Green Belt Reviews, ratings such as 'Strong', 'Major', 'Moderate', 'Minor', 'No contribution', and 'No comment' are used to describe how significantly a parcel of land contributes to the five Green Belt purposes set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). These ratings help local authorities decide which land should be retained, further reviewed, or potentially released for development.
Rating | Meaning | Interpretation |
Strong | The land makes a significant and clear contribution to one or more Green Belt purposes — for example, preventing settlement sprawl, separating towns, or protecting open countryside. | The parcel is highly valuable to the Green Belt and should be retained. |
Major | The land contributes substantially to the Green Belt’s purposes, though perhaps slightly less decisively than 'strong' areas. Development here would cause notable harm to Green Belt function. | Strong presumption against release; only exceptional justification might be considered. |
Moderate | The parcel provides a moderate level of contribution, often where the boundaries are weaker or there is already some built form nearby. | Potential for consideration if housing or employment needs are high and mitigation is possible. |
Minor | The land makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes — for example, it’s partly enclosed by existing development or does little to prevent coalescence. | May be suitable for release or further detailed assessment. |
No contribution | The land does not meaningfully serve Green Belt purposes — e.g. it’s brownfield, already developed, or physically separated from open countryside. | Most likely candidate for release or reallocation. |
No comment | The site was not assessed or not given a rating, often due to insufficient data, overlapping boundaries, or being outside the scope of the specific review area. | No definitive conclusion; requires further review if development is proposed. |
