275,000 proposed Green Belt homes break Conservative manifesto pledge

A year ago the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) published Green Belt under siege. This analysis showed that, despite five years of Government rhetoric that it would protect the Green Belt better than the previous Labour Government, local plan proposals in 2015 to release Green Belt land for housing already exceeded Labour’s unpopular 2009 regional plans.

The rhetoric keeps coming. In the past 12 months, the Conservative manifesto for the 2015 election committed the incoming Government to protecting the Green Belt, and Prime Minister David Cameron told CPRE: “Green belt land is extremely precious. Protecting the lungs around our cities is paramount for me.”

Indeed, CPRE’s poll on the 60th anniversary of the Green Belt found a large majority of the public shared his feelings, with 64% agreeing the Green Belt should be protected.

The reality has been very different. Only last month the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Greg Clark, decided that 1,500 new homes should be built on Green Belt between Gloucester and Cheltenham, in one of the biggest Green Belt developments for a decade.

And now CPRE’s latest research reveals that housing development proposed for the Green Belt has shot up by another 50,000 - to more than a quarter of a million houses - making a mockery of Government commitments to protect it.

At the same time the Government is proposing changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that are likely to open the door to further Green Belt release, while the Government-appointed ‘Local Plans Expert Group’ has argued that information on Green Belt reviews should be more readily available.

Research

We found that, despite Government commitments to protect the Green Belt protection, the number of houses now planned for the Green Belt stands at 275,000, an increase of 25% on the previous year.

This is almost double the number of homes proposed on Green Belt under Labour’s unpopular regional plans – one of the key reasons why Eric Pickles abolished them. Yet the Prime Minister claimed in 2015 that development on Green Belt was at its lowest rate for 25 years.

CPRE’s analysis shows this claim has been very short-lived. Despite cross-party political support for the Green Belt, our analysis has found growing pressure across the country to use it for housing.

Flawed Proposals

Green Belt boundaries are now being changed to accommodate housing at the fastest rate for at least two decades, while planning inspectors have signed off major releases of Green Belt for development around cities even though there is ample brownfield land available within urban areas.

The Government’s own statistics show that in 2014/15, 7% of all land changing to residential use happened on the Green Belt. This is the highest annual figure since 1990. (The percentage has only been higher in one year, at 8% in 2013/14.)

Given that only 13% of the country is covered by Green Belt, the fact that 7% of land changing to residential use happens in Green Belts suggests that the ‘exceptional’ and ‘very special’ circumstances tests are not in practice the high bar suggested by the Government’s stated commitment.

Research by consultancy Glenigan last year, also found a sharp increase in the number of houses securing full planning approval in the Green Belt. In 2009/10, 2,258 homes were approved. By 2014/2015, it had risen to 11,977. This is a fivefold increase in five years.

Under pressure to set and then meet high and often undeliverable housing targets, councils are using the “exceptional circumstances” caveat in the NPPF to de-designate Green Belt land for housing development. While the Government has issued guidance, based on an earlier Ministerial statement by Brandon Lewis, stating that housing targets in themselves should not justify giving planning permission on Green Belt land, the guidance is much more equivocal in relation to identifying land for housing requirements in local plans. This loophole needs to be closed.

The Government is currently considering responses to its December 2015 consultation on changing the NPPF. Among the numerous proposals in the consultation are suggestions to promote “starter homes” on small sites in the Green Belt, and to make it far easier for intrusive development to take place on brownfield sites within the Green Belt.

While CPRE generally supports the redevelopment of brownfield sites, the current policy enables councils to manage the impact of brownfield redevelopment on the openness of the Green Belt, something that is particularly important when many such sites in the Green Belt comprise attractive or modest buildings set in open grounds.

Recommendations

CPRE makes three conclusions from its findings. Firstly, houses planned on Green Belt land are at the highest point since the advent of the Government’s flagship planning policy – at 275,000.

Secondly, Green Belt policy is gradually being weakened, and new proposals would mean that it is weakened further.

And thirdly, the Government must strengthen national planning and land use policy in line with its commitments.

To demonstrate its commitment to protecting the Green Belt, CPRE believes that the Government should abandon proposals to relax Green Belt policy and make it clearer that unnecessary or major losses of Green Belt should be avoided.

It should also reaffirm that high levels of housing demand or housing targets do not in themselves amount to the “exceptional circumstances” required to justify changing Green Belt boundaries; and reduce pressure on the Green Belt by empowering councils (local planning authorities) to prioritise the use of brownfield sites.

Related

Labour Sticks To Its Guns On Inheritance Tax Despite Farmer Backlash

By Nadine Batchelor-Hunt

20 Nov

PoliticsHome Newsletters

Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.