Govt opens door to squabbling with Green Belt guidance

Planning experts in the North West believe updated guidance on how to assess protected land is positive for the development industry but warned its ambiguity is likely to prompt as many arguments as it resolves.

Councils and the private sector have been given a long-awaited steer on what is expected of them when it comes to assessing Green Belt land in their areas as the concept of grey belt gains clarity and gathers momentum.

The government published updated guidance on the Green Belt last week. It sets out the requirement for councils across the country to assess their existing Green Belt and decide on any portion of it that could be released for development.

This was expected – given the government’s eagerness to speed up the delivery of housing on so-called grey belt land – however, the publication of official guidance has still been welcomed by the industry.

Dan Mitchell, partner at Stantec, said: “Since the NPPF reforms in December, the sector has been on tenterhooks awaiting this guidance, and in the meantime different planning inspectors have applied varying interpretations in their assessments of planning appeals – so this clarification is very welcome.”

He explained that the updated Planning Practice Guidance sets out the stages councils must now go through when reviewing the Green Belt against the Green Belt purposes.

“Crucially, the guidance requires councils to assess all existing Green Belt land to see whether it is fit for purpose, and requires them to identify grey belt land,” Mitchell said.

The government has set out the grey belt is Green Belt land that does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes a, b, or d.

• To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

• To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another

• To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

Jon Power, director at Asteer Planning, agreed that the updated guidance is positive for the development industry but that it could have been less ambiguous.

“Whilst the PPG provides some clarity for the industry and LPAs, there is still a good deal of ambiguity and subjectivity in defining the grey belt,” he said.

As a result, Power predicts a tug-of-war between developers and local planning authorities is around the corner.

“We see a number of key battlegrounds to be fought on the grey belt in the coming months,” he said.

These include demonstrating that sites are in a ‘sustainable location’, rationalising the definition of ‘large built up areas’, ‘towns’ and ‘villages’, and identifying the features – physical or otherwise – that will reduce a site’s contribution to the Green Belt, and particularly to ‘urban sprawl’.

Darren Muir, director of planning at Pegasus Group, pointed to one part of the updated Green Belt guidance that could save everyone a lot of time and effort going forward.

“The updated guidance makes clear that ‘villages should not be considered large built-up areas’,” he said.

“It seems as though this should be fairly obvious, but so much time and effort has been spent arguing over this point in Green Belt appeals. The clarification is very much welcomed.”

However, he agreed with Power that ambiguity over certain elements remains.

“The updated guidance also references to ‘reasonable proximity’ of physical features when giving guidance on checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas,” Muir said.

“I predict we’re going to see lots of discussion around what constitutes ‘reasonable proximity’.”

Muir said that if developers and LPAs are forced to fight their corners at appeal, the developers are in the box seat.

“Ultimately there is still so much subjectivity that it will be essential for developers to provide robust landscape planning assessments. This is where the balance can tip in favour of developers,” he said.

“If decisions rest on whether a site makes a ‘strong’ or ‘moderate’ contribution to the Green Belt, who is going to make or defend the assessments for local authorities?

“Most LPAs do not have in-house landscape or environment planning teams and trying to outsource this work will undoubtedly come up against conflicts of interest for those representing developers.”