Green Belt planning advice

[Sully]

Hi all 

 

Could be the beginning of a very long journey of a lifelong dream of building my own house. 

 

To give some background regarding  the plot I have found. 

 

The plot is on a road , one side of this road the houses are on Green belt the other side they’re not. The plot is on the side which is Green belt. 

 

On the side of the road this plot is. The houses go

 

2,4, empty Plot, 8,10,12. So the plot is even numbered number 6 but has no house on it. 

 

The plot is the same width and depth as the others as have been built on, even has a number but has never been built on 

 

The Plot has been fenced off and oddly has a driveway  from the road but no property, 

 

Prior to the side of the road  getting green belt status, it had approval for a house the same design as 4 and 8.  The houses were built in the 1930s

 

Subsequently applications 10 years ago were declined. The most recent application under green belt infill – was declined as there was never a building on the plot. 

 

It seems to get rejected simply because it’s on  Green. belt  , the latest application even had the same design house as 4 and 8 but still got declined, despite the report saying it wouldn’t ruin the openness of the green belt as its in-between a row of house. 

 

 

A common sense approach is needed – which from what I can see isn’t really common in planning. 

 

I would love to build a single storey modern bungalow or house. 

 

But knowing the houses have been declined was thinking modern bungalow with flat grass sedum roof so it blends in. Removing the 6ft fences which boxes the plot in would improve the “openness “ of the Green belt. 

 

Before I embark on what could be a stressful few years, anyone have any experience , advice or opinion on chances of getting something like this approved?

 

Is it worth having a pre application meeting to see if they would consider anything? 

 

 

thank you 

 

[kandgmitchell]

Just out of interest where the other houses given individual approvals at varying times or were they all (including number 6) given a single approval? I only ask because a few years ago near where we used to live in north-west essex a developer built two or three new houses on land that was definately open countryside on the edge of a village. How did they get that I thought? It turned out that an approval was given for four houses way back but only one was built but that was sufficient for them to argue the development as whole had begun and thus could continue........

[IanR]

Hi and welcome

 

What's the reason(s) stated for refusal of the infill application? That would have been the only route to a planning approval, and it's been tried and refused, but can the reason for refusal be mitigated?

 

Infill in greenbelt, within villages, is permitted within caveats, but not outside a settlement boundary. 

 

The NPPF covers this in basic terms, have a look at 154. e) & g)

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/13-protecting-green-belt-land

 

The LPA's local plan may have local policies that build on the NPPF. The infill application should reference them both in the submission and the Officer's report. 

 

If the Infill application was well put together, the reason for refusal sound, and there's not been any changes to the local policies since, then it's not worth pursuing.

 

If in doubt, find a local planning consultant that has had previous success with the LPA. 

Edited February 21 by IanR

[Bramco]

The NPPF says that one exception to the Green Belt panning criteria is 'infill in a village'.

 

We were knocked back on our planning application - green Belt infill - but pushed through and went to appeal and won. The appeal outcome basically said the council were flat out wrong in denying us permission in the 1st place.

 

It's all very stressful but there are a lot of folks that have won through in the end - although it takes time.

 

On pre-apps, it depends on your council - ours were pathetic and didn't engage, simply wrote an exam answer about all the things that might be against permission and avoided the elephant in the room 'infill in villages'.

 

We used a planning consultant to rewrite our appeal document in planning-ese. I can put you in touch with him. PM me.

 

Also, if you want to see our planning documents including the appeal etc, PM me and I'll send you the link.

 

 

[Jilly]

Have a read on the thread ‘How a Planner got Planning’, it’s got loads of good advice. In view of the new government’s plans to increase in housing stock, you might have more luck than the previous applicant. 

[Sully]

1 hour ago, kandgmitchell said:

Just out of interest where the other houses given individual approvals at varying times or were they all (including number 6) given a single approval? I only ask because a few years ago near where we used to live in north-west essex a developer built two or three new houses on land that was definately open countryside on the edge of a village. How did they get that I thought? It turned out that an approval was given for four houses way back but only one was built but that was sufficient for them to argue the development as whole had begun and thus could continue........

 

That's a really good point. I'm unsure when the original houses were given planning in the 1930s.  It's so perculiar that one wasn't built. and why they'd build either side and not this. 

[Sully]

 

 

that's was the on the decision notice for the last application in 2014 @IanR . thanks for the links will have a read

[SBMS]

Just now, Sully said:

 

 

that's was the on the decision notice for the last application in 2014 @IanR . thanks for the links will have a read

It doesn’t sound like their reason for refusal was because there ‘wasn’t ever a building on the plot’ - which isn’t really a condition of infill anyway. If you can prove the settlement boundary extends to encompass your plot and there’s a clear gap then infill should be a reasonable scenario for planning. Did the council not address this in their response? Have you got the delegated report or link to application for us to look at?

[Big Jimbo]

I thought the NPPF said "Village" and didn't mention "Settlement Boundary" ????

I'd be buying that bit of land pronto.

The definition for infill has been reduced from 6 houses, to a row of 3.

That is infill all day long.....Buy it.

Get a decent planning consultant and you should be sorted. 

Don't forget, if infill, the effect on the Greenbelt no longer has to be considered. It's not isolated and will be considered sustainable , because it is within a row of existing house.

Because it is in the middle of other houses it does not encroach into the open countryside.

Is it cheap ???????

 

Buy it, and hurry up, before somebody else does. The only reason it has failed in the passed is because the application has not been framed properly.

 

Hurry up. Stop reading. Buy it. Quickly .

[Big Jimbo]

Or, tell e where it is so I can buy it...... Yep, deffo do that, it's a rubbish piece of land. Honest. 

[Sully]

lol , thanks Big Jimbo. meeting owner on monday wish me luck!

[SBMS]

50 minutes ago, Big Jimbo said:

I thought the NPPF said "Village" and didn't mention "Settlement Boundary" ????

I'd be buying that bit of land pronto.

The definition for infill has been reduced from 6 houses, to a row of 3.

That is infill all day long.....Buy it.

Get a decent planning consultant and you should be sorted. 

Don't forget, if infill, the effect on the Greenbelt no longer has to be considered. It's not isolated and will be considered sustainable , because it is within a row of existing house.

Because it is in the middle of other houses it does not encroach into the open countryside.

Is it cheap ???????

 

Buy it, and hurry up, before somebody else does. The only reason it has failed in the passed is because the application has not been framed properly.

 

Hurry up. Stop reading. Buy it. Quickly .

Plenty of green belt infill plots that have been refused around us. And upheld on appeal so I wouldn’t say it’s a given. Still open to interpretation as to the ‘facts on the ground’ as appeal inspectors like to call it.. is it an established frontage is often open to interpretation. Some authorities set a specific gap or plot size but this isn’t in the NPPF. Ours does not and typically only approves for single plot gaps. Anything larger doesn’t settle their test of ‘small gap in a continuously developed frontage’.  Notable case in our area was dismissed by appeal inspector. He agreed with the council that it wasn’t infill because the gap was too wide, was more analogous to an agricultural field, even though it was between two properties. 

 

Settlement boundary is relevant when defining the actual extent of a village - as authorities will also look at where exactly your location is and whether the makeup of the surroundings constitutes making up the ‘village’. If your patch isn’t technically in a village then you can’t use this exception. 
 

Planning consultant first, if I was you, but keep the optimism 👍

[IanR]

On 21/02/2025 at 21:27, Big Jimbo said:

I thought the NPPF said "Village" and didn't mention "Settlement Boundary" ????

 

In this context, it's one and the same. The LPA's Local plan will have a set of maps included that define the "settlements" and their boundaries. In the rural context, the NPPF's "village" is within that boundary.

 

As an example from my LPA, an infill at "A" may be considered, but "B" would not.

Key:

Edited February 23 by IanR

[IanR]

On 21/02/2025 at 19:29, Sully said:

 

 

that's was the on the decision notice for the last application in 2014 @IanR . thanks for the links will have a read

 

Their reason for refusal indicates there is no mitigation to it being within Green Belt, and the plot therefore resides outside of the defined settlement boundaries. Check that's the case in the Local Plan and that the Core Strategies, CS1, CS5 and CS7 all indicate that development should not be allowed in this position.

 

If the LPA are accurate with their reason for refusal, and there's been no boundary or policy change since, then don't waste anymore time on this plot.

[ProDave]

That reminds me of when I lived in the south and was looking for a plot.  I came across a LO settlement plan just like the one above but the red settlement boundary was drawn like the teeth of a comb, carefully excluding every single scrap of land that did not already have a house, for no reason other than spite to prevent the settlement getting developed with what most people would regard as an infill in keeping with the settlement.

[Bramco]

And an appeal inspector can decide that a plot is within the village in terms of the NPPF even though it might not be within the settlement boundary. Their job is to interpret the plans according to what they find on the ground.  And given the push to build, build, build, they may be even more inclined to grant permission these days.

 

And the decision was based on the Plan from 2012 - a lot will have changed in that time

Edited February 23 by Bramco

[IanR]

9 minutes ago, ProDave said:

That reminds me of when I lived in the south and was looking for a plot.  I came across a LO settlement plan just like the one above but the red settlement boundary was drawn like the teeth of a comb, carefully excluding every single scrap of land that did not already have a house, for no reason other than spite to prevent the settlement getting developed with what most people would regard as an infill in keeping with the settlement.

 

That's exactly what I thought on the Northern settlement with the last property on the Northern side of the road. Boundary set to stop a sub-division of the plot.

 

8 minutes ago, Bramco said:

And an appeal inspector can decide that a plot is within the village in terms of the NPPF even though it might not be within the settlement boundary. Their job is to interpret the plans according to what they find on the ground.  And given the push to build, build, build, they may be even more inclined to grant permission these days.

 

I have to disagree. The Boundaries are set by the Local Plan and aren't subjective, once set. While there maybe grounds for Appeal, that wouldn't be one of them.

Edited February 23 by IanR

[SBMS]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

That's exactly what I thought on the Northern settlement with the last property on the Northern side of the road. Boundary set to stop a sub-division of the plot.

 

 

I have to disagree. The Boundaries are set by the Local Plan and aren't subjective, once set. While there maybe grounds for Appeal, that wouldn't be one of them.

@IanR sorry but you're not correct here.  From our application (approved) and many others in our borough:

 

The term village is not defined within the NPPF and is therefore a matter of judgement.

 

The High Court ruling of (Julian Wood v. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Gravesham Borough Council [2015]) is relevant in respect of interpreting NPPF paragraph 154 [NPPF paragraph 89 at the time of ruling]. In summary, the Court of Appeal confirmed that whilst the settlement boundary, as defined in the Local Plan, would be a relevant consideration, it would not necessarily be determinative as to whether a site is located in a village for the purposes of NPPF paragraph 154. In this respect, the judgement essentially concluded that a decision as to whether or not a site was in a village required an onsite assessment as to the situation on the ground. This ruling has been widely acknowledged by **our LPA*** and consideration of limited infilling sites in villages in the Borough have previously been assessed on this basis.

 

Therefore, if your plot is greenbelt within a settlement boundary, its a slam dunk and the infill provision can be used.  However, the definition of a village is not fixed and is a matter of judgement.  Our planning consultant proved the village extended to properties not within the defined settlement boundary (which in any case is out of date being as it is many years old forming the local plan) with arguments such as being within a “…linear but continuous edge of settlement location, and whilst outside of the ‘existing built up area’ allocation, the site does read as being a part of **village***" and providing other granted applications in the area that also are outside the official settlement boundary.  

 

Planning officer's response in their approval report: "…whilst it is clear that the application site is outside of the Local Plan defined village boundary of**our village***, it can be considered to read as being part of the village of **our village**"

 

I'm becoming a bore on this, but a (good) planning consultant really is worth their weight in gold in applications like this...

Edited February 23 by SBMS

[SBMS]

1 hour ago, Bramco said:

And an appeal inspector can decide that a plot is within the village in terms of the NPPF even though it might not be within the settlement boundary. Their job is to interpret the plans according to what they find on the ground.  And given the push to build, build, build, they may be even more inclined to grant permission these days.

 

And the decision was based on the Plan from 2012 - a lot will have changed in that time

100% correct Bramco.  It doesn't even need to be an appeal inspector - our own LPA readily accept and approve infill applications outside of the Local plan settlement boundary, where the planning statement does a good job justifying the location as part of the 'village'.

[Bramco]

We spoke to Julian Wood when we were working out whether to apply.  We didn't follow his advice though, he suggested going for a swimming pool and then change of use after a few years.  We actually followed the ruling.  I think he was just after more business....

 

I mentioned to @Sully in a PM that there is a book of case law on the NPPF - a bit out of date but still useful. Quite expensive (not in the grand scheme of things of course) but for anyone more interested in how the NPPF is being interpreted in the courts, maybe worth a look. Its 'Interpreting the NPPF' written by one of the top planning law QCs.

[Big Jimbo]

The problem with both the NPPF, and the Local Policies are written in such an ambiguous way, that effectively allow for interpretation . (done on purpose to keep the Law sector employed ? ). Also, perhaps to prevent the overworked, and underpaid (crappy, and lazy) planning officers from being accused of getting it wrong.

It is quite easy to find cases with any local authority, where applications for very similar proposals, are refused by One officer, and granted by another.

The system is broken IMO.

[ProDave]

It is also worth mentioning that the plot we now have a house on was just like that, an  infill between 2 houses.  It also had long lapsed planning permission.  But our local plan also showed it as outside the area for "development land"  But the infill clause overruled that and we had no problem getting planning.  But they are less resistant to individual plots up here. 

[Johnnyt]

1 hour ago, SBMS said:

with arguments such as being within a “…linear but continuous edge of settlement location, and whilst outside of the ‘existing built up area’ allocation, the site does read as being a part of **village***" and providing other granted applications in the area that also are outside the official settlement boundary.  

It doesn’t even need to be continuous.

Extract from my successful appeal

 

1. I acknowledge that the Council is not proposing to re-define the boundary of the settlement as part of the emerging Part 2 (Land Allocations and Detailed Policies) of the Local Plan.  However, this does not convince me that the site does not form part of the village.  I note that the house itself would not be positioned immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary and a gap would be left.  I also acknowledge that the site is a greenfield site which lies close to a transitional point and is reflective of the wider countryside.  However, the Framework does not preclude the development of greenfield sites as part of the exception referred to above, nor does it require the development of a continuous frontage.  1Appeal ref: APP/A0665/A/14/2228579 

[Bramco]

1 hour ago, Big Jimbo said:

The problem with both the NPPF, and the Local Policies are written in such an ambiguous way, that effectively allow for interpretation . (done on purpose to keep the Law sector employed ? ). Also, perhaps to prevent the overworked, and underpaid (crappy, and lazy) planning officers from being accused of getting it wrong.

It is quite easy to find cases with any local authority, where applications for very similar proposals, are refused by One officer, and granted by another.

The system is broken IMO.

 

I'm not sure it's broken - it might tend to be inconsistent and might put some people off doing their due diligence and going to appeal.  But imagine if the NPPF had to dot all the i's and cross all the t's on every possible situation on the ground - we'd never have a framework - and I know some would say that would be great but have you ever driven through small towns in Belgium?

 

We rely on having a framework that sets out principles - like the Green Belt principles. We have a borough planning system that allows for local specifications - and then we use the appeal system and the courts to actually work out what the boundaries are in specific cases.  It's pragmatic but it does kinda work, although some of us have to help set the boundaries by taking things to appeal and in extreme cases to the High Court.

 

Having said that it's bl**dy stressful having to batter your way through the system.........................

[Sully]

Hi all, sadly this has taken a stall. The owners of the land are getting divorced and will contact me when they are closer to selling their house at the back which came with this plot as well. Frustrating really as I know it's going to be a long drawn out process and I want to get cracking asap. I can't be pushy and need to be sensitive to the situation, the owner did disclose her partner had moved out 5 years ago but they still hadn't got round to officially divorcing and splitting assets. So I cant imagine this happening anytime soon. 

 

if anyone has any polite suggestions on how to try and get it going sooner I'm all ears. I did leave a final message saying I understood, and what my offer was etc/