The latest NPPF para 145 States:
limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of
previously developed
land, whether redundant or in continuing use
(excluding temporary buildings),
which would:
‒ not have a
greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the
existing development; or
‒ not cause substantial harm to the
openness of the Green Belt, where the
development would re-use
previously developed land and contribute to
meeting an identified
affordable housing need within the area of the local
planning authority.
Am I reasonable to say "not cause substantial harm" will be
only applicable to affordable housing development? Other development
will still need to satisfy "not greater impact"? If
following the recent court case logic of considering residential
garden outside settlement boundary as PDL, how the "greater"
impact would be accessed? Comparing to the volumn of the existing
outbuilding? What if there is no outbuilding?
