Re: Localism and Green Belt - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

In the spirit of localism, 'communities' can volunteer for additional development above and beyond that proposed in local plans, via neighbourhood plans and local development orders, and rewarded by the new homes bonus and CIL. However, Mr Pickles seems to hold the view that Green Belt is sacrosanct, and I expect the forthcoming new national policy framework will reinforce that view. In addition, the government has already stated that some national policy aims like nuclear power, high speed rail (and green belt?) etc. will take precedent over local concerns, in the national interest. So communities can have growth and localism, except where they are in the green belt, in which case the national position will overrule them. And absolutely no gypsy and traveller sites in the green belt (see recent PPS consultation).

Thanks Harriet. I have copied your response to the same question in the Plan Making forum. A similar query has been raised with CLG directly.

John and Harriet, It's not strictly true to say Pickles sees Green Belt as sacrosanct. His first Secretary of State decision approved development in the green belt (see my blog http://urbanregen.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/pickles-approves-housing-in-the-green-belt/ and http://urbanregen.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/pickles-approves-housing-in-the-green-belt/) and more recently he has allowed commercial development in Chelmsford (http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planning-callins/pdf/1734483.pdf ). The old test of proving "very special circumstances" remains sufficient to overcome Green Belt policy and importantly a lack of a five year land supply can be a sufficient VSC. I think there may well be scope for local plans to allow Green Belt development in villages that can demonstrate VSC.

Yes well we are all starting to see that what Pickles says is not necessarily what Pickles does. I know that there have been decisions undermining it, but in speeches and policy (for what they are worth), it does seem that the principle of green belt is still a government priority.

I have just received an email off one of our Councillors who has had the following response from CLG to an email he sent to them (see last paragraph). I must admit this was news to me, but perhaps it indicates the direction of thought on this matter? Dear Cllr Vickers, Thank you for your letter of 14 March to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. I have been asked to reply. The contents of your letter have been noted. You may be pleased to learn that the proposals in the Localism Bill in respect of neighbourhood planning should address many of the concerns that you have about the planning system. Within sensible limits, community groups or parish councils will be able to prepare their own planning policies for their areas and, where certain conditions are met, local planning authorities will be required to adopt those policies as part of the statutory development plan. These changes constitute a real transfer of power from the local planning authorities down to the community. We envisage that it will be possible for neighbourhood plans to be used by the community to make minor alterations to the boundaries of local Green Belt designations. I hope this is helpful. Your sincerely, Nigel Kersey Planning Delivery & Performance Division Department for Communities & Local Government

Since neighbourhood plans must comply with the strategic elements of other LDF development plan documents (not sure the term local plans exists in legislation yet?) and national policy including PPG2, those preparing neighbourhood plans will have to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. The appropriate level to argue for Green Belt release and to demonstrate exceptional circumstances would be at the Core Strategy level. Without that assurance of conformity I think it is high risk for communities to pursue what at face value would be contrary to the overall strategic approach. So going back to the first post on this subject surely the logic is that the overall Core Strategy should have considered village needs and demonstrated that Green Belt may be needed to meet these. It strikes me that to do otherwise could put Green Belt under pressure from ad hoc Green Belt advances. Given the proposed changes to the Localism Bill to allow developers to bring forward plans this could be of concern. I remain far from convinced that many communities will want to see increased housing provision, even in return for "incentives", although maybe this is different in more rural communities. And to agree with Harriet, there is a fair amount of "spin" with DCLG pronouncements and sound bites. So advice here is ignore the speeches and check out the detail! Taking the gypsy issue as a current example, there was much rejoicing in some quarters at the national announcement over abolishing targets etc...but actual requirements on councils in the proposed draft circular are actually much more onerous including the five year requirement. And of course councils take the pain rather than the SoS. Another example is freeing up the LDF system by not requiring Annual Monitoring Reports but councils still need to produce a report at least every 12 months. Maybe DCLG work to a different calendar. To remove the "perceived" support for Green Belt sites implied by taking out the word "normally" from in front of "inappropriate" development is really trying to milk the changes for good publicity. Eric Pickles cannot guarantee that gypsy sites will not come forward in the Green Belt. They are subject to PPG2 and the deliberations above. Demonstrate very special circumstances and they will still be allowed as has always been the case. Worth of course noting that Mr Pickles has already allowed a number of developments in the Green Belt including gypsy provision and housing. So the word sacrosanct clearly has a number of different meanings.

I have read with much interest the replys to Localism and Green Belt, and would very much appreciate your help and advice in the confusion I find to the latest changes to PPS3. "Land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens,parks,recreation grounds and allotments that have not been previously developed", now falls into the category of greenfield. As this was the only part of the brownfield land definition that I believe was changed, if the surface of a site was previously developed and occupied by a school building, demolished the area flagged, and has not become part of the "natural surroundings", then would it remain brownfield under the PPS3 definition.

Paul, you are correct there are no specific changes to PPS3 that alter the classification of former school sites as previously developed land. PPS3 does contain the caveat that this does not necessarily mean that it should be developed for housing or developed in total, but national priority remains for the development of housing on previously developed land. You will be aware that the current government took action to exclude gardens and remove the perceived priority given to garden development. As it the way with the knee- jerk changes that Pickes tends to introduce nobody in DCLG thought about how to deal with developments that involve both redevelopment on an existing house and garden. I guess most planning authorities take the common sense approach based on design and detailed considerations anyway, which was already being taken prior to the changes. Still it got Mr P a headline!

Hello Andrew, I appreciate your advice and opinion, that previously built on land is still brownfield and not greenfield with regards to the recent changes in PPS3. Would the passage of time or usage, change the definition.especially if the land could never be mistaken as part of the "natural surroundings". It has been difficult to find any clarification until reading your contribution, much appreciated by me and I'm sure many others. Regards Paul

Paul, PPS3 sets out that previously-developed land excludes land where "the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings)." This will be a matter of judgement on a case by case basis but suspect it really is much more applicable to more rural or open land sites than urban sites where everything from site access, fencing, surrounding uses and context tend to suggest that there was something there previously. I know we lost an argument at appeal some years ago over whether a well- wooded railway cutting had naturally regenerated and become greenfield. From recollection the Inspector considered it would always be an "urban" feature. It seems unlikely to me that a former school site will easily become part of the natural surroundings. My own view is that the quality of development and its overall appropriateness in planning terms is what should be tested rather than an often relatively blunt greenfield or browfield test alone.

Andrew thank you, I would appriciate your help once again. The school building on the land was demolished as part of a residential development some 20 years ago, clearly identified from original site plans, and confirmed by the council archives. After demolition the area was flagged, so itcould never be considered as natural surroungings. The site is considered large enough for a single dwelling, and we believe still brownfield with regards to the recent changes in PPS3, thats why Im tryng to clarify "would the passage of time or usage", change the definition. Your valued opinion please. Regards Paul.

Paul I think PPS3 sets a reasonably straightforward and common sense test in most circumstances! If a member of the public or your local authority planning committee went to the site today - would they need convincing that it had previously accomodated buildings, car parking etc or could there be some doubt as to whether it had ever been developed. Bottom line is what does the site look like today (you suggest flagged) and what is it used for. Of course even if it is greenfield that does not necessarily in itself rule out development. All PPS3 does is to set as priority the development of previously developed land. It would depend on planning policy approach in the area.

I have yet to meet anyone who can profess to fully understanding what neighbourhood plans and localism mean "on the ground", as it were, so I find it quite difficult to answer the original comment properly. Exactly what is Green Belt - if it is only areas that remain outside what is known "in the trade" as the "Development Plan Envelope", then Green Belt could to some degree disappear as the Island Plan (LDF) on the Isle of Wight seems to be focusing on new areas for development, rather than protecting the current Unitary Development Plan Envelope in the new LDF policies. There has just been a core strategy consultation, which included pockets of land put forward for development by landowners, all of which are in Green Belt now.

Nick Kersleys letter isnt consistent with national policy in PPS2 as repeated now in the practitioners draft of NPPF -Neighbourhood plans have to be consistent with higher level plans. - The key feature of green belts are their permanence -Green belts can only be changed in development plans if their are 'very special circumstances' - the Carpets of Worth test. unless their is a clause in the NPPF that says neighbourhood plans can make minor changes to the green belt, whilst still meeting the conformity test, if it it needed to meet local needs then no inspector will approve the proposal and any objector (including the LPA) would be successful on a legal challenge Re above, none of IoW is in green belt, typical greenfield green belt confusion.

Andrew, Thank you for your comments. A housing estate was constructed on the site of a former NHS Hospital, sold by the Secretary of State with planning permission to demolish and convert the total area of the hospital site, and associated buildings up to the boundaries for 35 dwellings. This was a children’s hospital and as such, there was a school directly on the surface of the plot I have described. The developer completed 23 houses and the remaining 12 plots were sold to different developers and individuals, who then applied for planning with new designs and layouts of their own. 34 have been built, No 34 completed in 2002. The last plot when purchased in 1995, from the developer was then flagged over with a Kio pond and accessed from the adjoining property. The owner of the adjoining property who purchased the plot now wishes to build a retirement bungalow to complete the 35 in line with original permission given. In 2005 IPP was adopted and in their view, the plot is now a garden and so it would be a Greenfield site, so a possible no? It is agreed the plot/site is large enough for a single dwelling without issues in terms of access and living conditions of nearby occupants. Any one in four is acceptable for development, we believe there are two. • Previously-Developed land /Brownfield • The proposal is for no more units on the development that already have original planning to the site boundaries that the council agreed, and the Secretary of State sold with the site, in 1988. With the government proposing to sell land for housing with planning, this should make a good topic. Your valued comments please. Paul

Paul, hi good question but answers to questions like those are charged by the hour. I have previously gone through every single major site in greenbelt appeal so should be able to give you an answer. The law on abandonment is key here. andrew.lainton@btopenworld.com

Paul, let's start with the apparent facts. This is now a garden and therefore greenfield. But that does not mean even under PPS3 housing development is unacceptable - you need to establish the overall adopted policy approach to the development of greenfield land and whether there is any detailed resistance to garden development. Check out the UDP, Core Strategy etc. If these don't rule out all greenfield development and specificially any garden development the logical way forward is to get the scheme right. Design it well so there are no objections, make sure there are no highway issues and reduce prospects of neighbour objections - in other words remove any real grounds for objection on detailed matters. We had a recent appeal decision allowed in my own borough on a split greenfield/PDL site. it is not a garden but demonstrates the common sense view of PINS and the use of wider considerations than is it just green or brown. The Inspector was of the view that the site was in a sustainable location and would not compromise the strategic approach to developing PDL. Importantly he regarded the site as "not typical of greenfield sites" seeing it as overgrown vacant land enclosed by development. In your case it appears that an infill plot was envisaged from the start.

Previously-Developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any fixed surface infrastructure. If there was a school on the surface of the land is it previously developed YES or NO,? If Mr Grant Shapps is going to ease planning restictions, and build 100,000 new homes on previously-developed land, he needs to have an independent body to say it is previously-developed and their word to be final, if not the time and money wasted in commitee meetings will stop his plans dead in the water.