The petition of residents of the constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole,
Declares that the Green Belt land between Bearwood and Merley is a precious, high-quality green space providing a natural buffer between the two communities; further declares this land that supports local wildlife and gives residents access to valuable open space; further declares that the Government’s plan to build 1,200 homes on this land as part of the proposed Canford Garden Village development would undermine the purposes of Green Belt set out by the National Planning Policy Framework, namely to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; further declares that the people of Mid Dorset and North Poole are concerned about the erosion of local decision making in the planning process, and want their voices to be heard in the context of this planned housing development.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the key purposes of Green Belt set out in the National Planning Policy Framework by calling in and rejecting the planning application for 1,200 homes to be built on the Green Belt land between Bearwood and Merley.
And the petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Vikki Slade, Official Report, 14 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1546.]
[P003238]
Observations from the Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook):
Due to their quasi-judicial role in the planning system, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers are unable to comment on the details of specific planning applications or proposals.
The Government have a “brownfield first” approach to development. On 17 August 2026, the Government published a new national planning policy framework, which makes it clear that authorities should plan to meet as much of their development needs as possible on brownfield land.
The new NPPF includes a range of proposals that strengthen support for development on brownfield land. These include supporting the intensification of urban and suburban locations, and setting clear expectations for minimum densities in locations with good transport connectivity. Brownfield sites vary greatly, and local authorities are ultimately best placed to assess the suitability of each for redevelopment.
The Government are committed to preserving green belts that have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in terms of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.
However, we know that there are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs each year, let alone enough that are viable and in the right location. That is why we acted to replace the haphazard approach taken to green belt designation and release by the previous Government with a strategic and targeted approach.
National policy maintains strong protections for the green belt, preserves the longstanding green belt purposes and does not weaken existing protections for the natural environment.
Where it is necessary to release green belt land for development, local development plans should give priority to previously developed land and other lower-quality grey belt land. Under our revised approach, the sustainability of green belt sites must also be prioritised, and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering if grey belt is sustainably located. The definition of grey belt, for the purposes of plan making and decision making, is provided in the glossary of the NPPF.
Where green belt land has to be released for major housing development, the Government’s golden rules apply to ensure that development delivers higher levels of affordable housing; the provision of new or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public; and the making of necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure.
The NPPF is clear that in exceptional circumstances, where a local authority is unable to meet its identified needs for essential development, it can propose to alter a green belt boundary using the development plan process. This requires consultation with local people, followed by rigorous examination of the revised plan by the Planning Inspectorate.
At examination, the local authority will be expected to show that it has explored all reasonable options for meeting its identified development needs, and that it has been making as much use as possible of brownfield and under-used land, optimising density in existing settlements, and considering whether another local authority could help meet its development needs.
Furthermore, decisions about green belt land should be informed by an overall application of the relevant policies in the NPPF, including policies in the “natural environment” chapter that concern areas of importance for their landscape, geodiversity or biodiversity value. The NPPF is also clear that development proposals should consider the environmental qualities of land proposed for development, including habitats, landscape character and the natural beauty of the countryside, and identify opportunities for those qualities to be conserved or enhanced. If significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, then the development should be refused.
Each local authority determines planning applications in the light of the local plan and all other material considerations, including policies in the framework. It is for the decision-maker to consider which facts or circumstances are relevant, and how much weight to give them. Where inappropriate development is proposed on the green belt, it is up to the decision maker to judge whether very special circumstances outweigh the potential harm to the green belt.