A decision by the Court of Appeal on a combined appeal made in relation to housing development could have a significant impact on green belt development.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says "Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." The judgement in this case broadened the definition of "relevant policies" so that it can be taken to refer to all policies that create or constrain housing development. This includes the designation of green belt land, which is a constraint on development.
In essence, if a local planning authority does not have a five-year housing supply, then these other policies are considered to be out-of-date. However, it is still up to those making a decision on a planning application about how much weight should be given to these policies, bearing in mind that the "presumption in favour of sustainability" still applies which says where relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission must be granted unless:
The judgement made by Justices Jackson, Vos and Lindblom said that "the concept [of relevant policies] extends to plan policies whose effect is to influence the supply of housing land by restricting the locations where new housing may be developed – including, for example, policies for the Green Belt, policies for the general protection of the countryside, policies for conserving the landscape of areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks, policies for the conservation of wildlife or cultural heritage, and various policies whose purpose is to protect the local environment in one way or another by preventing or limiting development."
Cedrec's take
The effect of this judgement remains to be seen in practice. However, there is a chance that some local planning authorities and their green belts could be significantly impacted as a result of it.
For example, some local planning authorities may have little land left, and may get to a point where it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. If this means that their policies around protected land such as green belts are then considered out-of-date, it could potentially lead to the erosion of protection for the green belt and other green spaces.
It must be noted that the judgement does not appear to mean that, where a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be shown, planning permission must be granted for proposed housing development on green belt land. Rather it would seem that the protection given to green belts by local planning policy would be diminished, which could potentially lead to an increase in the development of houses on the green belt in certain areas.
