What is the greenbelt? 

Although the phrase "greenbelt" is an evocative one, conjuring up images of rolling hills and exquisite countryside, it is actually simply a planning policy designation. Importantly, the key driver of that policy isn't, in fact, really about keeping land green. Instead its fundamental aim is to prevent urban sprawl, by keeping land permanently open. Consequently, where land is designated as greenbelt, this is done to prevent the coalescence of conurbations, which then also helps to serve purposes such as protecting the countryside from encroachment and focusing development in existing urban areas. 

Why is it such a controversial topic? 

It's undeniable that the greenbelt gets more than its fair share of political attention. 

This is often attributed to its misleading moniker. Commentators frequently assert that the greenbelt is treated as sacrosanct because there is so little understanding of how it does and should operate, and that the average person genuinely believes it is a green belt of verdant pastures around our ever growing cities. 

This can cause ill-tempered discussion when the two parties are not even debating the same point. Those in favour of green belt review or reform are rarely arguing that we should pave over AONBs or other high quality countryside and agricultural land, but instead highlight that many areas of greenbelt are more degraded – more "brownfield" – than areas not enjoying that protection. This disconnect in understanding can make genuine debate about the role of the greenbelt challenging. 

But it would be lazy to put all greenbelt debate into this category, and much of the discussion serves as a prime example of the delicate balance that our planning system must constantly find between competing social needs. 

In this case, on the one hand there is the need for growth, and in particular new housing. To many it seems bizarre that we would take steps to restrain development, often in those places where there is greatest demand, for example around the M25. On the other hand, though, it is in these areas that the greenbelt is arguably most important – preventing villages, towns, and cities from merging into one mass of development.  

In what circumstances might you secure planning permission for development in the greenbelt? I

The starting point is that development in the green belt is inappropriate, unless it falls within a number of specified categories. These include things like buildings for agriculture, and provision of outdoor recreation facilities, which don’t harm the openness of the greenbelt, but also some more substantial development such as infilling of villages, provision of replacement buildings, and the redevelopment of previously developed land. The courts have said that the list of exceptions is closed, and there has been much debate over the years about the parameters of each of the categories. 

If development is inappropriate, the National Planning Policy Framework says that it is, by definition, harmful to the greenbelt and therefore should not be permitted except in very special circumstances. This in turn has led to extensive discussion about what, exactly, are "very special circumstances". There is no statutory definition, and it is a matter of planning judgment for the relevant decision maker, based on the specific facts of each case. 

There is, though, some clarity on what are not "very special circumstances".  For instance, case law confirms that housing need is not, of itself, adequate. 

In order to establish very special circumstances, the benefits that the development would deliver need to be weighed against the harm to the greenbelt, being both harm caused by definition of being inappropriate, and other specific harm which may be caused. This is often a significant hurdle. 

Is the extent of the greenbelt fixed? 

Like all policy designations, the extent of the green belt can be reviewed. However, the NPPF states that the general extent of the greenbelt across the country is already established and continues that greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in "exceptional circumstances". This is a high bar and requires the relevant LPA to demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development.  

What's the long-term prognosis for the green belt? 

The role of the greenbelt remains firmly in the public eye and has been brought into greater focus by the prospect of fundamental planning reform within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. This has brought out proponents for both tightening and relaxing the rules, each arguing that the current proposals don’t go far enough one way or the other. Ultimately though, given that there was a commitment in the Conservative manifesto – to which Rishi Sunak has only recently re-pinned his colours - to "protect and enhance" the greenbelt, it seems unlikely that its importance will be diminished in the short term. Indeed, it has been suggested that the promised National Development Management Policies may be used to strengthen the protection of the greenbelt. 

And indeed, if we are in the position that both those who see the greenbelt as sacrosanct, and those who see it an inappropriate restriction on development, are unhappy, perhaps we have struck the right balance after all?

Authored by Hannah Quarterman.