Minister dismisses two appeals on green belt development

St Albans City and District Council refused two planning applications submitted by developer, Hunston Properties Ltd. The first planning application was for a development including 116 new homes and a 72 bed care home (Appeal A). The second application was for a reduced 85 residential unit development (Appeal B).

On appeal, the High Court overturned the Council's decision which was then appealed by the Council. In February 2014, the former communities secretary announced that he was re-opening the inquiry for redetermination, as it involved significant development on green belt land.

In a recent decision letter, Clark agreed with the "inspector's analysis and recommendation and has decided to dismiss the appeals and refused planning permission."

The communities secretary stated that both "developments proposed comprise[d] inappropriate development" and agreed with the inspector that the main considerations were the effect the development had on the openness and purposes of the green belt and the character and appearance of area; and whether any harm was outweighed by other considerations which would justify the development.

In relation to the openness and purposes of the green belt, the communities secretary considered both appeals and concluded that the developer's plans would "significantly reduce the openness of the Green Belt, to its considerable detriment, and would amount to unrestricted sprawl, compromising, in the main, two of its purposes, thereby adding appreciably to the substantial harm by virtue of inappropriateness".

The inspector deliberated on the visual appearance the development would have on the surrounding area; especially as the planned care home was located on higher ground. Both the inspector and communities secretary determined that "Appeal A would not successfully integrate with the existing landscape, being out of scale and character with the surroundings and that it would unacceptably intrude into the open character and appearance of the countryside landscape" and that Appeal B would "unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the countryside".

Clark also considered other factors that could potentially be in favour of the developer's proposals. He confirmed that there is a significant shortfall of affordable housing in the area. The developer's proposal to deliver 35% affordable housing would make a "significant contribution" and that this "weighed heavily in favour of the proposals".

Although Appeal A would provide 72 care home beds with modern equipment, there is no policy evidence that care homes need to be located in green belt land and therefore this gives "little positive weight as a consideration".

The communities secretary identified a deficiency in the Council's provision of land available for housing. In order to meet the district's demand, development may have to extend into green belt land but Clark held that it was not appropriate to consider "the selection of sites" as part of this appeal and that "this is not a good enough reason to off-set or diminish the site specific harms identified in relation to these appeals which [he] consider[ed] to be substantial."

The potential benefit of on-site open space around a pond area, a new tree belt, cycleways, footpaths and tennis courts were also considered. It was decided that the "benefits would be limited". Other factors considered include the effects on education, health, highways, flooding and effect on nearby residents.

Based on the above considerations, the communities secretary concludes that "taking all of the benefits of the proposed developments into account, both on an individual basis and cumulatively, the harm to the Green Belt has not been clearly outweighed, and very special circumstances do not exist to justify allowing the inappropriate".

Planning expert Benjamin Mansell of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said: "This appeal pitted two key planning issues against one another. In this instance, green belt came out on top and the appeal was dismissed.

"However, increasing numbers of houses are being built on the green belt, with figures showing 3% of new-builds in 2013/14 were on green belt land compared to 2% in previous years. This perhaps indicates that the government has softened its approach or that many ‘easy’ brownfield sites have now been developed." said Mansell.

"Nevertheless, the outcome of this appeal is a stark reminder to housing developers of the tough hurdles they must overcome to build on green belt land. As the pressure to build more housing increases, greater numbers of appeals that examine green belt and housing supply issues are to be expected."