The Grey Belt and its Golden Rules
The publication of a substantially revised NPPF shortly before Christmas was the first in a series of major planning reforms to be introduced by the Labour government. Among the NPPF’s most significant changes was the introduction of the ‘Grey Belt’ and the ‘golden rules’ by which such land may be released for development.
Recent research suggests that 30,597 Grey Belt sites across the country have the potential to boost housing delivery by as many as 3.4m properties – which would meet the government’s ambitious housing targets for a full two parliamentary terms. And sure enough, within a month of the NPPF’s publication, Basildon Council approved 250 homes on the Essex Green Belt on the basis that the site constituted Grey Belt land.
Of course not all of this land is suitable and available for housing, and the 30,597 sites quoted above would average just 111 homes per site. Furthermore, applying the new rules associated with Grey Belt release will be far from straightforward. Planning and Development InSite spoke to Chris Hemmings, Partner in Carter Jonas London office, about the potential impact of the new policy.
As Chris explains, “The ability to utilise this changed policy comes into effect when local authorities cannot meet their identified need for homes (or other types of development on brownfield sites) by increasing density in town centres and/or within neighbouring authorities. The policy states that Grey Belt land (land designated as part of the Green Belt but considered to be of lower quality or less valuable for environmental protection) should then be considered before Green Belt locations.
Addressing housing need
“There are several options to address the urgent need for housing, each with their own benefits and drawbacks,” Chris explains. “Prior to this change, the modest release of land from the Green Belt occasionally formed part of the solution, either for edge-of-town development or along major transport arteries. By selecting sites of lower environmental value and those not designated for conservation, the impact, and adherence to the original objectives of the Green Belt, was minimised. But despite that, Green Belt release was a complex and lengthy process.
“Prior to the general election, Carter Jonas carried out some comprehensive research of the Green Belt which demonstrated that only a very small percentage of land is designated for environmental purposes, suggesting greater scope to release Green Belt land. And, despite higher percentages of overlap of Green Belt and other designations (specifically in London), there is still a significant proportion of land without an environmental designation that could be used strategically. This could be used in combination with densification in some towns and cities, allowing for greater accessibility to services and transportation.
The Grey Belt
“According to the NPPF’s final definition, any Green Belt site, including previously developed or brownfield land, could be reclassified as Grey Belt provided if it can be shown to ‘not strongly contribute’ to three of the five purposes of the Green Belt: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. As with any policy, there are exceptions, such as sites with irreplaceable habitats or at risk of flooding.
The ‘Golden Rules’
“There was always going to be a trade-off for the release of previously protected land,” says Chris. “The ‘Golden Rules’ are exactly that as set out at Paragraph 156 of the NPPF, which are:
- affordable housing which reflects either: (i) development plan policies produced in accordance with paragraphs 67-68 of this Framework; or (ii) until such policies are in place, the policy set out in paragraph 157;
- necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure; and
- the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces.
“Like much of the new NPPF, the text of ‘Golden Rules’ (b) and (c) hasn’t changed between the document published for consultation in July and the final version published in December. However, there has been some subtle but limited changes to the level of affordable housing requirements (Golden Rule a), with the change from ‘at least 50% affordable housing [with an appropriate proportion being social rent]’ to delivering above policy levels of affordable housing in accordance with Paragraph 157. So, for areas with an existing 30% affordable housing policy, this may rise to 45% as the Government states that a 15% premium is required in the absence of updated development plan policies. For areas with no affordable housing requirement, the default position is 50%.
“On a positive note, the Government has listened to the development industry and removed draft Annex 4 from the final version of the new NPPF, which controversially sought to introduce a national benchmark land value for sites released from the Green Belt.
“Alas, in the revised Planning Practice Guidance, whilst meeting the ‘Golden Rules’ for Green Belt development, currently the submission of a site-specific financial viability assessment (FVA), seeking to lower the proportion of affordable housing or developer contributions is not allowed. However, the Government intends to review the viability guidance and the circumstances which may merit a FVA being undertaken, such as for large sites or on previously developed land. The timescales for this review are not provided and therefore, for the time being, any landowner seeking to promote its land for release from the Green Belt will need to deliver above policy levels of affordable housing in accordance with Paragraph 157.
“It remains to be seen what impact this policy will have on the appetite for Green Belt releases, but the higher proportion of affordable housing coupled with the renewed focus on social rent (as set out at Paragraph 64) will provide viability challenges, and without the recourse to challenge viability, this may inhibit delivery. Clarity on the circumstances under which an FVA can be submitted is therefore needed sooner rather than later.”
Specialist housing
The new affordable housing quotas pose a problem in relation to specialist housing, as Chris explains: “We would like to have seen exemptions for specialist forms of housing within the Green Belt to ensure that they are not subject to providing affordable housing. These forms of housing would include care facilities within Use Class C2 and also age restricted housing and self-build/custom build housing within Use Class C3.”
Initial impact of the changes
So, will the planning landscape change in the short term? “I suspect we will see an increase in developers looking to challenge the affordable housing quotas through the Planning Inspectorate, once the viability assessment criteria have been published via the PPG,” says Chris. “And of course this will result in delays. There’s an argument that larger schemes which are in the national or regional (rather than local) interest should be determined nationally and – no doubt to avoid a local back-lash - the Secretary of State has said that the government would welcome a threshold whereby a large housing development goes to the Planning Inspectorate, but I doubt this would go down well locally and it’s hard to make this argument for smaller sites.
“Allocations for development through the local plan process will also take time – it typically takes two or three years for the local plan process to take effect – and furthermore, proposed changes to local government structures (removing the second tier and creating unitary authorities) will add to this delay.
“And in the face of delays, particularly bearing in mind the significant potential that some Grey Belt sites offer, I expect we’ll also see a rush of speculative planning applications, with many more decided at Appeal.”
The Grey Belt is only part of the solution
In meeting the government’s ambitious housing targets, which Keir Starmer himself has said is an ‘almighty challenge’, building on the existing Green Belt will only ever be part of the solution, and, as demonstrated, there are considerable hurdles in doing so. In conclusion, Chris states, “The introduction of the Grey Belt will result in some new developments on former Green Belt, but viability will remain a challenge. We’re pleased to see that the government has recognised this and is also progressing the development of new towns, urban extensions and brownfield regeneration projects to assist in meeting housing need.”
