COVID-19 Update: Tozers is providing our usual client services while maintaining the safety of our clients and colleagues. Full update here

Complete the form below to ask us a question or make an enquiry. We’ll get back to you via phone or email as soon as possible.

Insights

Absence of a 5 year land supply fails to tip balance in favour of development in the green belt

Posted on 14th July 2014 in Planning and Licensing, Local Authorities

Posted by

Amy Cater

Partner and Solicitor
Absence of a 5 year land supply fails to tip balance in favour of development in the green belt

In an appeal decision against a refusal by Waverley Borough Council a planning Inspector has refused permission for the development of land within the Green Belt despite the Council being unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

On a preliminary point the Inspector determined that as the site had a lawful mixed use both for retailing imported fruit and vegetables and for agriculture, it constituted “brownfield” land and its redevelopment for housing would be inappropriate development unless the proposals would not have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt.  Whilst the Inspector thought that the development would result in a smaller floor area, he considered that the more solid massing and height of housing development, when contrasted with the glazed nature of the existing greenhouses would result in a reduction in the openness of the site.  He thought that the change from the agricultural style of the existing buildings to the more urban form of the proposed housing development would increase urban sprawl and encroach into the countryside, contrary to green belt policy.  The decision illustrates that it is not just footprint or volume that are relevant when considering openness.

Consequently the proposed development was inappropriate in the green belt and very special circumstances needed to be shown to allow the development.  The appellant tried to argue that a failure to achieve a 5 year housing land supply was very special circumstances.  Following an analysis the Inspector concluded that the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year land supply although the Inspector found that the deficit was not large (about 50 dwellings or 10% of the 5 year land housing requirement).  He also concluded that steps were being taken to address the shortfall.   The Inspector referred to the Planning Practice Guidance which states that unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt (reinforced by recent Secretary of State pronouncements) and even though the local plan was out-of-date he considered that the green belt policies still restricted development and should be applied.

At the end of the day it is still a balancing decision on the weight to be attached to green belt policies and the shortfall in meeting the 5 year housing land supply requirement.  The Inspector was likely to be swayed by his view that the shortfall was not  large and steps were being taken to address it.  Cases can still go either way but the decision illustrates how difficult it still can be to secure development in the green belt.

 

Appeal reference:   APP/R3650/W/16/3163050

 

Company & Industry

Related Insights

Insights

Do I have to pay Capital Gains Tax when selling your home?

Posted on 26th October 2020 in Residential Property, Later Life Planning

You may not be aware that you do not have to pay Capital Gains Tax when selling your home, but the detail of the rules are a little more complex than this though.

Posted by

Rachael Morley

Associate and Solicitor
Insights

Do pensions count as assets when dealing with a divorce?

Posted on 22nd October 2020 in Family Law

Whether retirement is imminent or even some way off, pensions are still taken into consideration when dealing with assets on divorce, and can actually often be the largest asset to consider. Irrespective of who the pension belongs to, it is still an asset about which a court can make orders on divorce. This applies both ways, meaning each spouse will have a ‘claim’ against the other’s pension provision.

Posted by

Aimee Aspinall

Chartered Legal Executive