Housing White Paper: Green belt commitments 'miss purpose' of protections, says expert

Plans to reaffirm the government's commitment to protection of the green belt and set out in full for the first time the circumstances in which local authorities may consider development on green belt land will make such development "even more challenging and potentially unviable", according to planning law expert Rebecca Warren of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com.

"Green belt boundaries can be varied in exceptional circumstances through the local plan process, and it is down to the local authority to decide whether this is appropriate which allows them to react to local circumstances such as housing pressures," she said.

"The proposed changes mean that such adjustments will not be possible unless the authority has fully examined all other 'reasonable options' to meet housing need. The sting in the tail is that this requires consideration of things such as density optimisation, which may not meet housing demand; use of surplus public sector land, without any guarantees that sites identified will actually be deliverable and developable; and brownfield land, which when available is not always viable," she said.

The green belt was introduced in the 1950s to prevent urban sprawl, and has accounted for around 13% of land in England since 1997, according to the government. Local planning authorities (LPAs) may only amend green belt boundaries in "exceptional circumstances" when preparing or revising their local plans according to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, the NPPF does not specify what these circumstances are.

As part of its white paper on housing policy, the government has proposed amendments to the NPPF to make the circumstances in which green belt boundaries can be amended more "transparent". If the changes are made as proposed, LPAs will only be able to do so after they have "examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements". In particular, they will have to give consideration to suitable brownfield sites, estate generation, underused and public sector land, and whether their development needs can be met by neighbouring LPAs.

Assuming the LPA is able to meet these conditions, they will also be required to "offset" the removal of land from the green belt by way of "compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining green belt land". This could include community forests, nature reserves or allotments, according to the paper. The government also intends to explore whether developers could be required to compensate the community in respect of land released from the green belt as part of a separate consultation. The White Paper has also raised the possibility of raising the level of financial contributions on released sites.

"This seems to miss the point that, in many cases, land is removed from the green belt because it no longer serves any green belt purpose and can be better used to contribute to local employment and housing need," said planning law expert Rebecca Warren. "This is often demonstrated by green belt reviews."

"Levying additional contributions on developers may fall foul of what it reasonable in the context of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations as it is doubtful that they would be proportionate to the impact of the development of the green belt land. Opportunity to comment on these proposals is at least available, and it is hoped many will take the opportunity to suggest tempering these proposals that seem far removed from the original purposes of green belt designation," she said.