Clarity around grey-belt land is crucial, what do we need to know?
I authored a piece for Property Week which explored the proposed introduction of grey-belt land in the National Planning Policy Framework consultation – highlighting some of the concerns raised by respondents.
“For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, grey-belt is defined as land in the green belt comprising previously developed land and any other parcels and/or areas of green-belt land that make a limited contribution to the five green-belt purposes, as defined in paragraph 140 of this framework, but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance listed in footnote 7 of this framework, other than land designated as green belt.”
The definition raises key points including:
- A lack of clarity in the definition means the interpretation is likely to be played out at appeal and in the courts, taking longer and incurring additional costs.
- By way of example, it is not clear whether the ‘limited contribution’ limb of the definition applies to both ‘previously developed land’ and ‘other parcels of green-belt land’, or just the latter?
- There was a lot of scrutiny over the proposed ‘golden rules’ that grey-belt land will need to comply with to facilitate planning permission being granted. Concerns have been raised that the government is placing responsibility on the private sector to improve existing local shortfalls, and not only to mitigate the impact of their developments. Examples of this may include a number of public sector bodies, from health trusts to police authorities, looking for developers to fund deficits through financial contributions.
The government would be wise to take its time to ensure the drafting of the grey-belt provisions is as clear and as precise as possible, otherwise there are likely to be greater delays in the delivery of its much-promised housing.
Read the full article in Property Week here.
Subcribe to news and views
