Have the NPPF Green Belt changes gone far enough?

As the dust continues to settle on the publication of the new NPPF, and we all start to get our heads round matters and monitor appeal decisions in relation to ‘Grey Belt’ schemes, my question is, could even more have been done with regard to the amendments to Green Belt policy.

The majority of planning practitioners have long been in agreement that national Green Belt policy has not been fit for purpose. A line drawn on a plan in a local authority planning department many moons ago now means that – as in some cases – houses on one side of the road are governed by strict Green Belt policies limiting their future extension whilst the houses on the opposite side, outside of the Green Belt, are not.

However, despite this, it has been nigh on impossible to have a grown-up discussion about amendments to Green Belt policy at the highest level of politics in this country without being shouted down for wanting to “tarmac over the countryside”.  Of course, that has never been the intention of the majority but thankfully, things are seemingly heading in the right direction with the Green Belt changes in the new NPPF.

If we can summarise – and possibly over simplify - Grey Belt as pieces of Green Belt which don’t satisfy the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, then that will hopefully free up lots of much needed land for housing.  At the moment we are all on a bit of learning curve with it so it’ll take time to iron out and no doubt there will be a few more ‘corrections’ published by the Government.

Given this, another change which would have been very simple yet could have delivered a much more short-term boost for many LPA’s would be a tweak to paragraph 154 exception e – limited infilling in villages.

Whilst caselaw means that the site doesn’t have to be within a designated village and it’s about how the site relates to any settlement ‘on the ground’ – why couldn’t that particular exception just read, “limited infilling”?

Whilst I have had success with running paragraph 154 (e) cases both locally and on appeal, I have also been left frustrated by refusals and appeal dismissals which have come down to the subjectivity of whether a site is in a village or not.  I don’t see what harm removing that element of subjectivity can do given that, if the proposal is considered to be limited infill, it suggests that there will be development in close proximity to the site in any event, thus not causing material harm to the openness of the Green Belt.  Unless we are discussing the ‘sustainability’ of a Green Belt site – another argument for another day.  

Given that we have already had one re-issuing of the NPPF since December, I live in hope that further amendments might be made.