One of the key changes to the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework is to provide greater scope for new development within the Green Belt through the introduction of a new Grey Belt designation.
Grey Belt is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to three of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, namely a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another or c) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
In addition, the Grey Belt designation does not apply to land covered by footnote 7 e.g. an SSSI, a National Park or a National Landscape (formerly AONB). The final definition is more flexible than that consulted on in the draft NPPF and so has the potential to be relevant to a relatively large number of sites.
For development to be considered appropriate it would need to comply with the Government’s ‘Golden Rules’.
The golden rules are as follows:
a. affordable housing which reflects either: development plan policies produced in accordance with the NPPF (ie, 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement which would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of 50%)
b. necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure
c. the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces.
The most significant of these, from a development viability perspective, is that all new residential development would be expected to deliver an additional 15% affordable over and above that is currently sought by existing affordable housing policy (capped at 50%).
The earlier draft of the NPPF had stated that a blanket 50% affordable housing requirement would be made of any new housing development in the Green Belt. When the revised version was published in December there was some relief that this requirement had been modified. These modifications appear to address concerns raised during the consultation period among the development industry, principally around the working of the Government’s previous benchmark land value (BLV) and the potential it had to disincentivise the release of land for development.
In addition, there is a clear objective that proposed affordable housing includes the provision of Socially Rented properties with multiple references to this form of housing within the NPPF. Social Rent housing typically generates less value than other forms of affordable housing and so coupled with the requirement to deliver a greater proportion of affordable housing could have viability implications in parts of the country where values are more marginal.
The Government acknowledges the potential viability implications with the Planning Practice Guidance being amended to state that it is the Government’s intention to review Viability Guidance to consider whether there are circumstances in which site-specific viability assessment may be taken into account. Until this takes place, the Guidance states that site-specific viability assessments should not be undertaken to reduce the provision of affordable housing. It is clear therefore that at least in the interim these targets are expected to be met in full.
These golden rules are expected to apply to any development within the Green Belt, be it on previously developed land, Grey Belt or any other Green Belt land, either as part of a planning application or allocated land which was previously Green Belt. In essence, these rules will be widely applicable.
The general rationale behind the ‘golden rules’ is to maximise the public gain that comes from providing an opportunity for development on land that would not have previously been considered acceptable.
In terms of the public benefit, increasing the supply of affordable housing is undoubtedly a ‘good thing’. It is also positive that the Government has moved to address viability implications raised by the development industry during consultation on the draft NPPF however it is evident that further work is underway to fully conclude on how viability issues will be addressed for individual proposals.
This is important as clearly land values vary across the country. While buoyant in the southeast, there are other regions where this is not the case. As a consequence land values in some areas will not be able to support 50% affordable housing (or even in areas where the 15% uplift results in a lower provision), particularly with a strong emphasis on social-rented provision, without undermining the quality of development whilst also still incentivising landowners to release land for development.
As a country, we are clearly in the midst of a housing crisis and the development industry can and should play a pivotal role in delivering additional affordable housing. It is right that the quid pro quo of enabling new development on appropriate sites within the Green Belt is the delivery of multiple benefits, key to achieving some form of local acceptance.
On this basis, developments in the Green Belt should deliver higher levels of affordable housing. The final NPPF is positive as it puts forward an alternative mechanism for delivering increased affordable housing on Grey Belt sites when compared to the draft NPPF however in some parts of the country viability issues are likely to remain. Until the final guidance is published on how viability issues are addressed on such sites there will continue to be some uncertainty on this important issue which may have implications on delivery.
