Wiltshire Council's response to the government's National Planning Policy Framework consultation

Question 20

Do you agree that we should make the proposed change set out in paragraph 124c, as a first step towards brownfield passports?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

It is not clear on what is meant by 'brownfield passports', it would be helpful if this was clarified.

We agree that the use of brownfield land should be supported and acceptable in principle, however consideration does need to be given to what the current use is and whether the proposed use is therefore acceptable in principle.

Question 21

Do you agree with the proposed change to paragraph 154g of the current NPPF to better support the development of PDL in the Green Belt?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Yes, this is a reasonable change to encourage further use of PDL but will only be one policy consideration when looking at the merits of proposals on PDL in the Green Belt, as not all PDL Green Belt land is equal in terms of its sustainability.

Question 22

Do you have any views on expanding the definition of PDL, while ensuring that the development and maintenance of glasshouses for horticultural production is maintained?

Please provide any further views:

Definition of PDL is well established and should be retained. Redevelopment of glasshouses could be considered at a local level by local planning authorities in setting their policies.

Question 23

Do you agree with our proposed definition of grey belt land? If not, what changes would you recommend?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

The definition of 'Grey Belt' is reasonable for the purpose of plan making and as part of a sequential approach to strategic release of land in the Green Belt. However, for decision-making it is complex and open to interpretation, especially the term "Green Belt land that makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes." This is particularly the case when considered against the proposed guidance in paragraph 10. The application of criteria (ii) and (iv) would involve making judgements on whether land "makes no or very little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another" or "contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns" and could ultimately lead to the incremental erosion of the Green Belt. The inclusion of these for decision-making purposes should be removed.

Question 24

Are any additional measures needed to ensure that high performing Green Belt land is not degraded to meet grey belt criteria?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Similar considerations to paragraph 202 of the NPPF (proposals affecting heritage assets) about deliberate neglect or degradation could be introduced here to address this.

Question 25

Do you agree that additional guidance to assist in identifying land which makes a limited contribution of Green Belt purposes would be helpful? If so, is this best contained in the NPPF itself or in planning practice guidance?

Answer: yes, and it should be contained within PPG

Please explain your answer:

Agree that additional guidance is needed to assist in identifying land which makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt. However, the suggested criteria are open to interpretation and complex to apply in a decision-making context. See response to Question 23 also.

Given the concerns raised about the proposed guidance and potential need for different approaches to decision-making and plan-making it may be better to incorporate this into planning practice guidance to avoid too much detail in the NPPF.

Question 26

Do you have any views on whether our proposed guidance sets out appropriate considerations for determining whether land makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The definition of 'Grey Belt' is reasonable for the purpose of plan making and as part of a sequential approach to strategic release of land in the Green Belt. However, for decision-making it is complex and open to interpretation, especially the term "Green Belt land that makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes." This is particularly the case when considered against the proposed guidance in paragraph 10. The application of criteria (ii) and (iv) would involve making judgements on whether land "makes no or very little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another" or "contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns" and could ultimately lead to the incremental erosion of the Green Belt. The inclusion of these for decision-making purposes should be removed.

Question 27

Do you have any views on the role that Local Nature Recovery Strategies could play in identifying areas of Green Belt which can be enhanced?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) identify areas across their geographies for enhancement, which may or may not relate to land within the Green Belt. Only those Green Belt areas identified through the LNRS process should be enhanced to ensure the delivery of the LNRS across the area, rather than potentially being seen to prioritise Green Belt land over other areas.

Question 28

Do you agree that our proposals support the release of land in the right places, with previously developed and grey belt land identified first, while allowing local planning authorities to prioritise the most sustainable development locations?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Agree, changes to Paragraph 147 (revised paragraph 144) in referring to sustainable locations make it clear that Green Belt land release should be applied sequentially and in doing so only in sustainable locations. This approached is supported.

Question 29

Do you agree with our proposal to make clear that the release of land should not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

We strongly agree that the overall function of the Green Belt within the plan area should not be undermined. However, the use of the term 'fundamentally' is objected to as this is open to interpretation and misuse.

Care will need to be taken in applying policy as releasing Green Belt that is non PDL will only serve to increase the availability of greenfield sites for development potentially disincentivising the industry to focus on PDL and regeneration sites in urban areas.

Question 30

Do you agree with our approach to allowing development on Green Belt land through decision-making? If not, what changes would you recommend?

Answer: no

If not, what changes would you recommend?:

No. In the short term with the significantly increased housing figures for many areas Green Belt land would be vulnerable to speculative development because it will be impossible to demonstrate a 5-year land supply. Whilst Green Belt PDL in sustainable locations is a reasonable policy objective, we are concerned about the gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt around settlements that could occur if other, non PDL, 'grey belt' land is allowed through decision-making.

See response to Question 23 for suggested changes to the definition of 'Grey belt' and associated guidance where it relates to decision-making.

Question 31

Do you have any comments on our proposals to allow the release of grey belt land to meet commercial and other development needs through plan-making and decision-making, including the triggers for release?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Revised paragraph 152(a) allows for commercial and other development on the green belt "where there is a demonstrable need for land to be released for development of local, regional or national importance" and public benefits can be achieved. The public benefits, based on revised paragraph 155, that could be applied to such uses is relatively limited and appear to only relate to provision of new or improvements to existing green spaces open to the public. Further guidance is likely to be needed to support the implementation of such a policy. Establishing what is a demonstrable need through decision-making could be open to interpretation and present difficulties in implementation.

Question 32

Do you have views on whether the approach to the release of Green Belt through plan and decision-making should apply to traveller sites, including the sequential test for land release and the definition of PDL?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The release of land for development should apply equally to all forms and type of development and use. However, the practicalities of applying the sequential approach to traveller sites in a plan making context requires further consideration, as this could be complex to implement for the low level of need being planned for. Also, unmet needs can arise because of a lack of willing landowners to bring forward sites, which is necessary to demonstrate delivery, rather than sites being technically suitable for such uses. The other consideration is that traveller sites are less likely to meet the threshold for major development to which the 'golden' rules would apply.

Question 33

Do you have views on how the assessment of need for traveller sites should be approached, in order to determine whether a local planning authority should undertake a Green Belt review?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

See response to Question 32. The need to undertake a Green Belt review to accommodate the needs of travellers would depend on how much of the plan area is covered by Green Belt and whether other options are available to accommodate needs.

Question 34

Do you agree with our proposed approach to the affordable housing tenure mix?

Answer: not answered

Please explain your answer:

Agree that the tenure split for Affordable Housing delivered under the golden rules should be for local authorities to decide as this will ensure that the homes provided meet local needs.

Question 35

Should the 50 per cent target apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt), or should the Government or local planning authorities be able to set lower targets in low land value areas?

Answer: the 50% target should apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt Please explain your answer:

Please explain your answer:

Agree that 50% target should apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt), unless the applicant submits viability evidence which is independently assessed and agreed by the Council.

Question 36

Do you agree with the proposed approach to securing benefits for nature and public access to green space where Green Belt release occurs?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The approach is reasonable, as it provides alternative standards in the event local plans do not include specific policies that can be applied. However, it is considered that the development of all greenfield sites/countryside should be treated equally and deliver such benefits.

Question 37

Do you agree that Government should set indicative benchmark land values for land released from or developed in the Green Belt, to inform local planning authority policy development?

Answer: not answered

Please explain your answer:

The Existing Use Value will depend upon site specific attributions and local market conditions. It will also vary over time due to changes in economic conditions. Therefore, the government should set national multipliers to agricultural land, both in and outside the Green Belt. This could reflect the comparison in value of agricultural land and pony paddocks. It should do similar for Grey Belt land, both for agricultural land and for existing buildings both in and outside the Green Belt.

Question 38

How and at what level should Government set benchmark land values?

Please explain your answer:

The Existing Use Value will depend upon site specific attributions and local market conditions. It will also vary over time due to changes in economic conditions. Therefore, the government should set national multipliers to agricultural land, both in and outside the Green Belt. This could reflect the comparison in value of agricultural land and pony paddocks. It should do similar for Grey Belt land, both for agricultural land and for existing buildings both in and outside the Green Belt.

Question 39

To support the delivery of the golden rules, the Government is exploring a reduction in the scope of viability negotiation by setting out that such negotiation should not occur when land will transact above the benchmark land value. Do you have any views on this approach?

Answer: not answered

Please explain your answer:

This will need an obligation on site promoters to reveal the price paid, the price (if there is one) in the conditional contract/Option, and any minimum land value in such agreements. However, the approach is sound. An alternative/addition would be to give the local authority the power to acquire the land at the Benchmark Land Value or Residual Land Value if less.

Question 40

It is proposed that where development is policy compliant, additional contributions for affordable housing should not be sought. Do you have any views on this approach?

Please explain your views on this approach:

Agree that additional contributions above the policy requirement should not be sought. However, this should not prevent applicants bringing forward higher percentages should they wish to.

Question 41

Do you agree that where viability negotiations do occur, and contributions below the level set in policy are agreed, development should be subject to late-stage viability reviews, to assess whether further contributions are required? What support would local planning authorities require to use these effectively?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer, including what support you consider local authorities would require to use late-stage viability reviews effectively:

Agree. A development proposal may not be undertaken for many years after the original approval, and thus could become more viable over time. The use of external viability assessors may need additional funding.

This should apply to all such applications over a certain size. The amount of affordable housing/planning contributions should only rise, not decrease. The landowner/developer should pay the Local Planning Authority's professional fees in advance on a non-refundable basis.

Question 42

Do you have a view on how golden rules might apply to non-residential development, including commercial development, travellers sites and types of development already considered 'not inappropriate' in the Green Belt?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

Comments have been provided against Question 31.

Question 43

Do you have a view on whether the golden rules should apply only to 'new' Green Belt release, which occurs following these changes to the NPPF? Are there other transitional arrangements we should consider, including, for example, draft plans at the regulation 19 stage?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

None given.

Question 44

Do you have any comments on the proposed wording for the NPPF (Annex 4)?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

This is potentially technical and complex and may need further clarity in planning policy guidance.

Question 45

Do you have any comments on the proposed approach set out in paragraphs 31 and 32?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Compulsory purchase is a lengthy and expensive process so the proposed provision may not be taken advantage of other than for very large schemes. If the process could be streamlined and made more cost effective, then it could bring forward smaller areas of land which would also help small and medium sized businesses.

Question 46

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this section?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The idea behind reviewing Green Belt boundaries to assist with finding suitable land for development is already in place and any authority that is constrained by the Green Belt should be required to carry out this review to understand its value in relation to openness and to protect the coalescence of towns. The idea that councils will be able to deliver lots of homes on 'grey belt' land is unlikely to make a significant difference to housing land supply