill’s tests, with attendant resourcing and policy questions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between locking in land‑use protections to preserve open land and local character, and preserving enough flexibility for councils and the market to reallocate land to meet urgent housing needs; the bill favours preservation and procedural clarity but does so by imposing bright‑line constraints that may obstruct efficient site‑finding and intensification where housing demand is greatest.
The bill packages relatively simple rules that raise complicated implementation questions. The substitution requirement — equal or greater area that abuts above‑average density housing — may be impossible to satisfy in many authorities where undeveloped land is scarce or where existing housing is uniformly low density.
That could freeze Green Belt boundaries in place rather than produce genuinely better spatial outcomes. The requirement that substitute land ‘abuts’ higher‑density housing is unclear on edge cases (separated by roads, green corridors, agricultural strips) and invites disputes about parceling and map‑scale manipulations to meet the letter of the test.
The choice to anchor the baseline at 1 January 2026 and to immunise New Green Belt land (those designated after that date) creates perverse incentives and winners/losers: councils that fast‑track new Green Belt designations post‑baseline could make those areas effectively permanent under this bill, while landowners and communities that lose Green Belt protection shortly before the baseline date face a distinct disadvantage. The act’s cross‑references to the 1938 Act plus a broad residual definition of Green Belt risk litigation over what counts as Green Belt ‘in order to prevent or restrict development’—a phrase that could sweep in landscape allocations or local green spaces not intended as classic Green Belt.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.