We need to talk about the green belt

Green belt policy has coagulated from various sources: individual urban containment zones established at different points over the last century, as well as restrictions introduced partly alongside the post-war new towns vision – although that is often conveniently forgotten. Much green belt land is not green. Indeed, much greenfield land is not within the green belt. The national planning policy framework advises that a local planning authority may only make changes to a green belt boundary if there are “exceptional circumstances” and may only grant planning permission for inappropriate development in the green belt if there are “very special circumstances”. The qualifying adjectives are uncalibrated, so the courts have had to make the best of it. “Inappropriate development” is defined by reference to a series of limited exclusions. Recent statements… The August 2020 planning white paper Planning for the Future did not include any proposals for reform of the green belt. The House of Commons Housing Communities and Local Government Select Committee criticised this position in its June 2021 report The future of the planning system in England: “We agree with evidence that called for the protection of the green spaces in the Green Belt; whilst also recognising that not all green belt land are green spaces. A review should examine the purpose of the green belt, including whether it continues to serve that purpose, how the public understands it, what should be criteria for inclusion, and what additional protections might be appropriate. The creation of new local plans also provides an opportunity for local reviews of green belts and the government should help identify those local authorities where such reviews are particularly urgent. Local plans can also relieve pressure on green belts by prioritising developments on brownfield sites. The government should ensure there is sufficient funding provided to support their decontamination.” That recommendation was rejected by housing minister Christopher Pincher in the House of Commons on 14 June 2021: “We are committed not only to protecting the green belt but to enhancing it, and those protections will remain in force when we bring in planning reforms. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that we will not be taking the advice of the Select Committee, which suggested that we should undertake a wholesale reform of the green belt. We have committed to protect it, and so we shall, because only in exceptional circumstances may a local authority alter a green-belt boundary, using its local plan and consulting local people on where essential new housing should go, and it needs to show real evidence that it has examined all other reasonable options before proposing to release the green belt. We are committed to the green belt, and we will fight for it.” … yet questions abound So that’s that? Well, not quite, because in the meantime decision-makers have to grapple with the question in individual cases as to whether the potential harm to the green belt by way of inappropriate development is “clearly outweighed by other considerations”. The more local plans do not adequately review green belt boundaries, otherwise plan sufficiently for development or are simply out of date or “stuck”, the more this question arises. Some interesting recent examples include: Colney Heath: In a decision letter dated 14 June 2021, an inspector allowed an appeal for the development of 100 homes in the green belt straddling St Albans and Welwyn Hatfield. The developer committed to 45% affordable housing and 10% self-build housing. The inspector allowed the appeal, determining that the very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development in the green belt were the provision of market housing, affordable housing and self-build housing against a documented position of significant underprovision in the areas. She placed little weight on a ministerial statement from 2015 (predating the latest version of the NPPF) that indicated that unmet housing need alone is unlikely to form the basis for a successful very special circumstances case. Bolton and Wigan: In decision letters dated 21 June 2021, the secretary of state granted two called-in applications for “big box” employment development projects, relying on, for instance, the “evident need for” that type of development and its economic benefits. Stoke Poges: In a decision letter dated 24 May 2021, an inspector allowed an appeal relating to proposed works to a school, based on “the need for the proposal to provide additional accommodation at the school for exams, assemblies and PE”. Wheatley, Oxfordshire: In a decision letter dated 23 April 2020, the secretary of state allowed an appeal by Oxford Brookes University, holding that “the significant visual benefit to openness over a wide area of the South Oxfordshire green belt [by removal of a tower and other large, unsightly structures on the site] and the delivery of up to 500 houses, 173 of which would be affordable, are both considerations that carry very substantial weight.” Cheadle Hulme: In a letter dated 22 April 2020, the secretary of state allowed the Seashell Trust’s appeal for redevelopment of its special educational needs school, the needs of the school also justifying the development of 325 homes. Maybe it is politically convenient for the government to shout “no” to green belt development but whisper “yes” in relation to individual schemes, faced with pressing local needs, a failing local plans system and the reality that green belt boundaries have not been determined with any modern consideration as to sustainability, environment, biodiversity or landscape. But our “planning” system has become an “unplanned” system in relation to green belt, with ad hoc decisions, unpredictable for developers, investors, authorities and communities. We need to talk about the green belt. Simon Ricketts is a partner at Town Legal LLP Picture © Oliver Dixon/Shutterstock