Not long after Mr Boles instructed planning inspectors to avoid requiring Local Planning Authorities to carry out green belt reviews to justify their Local Plan housing target, Planning Inspectors are now suggesting reviews ‘might’ be helpful to determine the soundness of local plans. Nigel Payne, Planning Inspector who was appointed by Government to examine the Cherwell District Council’s Local Plan said……

…..“it would be helpful if there was a review of the Oxfordshire Green Belt, and everyone would know where they stand, but it is not something he can control and he doesn’t have the powers to say it has to happen.”

As you all know, I support the need to assess Green Belts and it’s about time the Government recognise the housing crisis and start looking at opportunities beyond existing urban areas to build the homes we need.

Maybe the Government (The turkey’s) are finally regretting dissolving Borough and District of their responsibilities to assess their Green belt to identify opportunities to tackle the housing crisis (Christmas!).

Mayor Johnson’s recent admission that London will not be able to meet in housing need over the period of the emerging London Plan should set alarm bells ringing at City Hall that now is the time to assess London’s Green Belt. Unlike Metropolitan Open Land (MOL – a London specific designation used to describe chains of Green spaces thoughout the City), much of London’s Green Belt is inaccessible, of little landscape/ecological value and does not meet the original purposes of Green Belt and/or the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

In an interview on LBC this morning, Mr Johnson started his dialogue by saying that Housing is the single biggest issue for Londoners, and I believe he is spot on. Therefore housing supply should be a priority for the Mayor to ensure the housing needs of London and future generations will be met. However, recent events have seen Mr Johnson ask surrounding boroughs/districts to consider London’s unmet housing needs when setting housing targets for their localities. At a time when these districts/boroughs are failing to meet their own housing needs, this is unlikely to be received favourably.

Having written the 2009 London SHLAA, I know full well that no green belt release is considered as part of the London Plan assessment of housing supply. A top down political direction from the Mayor’s office that Green Belt release is too politically contentious to be considered in London. However, I believe attitudes are changing towards the Green Belt. People are recognising that something needs to be done to unlock more land for housing and supporting infrastructure. What is needed is a hearts and minds exercise from the boroughs and the Mayor to articulate the case for, at a minimum, a review to know what the value of the Green Belt is and to consider any potential land for release.

I was pleasantly surprised to read in planning magazine on the 19th March 2014 , that the Mayor is beginning to ask questions about how and where London should grow, including starting to ask about the Green Belt. I welcome this proactive approach and I believe the Mayor may get a response which shows my belief that attitudes are changing.

I am not an advocate of wholesale Green Belt release. What I am suggesting is that the Green Belt should be reviewed and those sites which add little to the Green Belt and through their release could strengthen the Green Belt for future protection should be considered for their housing potential.

We need to be careful that we do not tarnish all Green Belt development with the label ‘Unsustainable Development’. Sustainable development is a balance of economic, social and environmental considerations but too often, sustainability is used primarily to support environmental protection, which is an incorrect use of the term.

The draft London Plan will be examined over the summer and like other Authorities, the Mayor cannot escape his duty to meeting London’s full range of housing needs and if no other Authority will pick up London’s unmet need, he may have no choice but to look at the Green Belt, politics/no politics.

Whether it was an intentional election tactic to distance the Government from Green Belt releases, or an unintentional blunder, Mr Boles has shaken up the planning system with potentially disastrous consequences. Green Belt boundary reviews were generally becoming accepted (well, more tolerated!) in order to meet the National Planning Policy Framework’s requirement to meet objectively assessed housing needs, but recent correspondence between Mr Boles and the Planning Inspectorate may signal a Government U turn which will impact how and where Britain’s housing needs are met.

Earlier in March, Mr Boles wrote to the planning inspectorate expressing his concern with the language used by a Planning Inspector in the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council core strategy examination report. Inspector Martin Pike found the plan sound subject to a series of modifications. One of these was that the authority should “recognise that some loss of green belt to housing development will be necessary, in certain sustainable locations, to meet as far as is practicable the needs of the borough”.

Boles wrote that the Inspector’s language

“invited misinterpretation of government policy and misunderstanding about the local authority’s role in drawing up policies in the draft plan”.

“it must always be transparently clear” in inspectors’ reports that, if authorities review and adjust green belt boundaries, it was their choice to do so.

Mr Boles went on to say the Secretary of State would consider intervening in local plans, he added, if they are adopted where an inspector has recommended a green belt review not supported by the local authority.

Concerned by the letter, the Planning Inspectorate wrote to Mr Boles asking for clarification on whether the concern related solely to the shape tone and wording of the report or was this a change in policy which meant an Inspector cannot recommend a Green Belt review where a Planning Authority falls short of meeting its housing needs.

Mr Boles responded that this did not change government policy.

However, the shakeup has already started. The Home Builders Federation has expressed their concern that Mr Boles letter could hold up the “speedy production of local plans in green belt areas”. He also said it could have a “potentially disastrous effect” on meeting the nation’s housing crisis. For many Green Belt Planning Authorities, this could provide the necessary signal to reconsider Green Belt reviews. It won’t be long before Local Plan are withdrawn, re written or in some cases never written, because the test of meeting objectively assessed housing needs, which still applies, can never be met.

At a time when the Government is committed to reforming the planning system to make it less complex and more accessible, and use the planning system to promote economic growth, this will undoubtedly have the opposite effect….

I’ll be watching this space with great interest.

Key Announcements:

Housing Supply –

* The creation of a £500 million Builders Finance Fund, which will provide loans to developers to unlock 15,000 housing units stalled due to difficulty in accessing finance
* Consult on creating a new ‘Right to Build’, giving custom builders a right to a plot from councils, and a £150 million repayable fund to help provide up to 10,000 serviced plots for custom build
* Establish a £150 million fund to kick start the regeneration of large housing estates through repayable loans, helping to boost housing supply
* Develop proposals for extending the Gospel Oak to Barking Line to Barking Riverside, and to ensure that any public investment unlocks the construction of up to 11,000 new homes
* Work with the GLA and the London Borough of Barnet to look at proposals for the Brent Cross regeneration scheme, subject to value for money and affordability

New Garden Cities –

* Support a new Garden City at Ebbsfleet. Ebbsfleet has capacity for up to 15,000 new homes, based on existing brownfield land, through the establishment of an Urban Development Corporation
* Publish a prospectus by Easter 2014, setting out how local authorities could develop their own, locally-led proposals for bringing forward new garden cities.

Reform of the Planning System –

* Review the General Permitted Development Order to support business and households futher
* Consult on specific change of use measures, including greater flexibilities for change to residential use, for example from warehouses and light industry structures, and allowing businesses greater flexibilities to expand facilities such as car parks and loading bays within existing boundaries, where there is little impact on local communities