Annex G
CHAPTER 2C: GREEN BELTS
Authors: Cliff Hughes,
Geoff Salter, Jonathan Bore
Queries to: Jonathan Bore
Background: replaces Chapter E3 of the
old Inspectors' Handbook. Contains updated advice about the role
of the development plan in Green Belt cases. Incorporates the
advice in PINS Note 582, which is hereby cancelled.
Contents
Paragraphs
1-7—Aim, purposes and characteristics
of Green Belts
8-9—Designation of Green Belts
10-15—Issues in Green Belt cases
16-23—Reasoning
24-27—Where plan policies differ from
each other or diverge from PPG2
28-29—Agriculture
30-34—Housing
35-36—Changes in the use of land, and
engineering operations
37-38—Major developed sites
39-40—Proposed alterations to the Green
Belt boundary through the development plan process
41-44—Development proposals in areas where
Green Belt boundaries have not been determined, or are proposed
to change
2C: GREEN BELTS
Relevant Advice:
HMSO Booklet The Green Belts (out of date in
some respects)
Aim, purposes and characteristics of Green Belts
2C.1 The Government attaches great importance
to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to
prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
2C.2 There are five purposes of including
land in Green Belts:
to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up
areas;
to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into
one another;
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment;
to preserve the setting and special character
of historic towns; and
to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging
the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
2C.3 The most important attribute of Green
Belts is their openness; this openness is intended to be a permanent
characteristic of each piece of land in a Green Belt.
2C.4 The land use objectives set out in
paragraph 1.6 of PPG2 are not material factors in the continued
protection of Green Belt land. They should not be confused with
the purposes of Green Belts as set out above; it is these purposes
which are of key importance in most Inspectors' work.
2C.5 Green Belts often contain areas of
attractive landscape but the quality of the landscape is not relevant
to the continued protection of Green Belt land. Visual issues
(the effect on character and appearance of the landscape) are
separate from Green Belt issues (see also PPG2 1.7 and 3.15).
2C.6 It is important for Inspectors considering
proposals for development in areas within the Green Belt but close
to its boundary to bear in mind the long term nature of Green
Belts; they should not question the suitability of the boundary
of an approved Green Belt. They should bear in mind that the inner
fringes of some Green Belts are very fragmented, and are also
the most vulnerable to pressure for development that, if not resisted,
could lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belts.
2C.7 In "standing in the Secretary
of State's shoes", Inspectors need to be aware of the strength
of ministerial commitment to the Green Belt, which was confirmed
by the Secretary of State in February 1998 in "Planning for
Communities of the Future" (Command Paper 3885 paras 67-71).
Designation of Green Belts
2C.8 Green Belts are established and defined
through the development plan system (PPG2 2.1-2.14; see also 2C.39-40
below). The written statement of a structure plan sets out the
policy for any Green Belt in the plan area. Only the general location
and extent of Green Belt is indicated in the key diagram of a
structure plan; the boundary of a Green Belt is determined in
the local plan for the area, or, if there is no adopted local
plan yet, in the old style development plan. Green Belts defined
in structure and local plans supersede other previously approved
Green Belts and interim Green Belts.
2C.9 The following documents enable Inspectors
to establish whether a particular site is in the Green Belt (see
also 2C.41-44 below). They should be studied with care:
(i) an adopted local plan;
(ii) if there is no adopted local plan, the
adopted structure plan will provide the basis for decision when
the site is clearly inside or clearly outside the general location
of Green Belt indicated in the structure plan. However structure
plan key diagrams are purely illustrative and are not prepared
on an ordnance survey map base. They are not intended to be used
as though they were old style development plans of local plan
proposals maps;
(iii) if there is no adopted local plan and
the status of the site is not clear from the structure plan, the
Green Belt boundary in any approved 1962 Act development plan
which is still in force will be conclusive, provided the structure
plan does not indicate that the boundary is intended to be altered.
Issues in Green Belt cases
2C.10 Before setting down the issue, it
is often best to set the scene by stating that the site lies within
the Green Belt as defined in the relevant part of the development
plan, which should be named. A special approach is required where
Green Belt boundaries have not been determined, or are proposed
to change (see 2C.41-44).
2C.11 Inspectors should bear in mind the
primacy of the development plan; PPG2 is another (very important)
material consideration (see 2C.16 below).
2C.12 If the development plan policies closely
reflect PPG2 in their approach towards the particular proposal
and in their definition of appropriate development (see 2C.18),
it may be possible to frame the issue in this simple manner:
"Whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate
development in the Green Belt, and if so, whether there are any
very special circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption
against such development."
(The phrase exceptional circumstances should
not be used since this wrongly implies that an exception will
be made to policy.)
2C.13 Sometimes the development plan policies
differ materially from PPG2 in their approach to what is acceptable
and this is dealt with below at 2C.24-27.
2C.14 Issues which merely ask whether a
scheme conforms with, or conflicts with, Green Belt policy should
not normally be used as they are too general. However, an issue
which incorporates an objective of policy (such as the protection
of the Green Belt) is acceptable. The Green Belt issue should
not mention the effect on the landscape or the character and appearance
of the area. These, if they are disputed by the parties and are
important to the decision, should form the basis of a separate
issue. The maintenance of openness however is relevant to the
Green Belt—see 2C.3 and 2C.19.
2C.15 In some cases the main issues may
not revolve around Green Belt policy at all, for example where
the proposed development is appropriate in the Green Belt and
is accepted as such by the parties. In these cases it may be desirable
to state, as part of the scene-setting, that the development does
not conflict with the development plan policies for the protection
of the Green Belt and is appropriate development under the terms
of PPG2. The decision letter can then go on to identify the main
issues. If however there is disagreement among the parties as
to whether or not the development is appropriate in the Green
Belt, then it will be necessary to deal with this issue first,
in the manner described at 2C.10-14 above.
Reasoning
2C.16 S54A indicates that where an adopted
development plan contains relevant policies, an application or
appeal shall be determined in accordance with the plan, unless
material considerations indicate otherwise. Thus the first consideration
in a planning application or section 78 appeal in the Green Belt,
as elsewhere, is whether the proposal is in accordance with the
development plan. The High Court judgement in Houghton v SSE &
Bromley LBC (PINS HC/255) confirmed this as the correct approach.
2C.17 The next stage is to consider whether
there are material considerations which indicate that the decision
should be otherwise than indicated by the development plan. In
Green Belt cases, one of the material considerations will be PPG2.
It will be necessary at this stage to consider whether the proposal
is inappropriate development having regard to section 3 of PPG2.
2C.18 If the development plan policies closely
reflect PPG2 it will generally be possible to deal with the development
plan and PPG2 at the same time and assess whether the development
meets the relevant criteria for appropriate development. Paragraph
3.4 of PPG2 indicates the circumstances where development is not
considered to be inappropriate. This advice is amplified in succeeding
paragraphs of the note, and in Annexes C and D (for major developed
sites and the re-use of agricultural buildings). Cases where the
development plan is materially different from PPG2 are dealt with
below at 2C.24-27.
2C.19 An appeal proposal which amounts to
inappropriate development under the criteria set out in PPG2 will
by definition be harmful to the Green Belt. This is the case even
if the impact is slight, or where there is no harm in any other
way. It is important to indicate the type and degree of harm.There
are likely to be specific harmful effects which can be identified.
Harm might be caused by a reduction in the openness of the site,
or identified by reference to the purposes of including land in
Green Belts. It is often helpful at inquiry and in considering
decisions to ask the question "would the proposal keep the
site open?".
2C.20 For all inappropriate development,
consideration will need to be given as to whether there are special
circumstances which might outweigh the general presumption against
inappropriate development, and any non Green Belt harm (for example
traffic or noise and disturbance) which the proposal would cause.
Typical special circumstances claimed by appellants might include
job creation and economic growth. A balancing exercise is carried
out to find out whether the harm to the Green Belt is so outweighed
by positive factors as to constitute very special circumstances
that justify allowing inappropriate development. The material
considerations needed to outweigh the harm must be positive considerations:
the argument that little harm would be caused, for example, is
not a positive factor that can be weighed in the balance against
the harm caused in principle (See Brentwood DC vs SSE PINS note
HC/293). In carrying out this exercise, Inspectors should remember
the importance which the Government attaches to Green Belts. In
view of the presumption against inappropriate development, substantial
weight should be attached to the harm to the Green Belt when considering
any planning application or appeal concerning such development.
2C.21 If the scheme is in accordance with
the Green Belt policies of the development plan and is not appropriate
in terms of PPG2 then the appeal will be allowed unless there
are other policy conflicts, or substantive planning objections
arising from a consideration of other issues.
2C.22 Appellants often claim that the site
serves no useful function as Green Belt. In such cases Inspectors
should bear in mind that where the boundaries of the Green Belts
have been established in adopted development plans, it is not
appropriate for them to consider whether or not particular sites
should be included in the Green Belt.
2C.23 Inspectors need to bear in mind that
even derelict and neglected land can play a part in limiting the
growth of a built-up area or preventing the coalescence of settlements.
There is no policy to allow the development of such sites in the
Green Belt. On smaller sites Inspectors should examine critically
arguments that buildings should be allowed because the land is
unsightly owing to neglect. There are many such pieces of land
in various parts of Green Belts and if development were allowed
on them Green Belt policy would be gravely compromised. Acceptance
of such arguments might also encourage owners to neglect their
land. Precedent can be an important consideration in Green Belt
cases.
Where plan policies differ from each other or
diverge from PPG2
2C.24 There may be material differences
in approach between the Green Belt policies of the adopted development
plan and the policies within an emerging plan, and between structure
plan and local plan policies. In addition, the development plan
policies may sometimes be materially different from PPG2. The
following issue could be appropriate in these circumstances:
"Whether the development conflicts with
policy to protect the Green Belt, and if so, [whether there are
any very special circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption
against such development. . ."] [or the equivalent
phrase from the development plan—see below].
2C.25 With this approach, "policy to
protect the Green Belt" covers both the development plan
and PPG2, together with any emerging plan carrying weight. The
development plan must be the starting point, but the Inspector
should go on to consider PPG2 as an important "other material
consideration". Whether the PPG2 phrase "very special
circumstances" or its development plan equivalent are used
will depend on which is to be given greater weight.
2C.26 Where development plan Green Belt
policy diverges materially from PPG2 in its approach to the scheme,
or where there are differing plans, a balancing exercise will
have to be carried out. The policies of the development plan will
need to be weighed with the contents of PPG2 and any emerging
plan and the scheme evaluated against them. PPG2 might take precedence
over development plan policies for example where the latter were
framed around a superseded PPG or old structure plan and do not
reflect the advice in the current PPG2. On the other hand the
development plan may be up-to-date and be deliberately framed
to reflect particular local circumstances. Where there are differing
of emerging plans, the advice in paragraph 3.16 of PPG12 regarding
the precedence of plans, and in paragraph 48 of PPG1 relating
to emerging plans, should be taken into account. It may be convenient
to deal with any emerging policy alongside the adopted policy
it most closely resembles (but of course avoiding conveying the
impression that emerging policy has the status accorded by Section
54A).
2C.27 This whole balancing exercise is a
matter for the Inspector's judgement and must be explained clearly
in the decision letter. If the Inspector decides that the decision
should follow the development plan policies and the scheme accords
with them, there will be no need to consider very special circumstances.
If however it is decided that PPG2 carries greater weight and
the development is inappropriate, the Inspector will need to go
on to consider whether there are any very special circumstances
as set out in 2C.20.
Agriculture
2C.28 The construction of new agricultural
buildings inside the Green Belt is generally appropriate unless
permitted development rights have been withdrawn. The relevant
circumstances are explained in Annex D to PPG2. Local plan policies
should assist Inspectors considering conditions withdrawing permitted
development rights for new farm buildings.
2C.29 Agricultural buildings can be visually
intrusive. This aspect of a scheme, if it arises, should normally
be dealt with as a separate issue from the Green Belt issue.
Housing
2C.30 New housing in the Green Belt may amount
to appropriate development if it is justified on agricultural
grounds. Arguments about agricultural justification are therefore
normally arguments about appropriateness rather than very special
circumstances. On the other hand, affordable housing on rural
exception sites would be inappropriate development but might be
justifiable on the grounds of local need as a very special circumstance.
Gypsy sites are not normally appropriate in Green Belts (see Handbook
Chapter 2G).
2C.31 Limited infilling in existing villages
may in certain circumstances also be appropriate development in
the Green Belt. It is for development plans to determine how each
village should be treated. Advice on the alternative approaches
is given in PPG2, and ranges from full Green Belt control to exclusion
of the village from the Green Belt. Appeals regarding sites within
and on the edges of Green Belt villages call for close attention
to the local plan proposals map and to development plan policies.
2C.32 The fact that a district or planning area
is wholly or largely covered by a restraint policy such as Green
Belt does not prevent the five year housing land supply calculation
being made (PPG3). Where structure and local plans envisage little
new development the five year supply will reflect those limitations,
but authorities are still expected to identify land to allow the
amount of building that is envisaged.
2C.33 Paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 regards the limited
extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings as
appropriate. PPG2 offers guidance that extensions should not be
disproportionate compared to the original building and that replacement
dwellings need not be inappropriate. Some development plans lack
policies controlling these forms of development; others contain
their own criteria. If raised by the parties, permitted development
rights should be considered. The "fall back" position
is that Inspectors should assess whether there is a real prospect
of these rights being exercised if the appeal were to fail. Some
development plans contain policies which fit comfortably within
the PPG2 advice, but where there is a difference or conflict between
development plan and national policy on these matters, Inspectors
should refer particularly to paragraphs 2C.24-27 above. The extension
of outbuildings (eg garages) of dwellings in the Green Belt may
be appropriate development depending on the size and circumstances
of each case.
2C.34 The re-use of buildings inside Green Belts
is a fruitful source of appeals. Housing is often the new use
which is sought. Such re-use is not inappropriate to the considerations
set out in PPG2 paragraphs 3.7-3.10, and Annex D. Paragraph 3.7
sets out some of the potential benefits of re-use. Paragraph 3.8
lists criteria which must be taken into account. Again, development
plan policies in this often complex area can differ radically
from national policy. Whether or not the building is redundant
is not normally relevant to national policy but Inspectors should
look particularly closely as proposals for the re-use of recently
constructed buildings (see PPG2 Annex D1 and PPG7 Annex G2). Other
operations may be associated with the change of use of a building
(see below).
Changes in the use of land and engineering operations
2C.35 Engineering and other operations,
and the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate
in Green Belts unless they maintain openness and do not conflict
with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Openness
and some of the Green Belt purposes may not be maintained by access
roads, car parks and other hard surfaced areas, or by activities
such as motor sports.
2C.36 It is important to consider the totality
of a development. The re-use of a building might prove to be appropriate,
considered alone, but new accesses and car parks as part of the
scheme might render the proposal as a whole inappropriate. Outdoor
sports fields would be appropriate, but a sports scheme as a whole
might be inappropriate if it included urban features such as significant
spectator accommodation, other buildings, car parks, or obtrusive
fencing and floodlighting.
Major developed sites
2C.37 For development of a major developed
site within a Green Belt to be appropriate certain criteria must
be met. The site must be specifically identified, for the purposes
of Annex C to PPG2, in an adopted local plan of UDP. The development
must be infilling which meets the criteria in paragraph C3 of
Annex C, or redevelopment which meets the criteria in paragraph
C4. All other development on major developed sites (except that
which is not normally inappropriate in Green Belts anyway) is
inappropriate, whether the site is in continuing use or is redundant.
2C.38 It is possible that where a major
developed site has been identified in a development plan, partial
or complete site clearance may subsequently occur. Provided that
suitable records of the site footprint are retained, the site
may still be considered as a major developed site within the Green
Belt (See Annex C Para C4). The restrictions on redevelopment
and infilling referred to in Para 2C.37 would still apply.
Proposed alterations to the Green Belt boundary
through the development plan process
2C.39 Once the general extent of a Green
Belt has been approved, it should be altered only in exceptional
circumstances. The authority must first consider opportunities
for development within the urban areas contained by and beyond
the Green Belt.
2C.40 Detailed Green Belt boundaries defined
in adopted local plans or earlier approved development plans should
be altered only exceptionally. Where existing local plans are
being revised and updated, existing Green Belt boundaries should
not be changed unless alterations to the structure plan have been
approved, or where other exceptional circumstances exist which
necessitate such revision.
Development proposals in areas where Green Belt
boundaries have not been determined, or are proposed to change
2C.41 It is clear from the case of Myton
Ltd v MHLG (1963) P&CR240 that a Green Belt which has not
been formally approved and defined cannot be regarded as creating
an automatic presumption against inappropriate development. Accordingly
Inspectors need to show that they have considered whether it is
reasonable in all the circumstances to include any particular
site as within a Green Belt, pending formal determination. In
some cases, particularly where the appeal site is on the periphery
of a Green Belt area intended to be excluded from the Green Belt,
the main issue raised by an appeal may well be the reasonableness
of treating the site as part of the Green Belt. In such cases
it is important that the conclusions on the issue should be supported
by full and clear reasoning. Whether the matter has been a major
feature of the representations or not, Inspectors should make
it clear that their considerations are free from the assumption
that the Green Belt boundaries would necessarily be adopted in
the form shown on draft or deposited local plans. The precise
wording may vary but the following is recommended:
"I have considered whether the appeal site
is appropriately included in the Green Belt, but I find no reason
to question its inclusion, pending determination of Green Belt
boundaries upon the adoption of the Local Plan."
2C.42 PPG2 states that detailed Green Belt
boundaries defined in adopted local plans or earlier approved
development plans should be altered only exceptionally (see 2C.40-41
above). Nevertheless when a more recent draft or deposited local
plan seeks to reduce or extend the Green Belt boundary an Inspector
must consider what weight to accord to it. (See Chapter 4A—Development
Plans).
2C.43 An appeal decision letter concerned
with a site affected by the proposed alteration to the Green Belt
will take its cue from the development plan. Where the proposal
is for a reduction, in most instances the combined force of Section
54A and of PPG2 will suggest that Green Belt policy should be
applied. If this is the case, one of the usual Green Belt issues
(see 2C.10-15 and 2C.24) should be used, and the proposed alteration
to the Green Belt will be dealt with as another material consideration.
Before the issue, it would be advisable to make the usual reference
to the Green Belt status of the appeal site in the development
plan, and then to refer to the PPG2 advice quoted above. In considering
the material consideration of the proposed alteration to the Green
Belt, Inspectors will be aware of the advice in PPG1 paragraph
48 or PPG1.
2C.44 Where the emerging plan proposes an
extension to the Green Belt, whether or not the Green Belt issue
is used will depend on the Inspector's judgement as to whether
Green Belt policy should be applied to the site before the formal
adoption of an altered Green Belt boundary. The matter is best
dealt with at the outset of the decision letter, or as the first
issue if the parties are in dispute over the Green Belt status
of the site. Reference should be made to the advice in PPG2, and
to the fact that the adopted local plan excludes the site from
the Green Belt. In considering the emerging plan an Inspector
must bear in mind that the weight accorded to it will increase
as successive stages in the statutory procedure leading to the
adoption are reached. The following wording is recommended for
cases where a proposed extension is in question:
"Before determining the appeal, I have considered
whether, in view of the site's inclusion within a proposed extension
to the Green Belt, it would be appropriate to apply Green Belt
policy to the site". (A consideration of this matter should
then follow along the lines of the advice in paragraph 2C.41 above.)
"On balance it is my judgement (there is insufficient justification
for applying) (it is appropriate to apply) Green Belt policy to
the site at this stage".
| 
