A seismic moment in the battle for Green Belt Land Release?

On the 14th June, an appeal decision at Colney Heath offered a potential game changer, to the way we approach green belt sites across England.

Although only relating to a relatively small scheme (100 homes), the decision to permit this development in a 100% greenfield site, that was not a draft allocation in the Local Plan and was not an enabling development case (as we have seen previously) is really interesting and well worth understanding and considering by all land promoters and developers, with similar prospective sites.

Zach Simons, the Barrister on the case provides a great overview of the full case made in his Planoraks blog. But I thought I would share my own musings on the decision.

For me, for too long, Green Belt authorities have hidden behind the Written Ministerial Statement, to avoid departure release on housing land supply grounds whilst local plan reviews are either stalled or meandering. This appeal, albeit small scale and not a Secretary of State decision, appears to draw a line. We have long argued that communities should not be denied development due to the failure of the plan making process.

?It is wrong to criticise a development being promoted as a departure when the developer/promoter and the community have all been denied the opportunity to plan for development needs through the timely preparation of a development plan.

Of course, the SoS may well issue a clarifying statement, but at this moment in time this decision presents a hugely interesting precedent for our clients across the country.

So what does the precedent mean? My colleague and fellow Partner, Mike Knott had this to offer:

“I believe this should be a substantial shift in how we have, until recently, tended to think about the prospects for taking forward planning application for housing on greenfield Green Belt sites. What this and other recent decisions are making clear is that there are opportunities which can successfully be promoted where the site’s contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt and the harm by the development is either limited or entirely absent.

In addition, it shows that the benefits of new development, particularly where the provision of affordable housing exceeds the adopted policy requirement – in this case the client has proposed 45% affordable housing despite St Albans’ Local Plan of 1994 only requiring 30% - can attract significant weight.

In the context of many Green Belt authorities not having up-to-date Local Plans, failing the housing delivery test, and/or not having a five-year housing land supply, this appeal decision may encourage landowners and developers to adopt a different strategy."

While my technically savvy colleague Patrick Clark, reflected on the technical implications this could have, from a landscape planning perspective:

“Reflecting on this decision, I can see that the Inspector has provided a full and genuinely-observed consideration of the character of the site and its context. She has noted the influences on the character of the land and importantly: whether it is more closely related to the settlement than the wider landscape. She has then used this to inform her commentary on harm to the Green Belt. Her consideration of ‘locational characteristics and influences’ underpins the conclusion in paragraph 26 that there would be ‘no significant encroachment into the countryside’.

As such, this decision makes reassuring reading for anyone looking at Green Belt using Landscape and Visual approaches. Green Belt shouldn’t just be considered as an abstract, absolute policy (i.e. is it ‘open’ or not?) but has to be considered in terms of the contextual reality on the ground.

This confirms that the Green Belt contribution (or lack of it) of any given site, should be considered:

• at the relevant detailed scale, rather than solely in terms of a Green Belt evidence base that often looks at a far wider area; and
• in terms of its functional and character relationship (or lack of it) with the wider area of Green Belt.

Full assessments of sites for local plan promotion, or to inform whether there is any prospect of an application ahead of a local plan review, consider all of this. They enable us to assess how the Green Belt functions in any given area and how any site contributes within that context. This goes beyond simply the principle of ‘openness’, to look at how the structure of the landscape and settlement affect the perception of the site and the extent to which it contributes to the Green Belt.

This decision therefore wholly re-affirms our long-held view that detailed consideration of such factors has genuine weight, when we are looking to enable development within the Green Belt.”

What next?

Do you have a site in the greenbelt that you feel is impacted and could benefit from considering this decision? As you can see there is much to discuss and consider in light of this recent decision!