As we have previously reported, the latest updates to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) include significant changes to Green Belt policy, particularly regarding the definition and assessment of ‘Grey Belt’ land.

These changes aim to streamline the planning process for development on certain previously developed or underperforming Green Belt sites, while still maintaining the core principles of Green Belt protection.

The updated NPPF also emphasises the need to meet housing demands, including affordable housing, and encourages the development of previously developed land before considering greenfield sites.

But there seem to be almost weekly updates on how these new rules are being interpreted by councils, and planning inspectors at appeal.

Take the recent example of a Grey Belt appeal that was allowed by an Inspector, who ruled that a nearby settlement, which had been described as a “large built-up area”, was actually a village.

The outline proposal from Byond Homes for 270 homes on 15 hectares of green belt land near Smallfield in Surrey had been refused by Tandridge District Council in 2024.

However, the inspector overturned the decision when they concluded that the site adhered to the revised definition of Grey Belt land under national policy.

The initial application was rejected because it would contribute to urban sprawl – something the Green Belt rules are designed to stop.

However, because the updated PPG (Planning Practice Guidance dated February 2025) states that protections around urban sprawl no longer apply to villages, the appeal depended on whether Smallfield was designated as a village or a larger urban area.

In his consideration, inspector David Prentis ruled that despite Smallfield being described as a built-up area in a 2015 green belt review, with its 3,800 population it was actually closer to being a village.

He also considered that the public benefits of the proposed development outweighed any harm. These included 49% affordable housing, green spaces, flood alleviation and highways upgrades, and its situation in a sustainable location.

Other appeal decisions have focused on how to interpret whether a particular site contributes significantly to the three purposes of a Green Belt designation and maintaining openness by restricting urban sprawl, preventing the merging of towns or preserving the setting of historic towns.

Even here, where a local planning authority and an Inspector might agree, the Court has intervened; a case in point being the Broad Lane, Beaconsfield example, where the Planning Inspector’s decision regarding an appeal was quashed by the High Court with the consent of the Secretary of State and Buckinghamshire Council. In that particular case the High Court found that the Inspector’s decision failed to consider whether the site complied with the “Golden Rules” related to Green Belt development. This appeal will now be re-determined by a different inspector.

Paul Smith at Milton Keynes-based Apex Planning Consultants, comments: “The case has been fairly widely reported; however, I think it can be added that the new Grey Belt definition is still causing lots of debate as councils and developers continue to reach consensus on how it should be defined. And then how that definition is applied to individual sites, as well as the particular proposed developments on them.

‘’It makes it an interesting period, but one that is fraught with doubt. Indeed, there remain differences in how Grey Belt is defined even between the planning inspectors. As some people are saying, with a heavy pinch of dark humour, it bodes well for the lawyers!’’

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Grey Belt Proves a Grey Area for Planners appeared first on Apex Planning.

The Newly Assigned Grey Belt

If you read last month’s blog, you might be wondering where the term ‘Grey Belt’ came from. If you’ve not encountered it before, you’re not the only one! It’s a very new term, coined by the new Labour government – and one of a number of targeted changes concerning the Green Belt listed in the proposed 2024 revision of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The Grey Belt concept has been suggested in an attempt to bridge the gap between the requirement for more housing, and the restrictions on available land that could be built on.

When deputy prime minister Angela Rayner outlined changes to the NPPF, in a bid to help the government achieve its housing target of 1.5 million homes over the next parliament, it included a requirement for local authorities to review their Green Belt, if needed, to meet housing targets and prioritise local quality Grey Belt land, ie, land with high sustainable development potential.

Freeing up some Green Belt land, by redefining it as Grey Belt is part of the plan. So what is Grey Belt land? In essence, it’s land that doesn’t really contribute to the purpose of Green Belt, and so far has been described as:

• Previously-developed land (PDL) within the Green Belt, and
• Green Belt parcels that contribute minimally to its five primary purposes, excluding environmentally valuable lands or those of significant importance, such as national parks and sites of special scientific interest (SSSI).

The final definition has yet to be made concrete, as the government seeks the views of those involved with planning and development, amongst others, to assess if more criteria need to be added. We will see that in the revised National Planning Policy Framework, due at the end of this year, or beginning of 2025.

However, within the planning industry, it is said that this is just the first step towards rethinking the purpose of the Green Belt and the restrictions on development. As far as we know, though, Grey Belt land will not become a free-for-all but will still be subject to restrictions and hurdles when it comes to development.

Some Grey Belt development might happen where a new local plan cannot identify sufficient non-Green Belt land to deliver sufficient homes to meet identified need, in those cases Grey Belt sites should be prioritised. It is also believed that councils that are not delivering on housing supply, or that have out-of-date local plans, will have more pressure on them to approve housing development on Grey Belt land. That means that either they have delivered less than 75% of the new homes they should have over the previous three years (the ‘Housing Delivery Test’), or they don’t have enough deliverable housing sites available to meet their needs for the next five years.

As a result, the CPRE (the countryside charity) is concerned that “developers will see these changes as a green light to proceed with big new speculative development proposals for lots of market-based or ‘executive homes’ in inappropriate locations in the countryside such as prime agricultural land and highly valued local landscape.” CPRE Hertfordshire 12/9/24.

However, the government is fanfaring its ‘golden rules’ that must be met by developments to secure planning permission, as a way to justify its proposal and allay some fears:

1. At least half of the new homes should be affordable housing,
2. Infrastructure – like roads, schools and healthcare provision – should be improved where necessary, and
3. New residents should be able to easily walk to a good quality green space – which could mean providing a new one or upgrading an existing space.

Land Designations

While we’re here, let’s take a look at the other designations of land when it comes to planning:

Green Belt

Green Belt is land protected from most development apart from government-stated exceptions. This land tends to be around the metropolitan towns and cities – the most famous being that around London – however, Green Belt land exists in the north too. There are five purposes although the most well-known is to prevent the coalescence of settlements – cities creeping out into the surrounding villages and countryside. In all, the National Planning Policy states the five purposes are:

1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas,
2. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another,
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment,
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

However, many of those who work in the planning world believe that its original purpose needs serious review, especially when you consider that it came into effect about 80 years ago (1947 Town and Country Planning Act) and has been followed by huge population growth and a continuing demand for housing, employment and so on.

Greenfield Land

Not to be confused with Green Belt, is Greenfield land. This is typically undeveloped land and can be found inside and beyond urban locations. It’s more often referred to as the ‘countryside’. However, it can also relate to amenity land within urban areas. Those who wish to develop Greenfield land will still have hurdles to overcome, but they’ll be different from those encountered when trying to build on Green Belt land.

Brownfield Land

Brownfield is also known as ‘previously developed land’ meaning just that, it’s land that has been developed upon. It may still be in active use, or it could be vacant or derelict. Brownfield is where governments in general have wanted developers to focus on, before they look at other kinds of sites. This will remain the case irrespective of the potential introduction of Grey Belt land.

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Grey Area: What is the New Grey Belt? appeared first on Apex Planning.

The Future of Green Belt

As the battle for the Tory party leadership continues, a promise by Rishi Sunak could have a major impact on the planning arena.

The former Chancellor has said that, should he become Prime Minister, he will block house building on Green Belt and that new development should only take place on brownfield sites – with “inner-city densification’’ vital to increasing available housing. This implies that councils appealing to the Planning Inspectorate for Green Belt boundary changes in order to release land for new housing would be automatically rejected.

Green Belt land makes up 12.4% of land in England (according to analysis carried out by the House of Commons library – this has shrunk by 1% since 2006) – and Sunak claims in a tweet that Green Belt land is extremely precious in the UK:

“We’ve seen too many examples of local councils circumventing the views of residents by taking land out of the Green Belt for development, but I will put a stop to it.’’

Instead, he suggests that up to one million homes could be built on brownfield sites – especially in areas such as the West Midlands, Yorkshire, and north-west England,

Henry Hill, writing in the New Statesman, is not impressed by the pledge, saying:

“Thank goodness. After all, the data reveals that Britain’s Green Belt has shrunk by 1 per cent – you read that right, 1 per cent – since 2006. If these trends continue, the entire Green Belt will have been paved over in just 1,000 years. A week is supposed to be a long time in politics; a millennium, apparently, is not.’’

Sunak’s suggestion has not been well received by think tanks, including The Institute for Economic Affairs. Matthew Lesh, head of public policy, said:

“Rishi Sunak’s housing proposals would flush aspiration down the drain. It reveals a serious lack of ambition to reform the country and boost living standards… Planning restrictions significantly push up the cost of living, while making home ownership unattainable, forcing people into lower paying jobs and increasing commute times and pollution.’’

According to leading think tank The Adam Smith Institute, building homes where people want to live and work is:

“Vital if we want to turbo-charge growth and reduce the cost of living”.

However, Tom Fyans, director of campaigns and policy at CPRE, the countryside charity, said: “Rishi Sunak is right to raise the creeping development of the Green Belt – which is the countryside next door for 30 million people.

“Piece by piece, local authorities are eating into protected countryside, using blunt, numerical targets that fail to deliver the affordable and social housing people need.

“Our countryside is on the front line of the fight against the climate emergency, and it cannot afford to be lost to unnecessary development.

“The latest data show plans for over quarter of a million homes to be built on the Green Belt.

“Such a loss would be an absurd destruction of our natural heritage, particularly when there is space for 1.3 million homes to be built on brownfield land.

“Applications to change Green Belt boundaries in order to release land for housing have soared five-fold since 2013.’’

However, it is our opinion that many of the statements above are one dimensional and simplistic. Many in the planning sector have, for a long time, been calling for a sensible debate in respect to the role and purpose of the Green Belt and the protections afforded to it. It is true to say that not much of the Green Belt is ‘lush, open countryside’, much of it is developed and or derelict. There are opportunities to use such sites efficiently to deliver housing without truly affecting the original principles and purpose of the Green Belt. Arguably, the Green Belt and the policy on development of such land has been hijacked by those that are NIMBY-leaning.

The attitude towards the protection of Green Belt land also fails to consider population growth since the 1940s when the first designations were made. There are some settlements that are utterly constrained by Green Belt around them and there are limited or no brownfield sites within the urban areas to provide for the identified and pressing housing requirements. The result is that this constrains the supply of housing.

We are not the first to say this. However, we fervently believe the housebuilding, planning sectors and government – the public and private sectors – must have a grown-up conversation and agree how Green Belt land should be protected, but also how its boundaries can be amended in places, thus allowing some development and the delivery of vital housing.

The planning industry will be watching this leadership race with great interest…

If you would like to discuss your own project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Sunak pledges to protect Green Belt appeared first on Apex Planning.

Affordable housing

These homes include social rented, affordable rented, intermediate and shared ownership housing that can be available for either sale or rent, and offer the chance for those not able to buy or rent privately on the open market, for their own home. They can be provided by councils, housing associations / registered social landlords and private developers. Social rented homes are rented in accordance with government guidelines and are typically quite low and therefore affordable to most people. Affordable rents are typically set at rents not more than 80% of the local market rent. Intermediate housing can be a range of homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels. Shared ownership is where an occupier will buy / mortgage a share of the property, with remainder retained by the housing association and the occupier pays a rent on this share.

Air quality management areas

Local authorities identify these areas that will not meet the necessary national air quality levels required by the relevant deadlines.

Ancient or veteran tree

A tree that is of exceptional  biodiversity, cultural or heritage value, because of its age, size and condition. Their loss can result in a planning applications being refused permission.

Ancient woodland

An area that has consistently been woodland since 1600 or earlier.

Brownfield Land

Also called previously developed land. Land that is or has been the site of a permanent structure. It does not apply to agricultural land.

Building Regulations

Minimum standards required when designing, constructing or altering a building. Covers issues such as safety of stairs and banisters, electrical safety and security of a property.

Buffer Zone

An area of land that separates a development from neighbouring land – for instance if that land has been used for waste development, or mineral extraction.

Deliverable

A phrase most often used to describe a site for housing that is available, is in a suitable area for development, and which can realistically be used to deliver [completed] housing within five years.

Designated rural areas

Areas designated as rural include National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Development plan

The plans for development of an area; this can include adopted local plans, neighbourhood plans, and published spatial development strategies, along with any regional strategy policies. They identify allocated land [for different uses] and policies that will guide the determination of applications and appeals.

Planning condition

A condition imposed when planning permission is granted – for instance the materials to be used or the time within which the development must be finished. The wording of conditions can sometimes mean an applicant is required to submit further information to a council for its consideration and agreement, and until this happens the development cannot commence.

Eco-Town

Developments that meet high sustainability requirements, use low and zero carbon technologies and offer quality public transport systems. These areas will also use brownfield land and surplus public sector land where possible,

Elevation

The actual face or façade of the building.

Enforcement Notice

Planning authorities can serve these notices if work is carried out without planning permission or does not accord to the planning permission granted. They can demand that any work is corrected or reversed – even if it means demolishing a newly built property.

Green Belt

Land designated around cities and other built-up areas, with an aim of keeping the land open and undeveloped. This stops the coalescence of neighbouring settlements and large cities from sprawling into countryside.

Green Corridor or Wildlife Corridor

They help to make development more sustainable through biodiversity enhancement by creating connected habitats for wildlife.

High demand housing areas

Places where there is high demand for housing, which can push up rent costs and house prices.

Key Worker Living

This Government scheme, implemented in 2004, helps key workers (normally public sector employees e.g. police, nurses and teachers) in high-costs areas such as London and the South East to rent affordable properties, buy a home, or upgrade to a family home.

Listed building

This has special architectural or historic interest. Grade I is the highest listing and usually applies to historically significant buildings such as castles, and cathedrals. Grade II* applies to buildings that have special interest, and Grade II to buildings that are of enough interest to warrant preserving.

You must apply for listed building consent for anything that may change the fabric of a listed building, which can include internal and external works. For repairs, you must use similar materials – for example when repointing. It is always advisable to seek professional advice before commencing works to ascertain whether listed building consent should be obtained. Failure to obtain listed building consent is classified as a criminal offence.

Local plan

The plan that has been made for the future development of the local area, which is drawn up by the local planning authority in consultation with the community – see Development Plan above.

Rural Exception Site

A small area that offers affordable housing in a rural area where housing would not normally be allowed but where the local community requires it due to family or employment connections. Such housing will be retained as affordable in perpetuity. A small number of homes on the open market may also be allowed, if it is necessary to financially enable the development.

Urban regeneration

Using job creation and environmental (built and natural) improvements to renew an urban area, and to stimulate development once more.

Village Envelope

A boundary designated around a village, where development may be allowed in principle. These lines will usually be drawn very closely to existing homes to stop the village sprawling too much, therein protecting the surrounding countryside from development.

If you would like to discuss your own project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Planning terms made easy appeared first on Apex Planning.

We look back at the changes 2018 has brought to the planning arena, and look into our crystal ball to consider what may happen in 2019…

2018 a year in retrospect

This time last year, we saw a new housing and planning minister in the shape of Dominic Raab. He wasn’t to be in position for long though – by July, he had moved on to become the Brexit secretary, and was replaced by Kit Malthouse.

Councils across England were able to raise their planning application fees by 20%, thanks to new regulations that were approved by the House of Lords right at the end of 2017.

By March, there were big changes ahead for planning, when Theresa May launched draft revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which aimed to boost protection of the Green Belt, speed up housing delivery rates and make the most of urban land. The finalised revised NPPF appeared at the end of July.

The government also said that it was going to review the planning inquiry procedures, to speed them up – the plan was in fact to halve the time it took to produce a decision. This was ambitious, but it was generally welcomed by planners and applicants, although nobody was under any illusion as to the challenge that was faced.

Local plans also came under the spotlight, as the government took to task three authorities that it believed were taking too long to produce their plans – and threatened to intervene if they were unable to justify their reasons.

There was good news for the farming community in the spring, when extended permitted development allowed agricultural buildings to be converted into homes with a floor space of almost double what had been allowed previously. The change also allowed for variety in the size and number of dwellings that would be created.

There was another new face in parliament as James Brokenshire took over from Sajid Javid as Housing Secretary.

As ever in planning, plans are approved and rejected – while in Essex three new garden communities proposed by Braintree District Council, Colchester Borough Council and Tendring District Council were found to be ‘unsound’ by a Planning Inspector, in London, the redevelopment of the Elephant and Castle shopping centre into just under 1,000 homes was approved, despite protests.

In the summer, the government invited bids under the heading of ‘garden communities’. Garden towns were to have more than 10,000 homes, while ‘garden villages’ would have 1,500 or more.

Come the autumn, there was new guidance covering assessing housing need and plan making, thanks to changes in the Planning Practice Guidance. The budget also allowed for new permitted development rights – so that commercial buildings can be replaced with housing, and high street properties can be converted for different uses.

Planning on making everything look better was the new Building Better, Building Beautiful commission, which aimed to improve the quality of new homes, while local authorities faced penalties thanks to a new housing delivery test, which failed to appear on schedule.

What’s happening in 2019?

The revised NPPF will apply to any local plans that are submitted from 24 January, however Friends of the Earth has instigated a judicial review and a decision is still to be forthcoming from the High Court.

New unitary councils will come into play in Dorset in April, while Buckinghamshire’s is to come into force in 2020 – covering Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe. Consultations are also underway for changes in Northamptonshire.

More updates are expected to the Planning Practice Guidance – covering determining housing figures, green belt policy and so on.

We should also get news on the latest round of garden communities – 100 applications were received before the 9 November 2018 deadline – and February should see the government response to the Letwin review of build-out.

Just before Christmas we saw draft regulations on developer contributions, so we expect some movement on that this year.

We are also waiting for a report from the review of the planning appeal inquiries process, which is yet to be forthcoming, and for the Planning (Appeals) Bill, which is due to be put forward towards the end of January.

Another busy year ahead for the planning world!

If you would like to discuss your own project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post A Year of Change appeared first on Apex Planning.

With the Budget looming, the world of planning has again hit the headlines for several reasons.

Of course, there is the usual abuse directed toward the delivery of housing – it’s the fault of the greedy developers / incompetent local planning authorities (*delete as applicable!) – which has become tedious for its inaccuracies as much for its lazy thought process and journalism, but also encouraging for the apparent moves being made to try to make positive changes.

The alleged misuse of the ‘viability loophole’, which allows developers to negotiate a reduction in the provision of affordable housing (AH), is frustrating. There would be greater sympathy if all developers were at fault, and development sites and regions across the country were being deprived of all AH, but that is simply not the case.

Affordable housing

There are certainly examples where developments are subject to some reduction – sometimes a significant reduction – however, in other instances there is full provision. One must always take a step back and remember that Local Plan policies have always been worded to allow negotiation on the precise amount of AH to be provided, for instance where they might seek ‘up to 30% provision’. Andrew Whitaker, Planning Director of the Home Builders Federation (HBF), has been widely reported on this matter, highlighting that even viability returns are negotiable, discussed and agreed with LPAs, so the process is not underhand. One cannot force developers to build houses where the development is not viable.

Whitaker states: “Without a willing landowner and developer you get no development and thus no affordable housing. A willing landowner will become unwilling if they do not get an acceptable price for their land, and a developer will not be a willing developer if they do not get an acceptable return on their investment.” (HuffPost, 31st October 2017)

In a previous blog, Apex Planning Consultants has highlighted steps to assist with the delivery of AH; indeed, the Government recently announced a £2bn increase in funding for AH. Furthermore, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has indicated that the viability assessment system might be reformed, as it is currently consulting on proposed changes to the approach. This is intended to make decision-making speedier and more transparent. We would contend that it is already transparent and if it goes further the developers are in danger of having their commercially sensitive information made public. A more relevant task would be to make the system simpler and easier for members of the public to understand, although this will be difficult without omitting technical jargon and complicated calculations. However, they often bemoan the complicated nature of the viability process, believing that they are being excluded from making any meaningful input, so a simpler system would automatically allow for more transparency.

Green Belt planning

Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “I’m sure the budget will be covering housing.” And Chancellor Philip Hammond is said to be pressing for housing to be provided on Green Belt land, although this is not popular within his own party – in part due to the amount of Green Belt land in the Conservative Party’s Home Counties stronghold.

Green Belt policy is one of the most divisive because there has been little change to it since its inception and original purpose. As a nation we must all be realistic and accept that we have a significantly larger population, we already have high-density development and, despite 20 years advocating the redevelopment of brownfield land, the NIMBYs continue to oppose any and all development. We must consider alternative uses and allow for an honest assessment of Green Belt land, with those parts (sometimes very small) that contribute nothing significant to the purpose of the policy being made available for housing development. This appraisal should be quick and streamlined, perhaps adopting a process like the preparation of Brownfield Registers, rather than relying on the lengthy review of Local Plans.

We’ll have more about upcoming changes to planning matters next month…

If you would like to discuss your own project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Budget looms large over planning issues appeared first on Apex Planning.

This is to be done using Local Development Orders (LDOs), which basically give blanket planning permission as long as the developer adheres to specific conditions. The aim of this is to speed up the application process and to avoid long, drawn-out sagas.

The onus has been put on local planning authorities to grant LDOs on 90 per cent of their brownfield land by 2020, otherwise the Government will put them in special measures, which will mean that developers will apply for planning permission directly to the Government, and not to local planning authorities.

On the other hand, the speech also said that the Government was committed to allowing local people more say on planning in their area – along with more protection of the Green Belt.

Local Development Order

Preparing a Development Order is no mean feat – it’s pretty complex, as it has to offer a balance between being too open and allowing developers’ free rein, and risking poor design, and being so restrictive that developers are put off investing. Technical expertise will be needed to write a suitable LDO, so with a target of 90 per cent of brownfield sites by 2020, local planning authorities may well start looking to developers to offer some financial help.

House builders are a likely source as the Help to Buy scheme has inspired confidence in these kinds of long-term projects. However, we must remember that brownfield sites will not produce all the land needed to meet housing demand – and with more restrictions on the Green Belt, it may be harder than ever for first-time buyers to get a foot on the housing ladder.

Glenigan Research

However, recent research has shown that there has been a sharp upturn in approval of new homes on Green Belt sites.

Glenigan research showed that 11,977 new homes were approved on Green Belt in 2014/2015. In 2009/10 plans for only 2,258 homes were approved.

In response to these figures, Housing Minister Brandon Lewis told the BBC: “We have outlined what local areas need to do if they want to go through a review of their Green Belt. It is very much a matter for those local authorities. They are the best placed people locally, democratically accountable locally, to decide where the right location for any development is.”

This suggests that while the Conservatives made much of their commitment to protecting the Green Belt in their manifesto, the fact that the local authorities will have responsibility for strategic planning policy means that MPs could, in reality, have little control over Green Belt land.

Presumably, the assumption is that local planning authorities will protect their Green Belt land by opposing any development, but as housing demand grows, we imagine they might well be tested on their resolve. This is particularly likely to be the case around London and the Home Counties.

If you would like to discuss your own project with us, or find out more about what we do, please visit the website at www.apexplanning.co.uk or drop us a line at info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Brown is the New Green for Planners appeared first on Apex Planning.