Brownfield, Green Belt, and Grey Belt

Brownfield

  • Still a priority but made easier to deliver through the changes to the NPPF. Para 122 c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be regarded as acceptable in principle, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land.

Green Belt

  • Para 142 There remains a commitment to the Green Belt but a more strategic approach is required. A review of the GB can take place but only where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified through the preparation or updating plans.
  • The proposed changes to the NPPF will require LPAs to undertake a review of the GB where the authority cannot meet its identified housing, commercial or other need without altering the GB boundaries.
  • Para 142 “Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for housing, commercial or other development through other means. In these circumstances authorities should review Green Belt boundaries and propose alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that such alterations would fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole.”
  • When reviewing Green Belt a sequential test is proposed to give first consideration to PDL in sustainable locations, then consider grey belt land in sustainable locations which is not PDL and only then consider other sustainable GB locations.
  • Where Green Belt land is released for development through plan preparation or review, development proposals on the land concerned should deliver the contributions set out in paragraph 155
  • Para 151g sets out that limited infilling or complete redevelopment of PDL in the GB is not inappropriate providing it would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the GB (rather than the more restrictive provisions of the current NPPF).

 

  • Para 152 identifies that development in the GB will not be inappropriate if:
    • “In addition to the above, housing, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where:
    • The development would utilise grey belt land in sustainable locations, the contributions set out in paragraph 155 below are provided, and the development would not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole; and
    • The local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with a buffer, if applicable, as set out in paragraph 76) or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years; or there is a demonstrable need for land to be released for development of local, regional or national importance.
    • Development is able to meet the planning policy requirements set out in paragraph 155.”

  • Para 155 When land has been released from the GB for major development through plan preparation or review or permitted through development management – “introduction of golden rules” to ensure development in the GB is in the public interest.
    • 50% affordable housing (with appropriate proportion being Social Rent – subject to viability)
    • Necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure;
    • Improvement to or provision of new green spaces accessible to the public – using local standards or if not to use the standards from Natural England.
  • Annex 4 provides guidance on viability in the Green Belt

Grey Belt

  • The glossary defines Grey Belt

Grey belt: “For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the green belt comprising Previously Developed Land and any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt land that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes (as defined in para 140 of this Framework), but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance listed in footnote 7 of this Framework (other than land designated as Green Belt).” 

Design

  • Design is still high on the agenda and is given increased weight in decision making, especially for sites that are not plan led. A little less mention of ‘beauty’ (not a bad thing given that ambiguity)
  • More emphasis on the balance of design quality and technical requirements (landscape/highways/BNG etc.) high on the agenda, but still a robust requirement for design quality.
  • Emphasis on the National Model Design Code as the primary basis for the preparation and use of local design codes.

For more information contact Sarah Hamilton-Foyn.