Changes of use of land in the green belt and the NPPF - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hi Mark, just picked this up. There are two ways of looking at this in terms of dealing with this type of application. 1. You may have gone a paragraph too far. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF is a copy and paste of paragraph 3.4 of PPG2. This means that the second bullet point applies- ● provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; In this case it would be sensible to remember the definition of facilities. Established by 3.5 of PPG2 bur now so enshrined in case law and understanding that it would be unreasonable to depart from it. Para 3.5 stated 3.5 Essential facilities (see second indent of paragraph 3.4) should be genuinely required for uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. Possible examples of such facilities include small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation for outdoor sport, or small stables for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation. Therefore the use of land is covered in this aspect and you should not be refusing the application, providing it does not conflict with the openness, etc. 2. The second way to consider it is the purpose and role of the NPPF which is a material consideration and only override the Development Plan if the Plan is silent, absent or not up-to-date. Assuming you have a development plan that included policies for dealing with Green Belt development and that policies were compliant and found sound under PPG2, there has been no fundamental shift in NPPF direction that would suddenly make those Green Belt policies in the Development Plan 'out-of-date'. The aims and objectives and purposes of including land in the Green Belt remain as per PPG2, it is largely a copy and paste. Therefore policies in the Development Plan should still be applied and form the basis of your decision making (Para 211 of the NPPF). As such I don't think you should be refusing applications for use of land unless they conflict with the purposes of including land within it, which most equine related activity, cemeteries, outdoor sport and recreation activity would not. I don't know who at the CLG you talked to but I think they have got that interpretation wrong.

Hi Andrew, Thank you for responding to my email thread. I had a similar thought process to you however para 89 specifically relates to the construction of new buildings as being inappropriate other than the exceptions. On this basis I agree a stable building for example would not be inappropriate development provided it preserves the openness of the green belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. I am concerned that paragraph 89 is not the applicable paragraph to be considering other forms of development. Paragraph 90 gives an exhaustive list of certain other forms of development which are also not inappropriate provided they preserve the openness of the green belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the green belt. This list does not include the making of a material change of use which is why I have reached the conclusion I have. You raise an interesting point regarding whether a change of use which is related to the erection of an appropriate facility for outdoor sport or recreation can be considered to be considered to be appropriate by virtue of the operational development being acceptable in green belt terms. Could you advise of the basis of your interpretation? My Council has a Local Plan policy on green belt however the Local Plan was adopted under the TCPA 1990 and given that the NPPF does not include change sof use as an appropriate form of development I do not think that I can accord weight to the existing Local Plan policy which is out of date. Any views you have on the above are welcomed. Many thanks Mark

I think we are indeed in the peculiar position where facilities for outdoor sport/rec etc may not be inappropriate, but use of land for outdoor sport and rec most definitely is inappropriate. i think if a LP policy does not reflect the precise wording of para 90 (it says "these are:" when setting out what is not inappropriate - no room for debate whatsoever), then it would not accord and therefore would not be considered in preference to the wording in the NPPF. There does seem to be an oddity about this, but it is presumably intentional if DCLG have confirmed your unterpretation.

Mark, my interpretation in Part 1 of my answer comes directly from the National Planning Casework Unit. I am dealing with an application for a cemetery in the Green Belt at the moment and have asked directly as part of the pre-empting a call-in and direction. I also discussed this with them and a number of planning consultants at our recent Regional Committee committee meeting as they are based in Birmingham. It is one of the advantages of being an active member of the Regional Committee is that you can talk to and draw upon the experience and advice of a number of fellow professionals. Re Part 2 - Being Chair of the RTPI West Midlands last year also meant I chaired and attended a number of planning law updates and NPPF seminars where Green Belt and the status of the NPPF and Development Plan was discussed. I may have paraphrased the comments slightly but the emphasis and ethos is one that I know a number of QCs at No5 Chambers in Birmingham and Planning Solicitors have been expressing. Incidentally Para 3.12 of PPG2 is under the 'minerals extraction and other operations' title and therefore the development covered in Para 90 relates to this and not to the purposes of including land in the green belt which is for agriculture, outdoor sport and recreation. Hence my statement on going a para too far. I have read a number of PPG2 appeals recently where 3.4 is used for the use of the land too. Put 2113244 into the portal appeal search and a cemetery application comes up. You can always give it a go at an appeal but I think you would be robustly told to go forth..... Personally and professionally I would not try it as a sole reason as I think you would go down for costs. Jon - I think you need to get some QC/legal advice about the issue of 'general conformity' of your local plan and the nppf because none from the many I have talked to on the NPPF, they do not share your opinion.

One final point Para 81 of NPPF replaces Para 1.6. Para 81: Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land. As previously stated if you get to para 90 when you are considering outdoor sport, recreation or other appropriate development in the Green Belt (as you would have accepted under PPG2), you have gone too far. No conspiracy theory.