Development of land designated as Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding National Beauty (AONBs) and National Parks, The Broads and Heritage Coasts gives rise to important planning considerations. Such development engages both national and local policies and case law considerations.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and there are special policy protections for designated areas to protect them from inappropriate development. These policies are reinforced through the Planning Court when the Local Planning Authority (LPA) or planning inspectors fail to have regard to or apply the correct policy tests.

Green Belt

Green Belts are formally designated areas of land, principally around urban areas, to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land around the settlement areas of cities, towns and villages permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. We are regularly instructed in relation to housing allocations or development applications proposed for Green Belt land.

In the local plan context, Green Belt land should only be allocated for housing and other development where the Local Plan inspector finds “exceptional circumstances”. This requires careful assessment of the five functions of the Green Belt against the criteria in the NPPF.

When a planning application is before the LPA or an appeal inspector, development on Green Belt land should only be approved where there are “very special circumstances”. All development with some limited exceptions is considered “inappropriate development” and harmful to the Green Belt.

Protected Landscapes

AONBs, National Parks, the Broads and Heritage Coasts are also formally designated for their scenic and natural beauty with policy protections in the NPPF. When acting for our clients we often use the policy protections in the NPPF and case law to oppose major development in these special places and seek to persuade the decision maker to refuse consent based on the lack of “exceptional circumstances” to justify development and that the development is not in the public interest.
Development in some of these areas is also subject to environmental impact assessment (EIA).