Green Belt, Grey Belt, Brownfield, 30 Month Local Plans and Changes to the CIL Regulations: a quick(ish) round up of very recent events.
Earlier today, MHCLG published several updates to the national planning policy guidance, draft amendments to the CIL Regulations and the government's formal response to a consultation on Local Plan reform that opened in July 2023. As well as quite a lot of other, related, documentation.
This post is an attempt to draw all of these updates together in one place. It also tries to draw out some interesting points from each of them - but there is a LOT to cover, so I am going to have to be quite selective. Please accept my apologies if I have missed a particular point of interest!
Also, a quick reminder, if it was needed, that these changes to the NPPG really do matter.
The Court of Appeal recently decided that there is no difference in legal status between the NPPF and the NPPG…. so, the guidance issued today is the latest word on these particular issues.
New Green Belt/ Grey Belt Guidance
I will keep this one brief, as the effervescent, and always on point, Zack Simons has already published a Planoraks blog on the topic, which can be found here.
MHCLG has just published the long-awaited guidance on identifying grey belt land and the application of grey-belt policy as set out in the latest NPPF. The guidance can be found here.
Most of it relates to how LPAs should identify grey-belt sites during a green belt review. However, there are some interesting points that can be drawn out of it for decision-making as well.
- Identifying grey-belt land
We now have a very handy flow chart for the process that needs to be undertaken for identifying grey belt land (see above). This is accompanied by some clear guidance on what a “strong” contribution to green belt purposes a), b) or d) might look like.
A couple of interesting points from that guidance:
- Green belt purposes a), b) and d) are not concerned with villages. At all.
- "Sprawl" is concerned with avoiding “an incongruous pattern of development” as opposed to avoiding development at all.
- Proposals on grey belt land need to be assessed in relation to the site itself (see paragraph 009 Reference ID: 64-009-20250225) as opposed to any wider area.
We also have a handy diagram for assessing whether grey belt development is inappropriate in the green belt or not (see below):
along with fairly detailed guidance on each of these requirements.
There are some eye-catching things in that guidance. The following caught my eye, but this is not an exhaustive list:
- Sustainability is key: Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 64-011-20250225 expressly states that developments that cannot be made sustainable should not be approved. It also states that: “Whether locations are sustainable should be determined in light of local context and site or development-specific considerations. However, in reaching these judgements, national policy is clear that authorities should consider opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions, as set out in paragraphs 110 and 115 of the NPPF.”
- Viability cannot be used to justify a departure from the Golden Rules until further notice…. and the promised guidance on the use of viability assessments in this context is yet to be published.
Brownfield Development Guidance
We also have updated policy guidance on “making the most effective use of land”. As this is just a single new paragraph, I have set it out in full below:
"How does policy 125(c) (substantial weight to brownfield land proposals) apply to decision making?
Paragraph 125(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework states planning policies and decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. When determining such proposals, decision makers will need to take account of this policy alongside other policies within the Framework taken as a whole. As an example, where a proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, paragraph 215 (which requires the public benefits of the proposals to be weighed against the less than substantial harm) would still need to be applied. Where relevant, decision makers will need to provide a clear articulation of how paragraph 125(c) has been demonstrably considered and applied alongside other policies."
30 Month Local Plan Consultation Response
We have also finally had the government's response to a detailed consultation on how best to implement the Local Plan regime contained in LURA. That consultation opened in July 2023, so this is perhaps a case of better late than never.
There is a lot to unpack in the response. I am not going to do it justice in this post.
The news that I found most interesting, however, can be summarised as follows:
- MHCLG are “fully committed” to introducing a full suite of national development management policies (para 23);
- There is going to be a lot more digitisation and use of templates in the new system;
- The 30 month timetable is here to stay (para 35),
- Community Land Auctions are dead. Very dead. This section of LURA is on the repeal list (para 176)
- Proposals for front runner authorities will not be taken forward, but MHCLG is still looking at a phased rollout (para 186 and 187).
Today also saw the government publish draft legislation to amend the CIL Regulations. All being well, the amendments will take effect on 1 May 2025.
At a very high level, these amendments will allow CIL to be applied to
- Permissions for “Crown Development” and “Urgent Crown Development” granted by the Secretary of State under the new routes created by LURA;
- Permissions granted by the Secretary of State under s.62A TCPA 1990 (which is the power that allows applicants to bypass LPAs designated as failing, and apply directly to the Secretary of State for consent instead).
Other Bits and Bobs
If that wasn't enough, MHCLG has also published:
- A plethora of guidance on how to use digital tools in plan-making and consultation processes. Which I am not linking to, as there are far too many updates for that, but is probably worth exploring; and
- A list of authorities who will receive funding for help with green belt reviews
Well… I did warn you there was a lot!
23. The government is fully committed to implementing a suite of national policies for decision making with a view to streamlining local plans, enabling plan-makers to focus on matters that are genuinely local, and supporting consistent local decisions. We are considering how best to take forward national policies for decision making and intend to consult on this in spring 2025, noting the challenge for planning authorities in setting out a firm direction of travel for their plans while the nature and content of these policies is still under development.”
Key Contact
