How will green belt release impact the affordable housing requirement?

Prior to the general election, Carter Jonas carried out some comprehensive research of the green belt. It demonstrated that only a very small percentage of land is designated for environmental purposes, suggesting greater scope to release green belt land.

Despite higher percentages of overlap of green belt and other designations (specifically in London), there is still a significant proportion of land without an environmental designation that could be used strategically.  

According to the NPPF’s definition, any green belt site, including previously developed or brownfield land, could be reclassified as grey belt provided it can be shown to “not strongly contribute” to three of the five purposes of the green belt. These are: 

• Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
• Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
• Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

As with any policy, there are exceptions, such as sites with irreplaceable habitats or at risk of flooding. 

The ‘golden rules’ set out in the NPPF haven’t changed since the document was published for consultation. However, there has been some subtle but limited changes to the level of affordable housing requirements – with the change from “at least 50% affordable housing” to delivering above policy levels of affordable housing in accordance with Paragraph 157.

So, for areas with an existing 30% affordable housing policy, this may rise to 45% as the government states that a 15% premium is required in the absence of updated development plan policies. For areas with no affordable housing requirement, the default position is 50%. 

On a positive note, the government has listened to the development industry. But in the revised planning practice guidance, the submission of a site-specific financial viability assessment (FVA) seeking to lower the proportion of affordable housing or developer contributions is not allowed.

However, the government intends to review the viability guidance and the circumstances which may merit a FVA being undertaken, such as for large sites or on previously developed land. The timescales for this review have not been provided. Therefore, for the time being, any landowner seeking to promote its land for release from the green belt will need to deliver above policy levels of affordable housing in accordance with Paragraph 157. 

“Only a very small percentage of land is designated for environmental purposes, suggesting greater scope to release green belt land”

It remains to be seen what impact this policy will have on the appetite for green belt releases, but the higher proportion of affordable housing will provide viability challenges, and without the recourse to challenge viability, this may inhibit delivery.  

In the short term I suspect we will see an increase in developers looking to challenge the affordable housing quotas through the Planning Inspectorate, and of course this will result in delays.

There’s an argument that larger schemes that are in the national interest should be determined nationally and – no doubt to avoid a local backlash – the secretary of state has said that the government would welcome a threshold whereby a large housing development goes to the Planning Inspectorate, but I doubt this would go down well locally. 

Allocations for development through the local plan process will also take time. Furthermore, proposed changes to local government structures will add to this delay. In the face of delays, particularly bearing in mind the significant potential that some grey belt sites offer, I expect we’ll also see a rush of speculative planning applications, with many more decided at appeal. 

Chris Hemmings, partner, Carter Jonas