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

Dear John, you may be interested to know that we asked CLG a similar question last week. We will let you know the outcome. The query was a bit lengthy but is as follows: PPG 2 indicates that Green Belts are established through development plans. In particular it states that detailed Green Belt boundaries are established through district wide local plans. Imagine then a community that has limited development opportunities within its built up area and is tightly constrained by the Green Belt. If that community wishes to provide for more development and wishes to do this on land that is currently designated as Green Belt, can a Neighbourhood Development Plan be used to alter a Green belt boundary? In our case the Council's adopted Core Strategy indicates that a Green Belt review will be carried out through a Land Allocations DPD to ensure sufficient land is allocated to meet the District's housing requirement. So under those circumstances there would not be a conflict between a NDP and the parent plan. However, we are conscious that a NDP is not a DPD and so technically it is probably not a legitimate vehicle for altering a Green Belt boundary. However, in the days of localism that could sound like town hall bureaucracy stifling local initiative. On the other hand if the local planning authority tells an organisation that is preparing a NDP that it can't alter its Green Belt boundary the consequence may be that the community turns round and says its not going to plan for growth because the local planning authority says it can't change the Green Belt boundary. And it would be too convoluted to propose Green Belt boundary changes in a Land Allocations DPD in parallel with the preparation of a NDP. Also of course at a strategic level the Chancellor last week announced that the coalition government will maintain a strong policy protection for the Green Belt. How does whatever that mean tie in with a localist view?

Thanks Sarah - will be interesting to see what CLG say . Have received a useful response from Harriet Fisher at Derbyshire County Council: 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).

Dear John, below is the response from CLG. It does not answer the more fundamental question we asked about the strong policy protection for Green Belts I am afraid. I assume that is up to us to determine. "We believe that a neighbourhood plan may indeed make minor changes to green belt boundaries and that it may do so and still be in general conformity with the rest of the area's development plan."

I personally would be very worried if communities had the power to review and change green belt boundaries through neighbourhood plans. I'm not sure whether communities have the expertise to carry out a coherant review that considers issues relevant to the wider area. A green belt review needs to be looked at more strategically, in the context of the bigger picture, not by individual communities at the sub-local level.

I may have missed a trick but the Localism Bill does amend the 2004 Act Section 38 to make neighbourhood plans part of the Development Plan. I have also read DCLG advice that they cannot be used to for important strategic matters including larger housing or employment sites. And of course localism does not equate to freedom to do absolutely anything and you are correct Government is certainly very committed to Green Belt. Maybe the forthcoming National Policy Statement will make it clear where changes to the Green Belt should be justified. In this context I think you are asking the wrong thing of NPs. Surely if the Core Strategy is providing the lead for the borough's development and this relies on Green Belt release for housing delivery then the Council needs to ensure this will happen. The only certain way is through an Allocations Plan. It strikes me that uncertainties around community acceptance and relying on the whim/final outcome of a referendum is a high risk strategy. I suppose the caveat to this is how significant the development is and crutial to delivery without which other areas would be under pressure for more housing development. My own view is that the most logical approach is to prepare an Allocations Plan in a manner that involves local communities in such a way that there would be no real demand/need for a NP as community aspirations have been met. Maybe I'm slightly cautious in this area since our recently adopted Core Strategy relies on subsequent Green Belt release in an identified location for employment with the exact boundary to be firmed up in an Allocations DPD. I think there will be considerable debate within the local community about the acceptability of the development (which will be in line with the CS and not up for grabs) and also the exact boundary (which is). I'm not sure whether community consensus will result and to pursue this very strategic 80 hectare site via a NP would not necessarily deliver.

I picked this debate up on the GEneral Forum and repeat my comment from there below (apologies if you've seen it before!): 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.