Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Logo
Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group | Started - July 2012 | Last activity - Today

Re: NPPF - Green Belt

Former Member, modified 12 Years ago.

NPPF - Green Belt

It seems unclear whether redevelopment of a previously developed site in the Green Belt has to be in the same use class. Looking at paragraph 89 of the NPPF 4th bullet point clearly says that replacement of a 'building' should be in the same use. The 6th bullet point that deals with previously developed sites (brownfield land) does not mention use class at all. Any views?
Former Member, modified 12 Years ago.

Re: NPPF - Green Belt

Picking up on the points raised in post from Laura - PPG 2 previously made provision for the limited infilling or partial or complete redevelopment of major existing developed sites in the Green Belt (whether redundant or in continuing use), provided they were firstly identified in an adopted Local Plan (i.e. as Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt). The term ‘Major Developed Sites’ has not been carried through into the NPPF, but at paragraph 89, the NPPF does provide for the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt etc. The principal differences between the NPPF and PPG2, in this regard, would appear to be that there is no requirement in the NPPF to firstly have identified the previously developed site in a Local Plan, and secondly, the NPPF provides no guidance on the scale of the site to which the sixth bullet of paragraph 89 should apply. This has potentially significant implcations. The sixth bullet of paragraph 89 could be interpreted to mean any previously developed site in the Green Belt (i.e. any site with a building on it). This is important, because unlike the fourth bullet of paragraph 89, the sixth bullet places no control over the use of any redeveloped ‘site’. I would also welcome views?
Andrew Chalmers, modified 12 Years ago.

Re: NPPF - Green Belt

Advocate Posts: 169 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent Posts
You will be aware that the third and fourth bullet points have extended national policy to allow the replacement and extension of all types of buildings whereas PPG2 only allowed that for residential property. In older industrial areas for example Greater Manchester the Green Belt does include a number of industrial buildings, the extension or replacement of which (unless designated as a MDS in a plan) was previously inappropriate development. The freeing up could be seen to benefit continued employment use and seems logical to me. Bullet point six appears to replace the advice in Annex C of PPG2 on major developed sites. It could be seen as more flexible since it does not set a major developed site size nor prescribe use for infilling nor require allocation in a plan. Re-development was not subject to any caveat about continuing existing use anyway. Given that any infill or redevelopment still has to meet the impact on openness test I'm not too sure whether there would be significant implications or not. It always seemed somewhat perverse that a major developed site of many hectares defined in a plan could be re-developed while a small industrial works could not. Worth remembering that proposals are determined against plans and the NPPF as a whole, so if you feel certain uses are not appropriate given the nature of your Green Belt then I guess it will be up to you do set out how this should work and evidence it.
Former Member, modified 11 Years ago.

Re: NPPF - Green Belt

Related but new question. A DC officer asked me if there should be a comma between "infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites" in para 89, last bullet point. It may have implications in the understanding of the intention of this point. Is it limited infilling ',' (anywhere in the green belt) or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites in the green belt? Or is it limited infilling, or the partial or complete redevelopment only within pdl? I'm assuming it doesn't really matter. Apart from being a badly worded bullet point I guess the main intention is that whatever or wherever development occurs, it should not have a greater impact on the openness and its purpose. Has anyone had any other issues with the intention of this policy?
Former Member, modified 9 Years ago.

RE: Re: NPPF - Green Belt

Jenny Pierce:
Related but new question. A DC officer asked me if there should be a comma between "infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites" in para 89, last bullet point. It may have implications in the understanding of the intention of this point. Is it limited infilling ',' (anywhere in the green belt) or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites in the green belt? Or is it limited infilling, or the partial or complete redevelopment only within pdl? I'm assuming it doesn't really matter. Apart from being a badly worded bullet point I guess the main intention is that whatever or wherever development occurs, it should not have a greater impact on the openness and its purpose. Has anyone had any other issues with the intention of this policy?

Searching for some discussion around a question I have, I came across this thread..and thought it the best place to raise the question I have. Specifically, I have an issue with the interpretation of exception 6 of paragrapgh 89.

I'm relatively comfortable with the concept of being able to consider positively 'the limited infilling or partial or complete redevelopment of previoulsy developed sites in the Green Belt on the basis that they would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. So far so good, the arguments around what constitutes an impact on openness are fairly well rehearsed.

The bit I find less than clear is the caveat which 'excludes temporary buildings'. What specifically constitues a temporary building? By way of some context I have a scheme where the applicant is looking to redevelop a brown field site in the Green Belt containing a fair bit of hard standing and a relatively large Nissen Hut (last used as a waste transfer station and the lawfuless of which is not in question) with a couple of dwellings. They argue that 'volume for volume' there would be no greater impact on openess and consequently the development is not inappopropriate. I follow the logic and to a degree accept it. However, I would define the building very much as a 'temporary one' given its materials of construction, allbeit a temporary one that has stood for the last 30 years or so. If it is held to be temporary then the provisions of para 89, exception 6 do not apply. The development becomes inappropriate. Or have i misinterpreted what amounts to a temporary building?

Thinking about why exception 6 might have been drafted to exclude temporary buildings, my thoughts lean towards the prevention of the replacement of buildings which were originally 'thrown up' to serve an appropriate green belt use, (I'm thinking mainly agricultural sheds here). Indeed, it would seem somewhat perverse to allow the replacement of such portal framed buildings when their conversion is prohibited by NPPF para 90 (Class MB of the GPDO notwisthstandig). There seems a logic to this. That said, if the building is there (temporary or otherwise) then it's already having an impact on openness. Replacing it with something of the same size (and discounting related issues regarding domestication of land etc) would appear no more or less harmful from a pure openness point of view?

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

Many thanks

Paul




 

Former Member, modified 11 Years ago.

Re: NPPF - Green Belt

I have encountered a couple of cases now where applicants have argued that bullet point 6 of para 89 basically trumps bullet point 4. For example, I am attempting to argue that a replacement dwelling, including a basement is materially larger than the one it replaces, using bullet point 4. The counter argument is that bullet point 6 would lead you to assess the replacement dwelling on the more subjective and more generous criteria in bullet point 6. In my current case it is argued that a large basement would have no impact on openness and thus a dwelling of double the floorspace of the original should be permitted. Does anyone have a view on these apparently conflicting bullet points?
Andrew Chalmers, modified 11 Years ago.

Re: NPPF - Green Belt

Advocate Posts: 169 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent Posts
Jenny the final criterion in paragraph 89 of the NPPF is effectively the replacement of a similar criterion in PPG2 which linked directly to the designation of Major Developed Sites. So it seems pretty clear that the omission of a comma is deliberate. But you are correct it is all about openness. And so Matthew the question for you is what is materially larger. You could of course have a house of exactly the same footprint and height but include a basement and technically the floorspace will be larger. But surely the test of whether this is "material" in the case of proposed Green Belt development is impact on openness and purposes. I cannot for the life of me see how a basement can have any impact on either of these and have to question why you would find difficulties with such a scheme. I cannot see how you could successfully defend such a decision on common sense grounds let alone planning.
Former Member, modified 11 Years ago.

Re: NPPF - Green Belt

My take on para.89 is that each bullet is mutually exclusive (it is a list of exceptions). There is an important distinction though between bullet point 4 which deals with buildings and bullet point 6 which deals with brownfield sites! Bullet point 4 would cover replacement dwellings, utility and community buildings etc whereas point 6 is in reference to MDS and other such BF sites. In respect of Matthew's question, since residential garden land is no loger pdl, is bullet point 6 applicable?