Planning policy and green belt housing, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
There’s going to be many green belt housing sites which will come forward under the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) following an aggressive overhaul of the framework introduced by the Labour Government. This is all geared to jumpstart economic growth, which frankly requires some attention to say the least.
It’s all reminiscent of the time during which I opposed development at Sun Lane under older NPPF rules, only this time government changes to the NPPF have effectively sidelined local councillors from the planning decision process.
Affordability.
Notwithstanding all the above, when is a house affordable? The median district wage is £29,120 (Source Bradford Core City Analysis and Benchmarking report – November 2025). This is perhaps the reason that affordable home sales remain stagnant nationally.
Mortgage lenders will typically let you borrow 4.5 – 5.0 times your income, assuming you can afford a 10% deposit for the average affordable £250,000-£350,000 family home.
A shared ownership property is the measure of last resort, a 10% – 60% deposit. It allows you to buy a share of a property, subject to affordability and eligibility, and pay rent on the remainder, and those are amongst the issues.
Right here in Wharfedale, a 3-bed end of terrace is priced at £238,500 with 60% shared ownership (£143,100 deposit/mortgage). The additional costs are, £4,372.50 in rent, an annual service charge of £443.16, plus unspecified ground rent, and excludes household bills.
Mortgage costs.
Monthly Costs by Interest Rate £238,500 25- Year Term
- 4.0% Interest £1,259 per month
Monthly Costs by Interest Rate £143,100 25-Year Term
- 4.0% interest:£755.33 per month
Monthly Costs by Interest Rate £95,400 25-Year Term
At 4.0% Interest: £504 per month
So, house buyers are at least £4,372.50 per year worse off if they elect to buy a shared ownership home on this basis, and the house may never be owned outright. Occupants are effectively paying the interest only, on the full mortgage cost but never reduces the outstanding debt on the outstanding 40% share.
The 5-year land housing supply penalty.
Councils are legally required to demonstrate a clear 5-year supply of deliverable housing land. If they fall short, the planning scales tip heavily in favour of developers, triggering alternative land release options like the Grey Belt.
The Grey Belt is a designation created to bridge the gap between strictly protected green fields and developed urban brownfield sites. It is officially defined as land within the designated Green Belt that comprises previously developed land (brownfield) and/or land that does not strongly contribute to the Green Belt’s core purposes.
Presumably, cattle grazing on land that does not strongly contribute to the Green Belt, don’t produce milk, beef or leather. To further make the point, what about sheep? Well roger me sideways, I didn’t realise that they produced wool, mutton or lamb. Then there’s that ‘pesky‘ biodiversity which is, as if by magic, bolstered by building houses on Green Belt land, only it’s not true, according to Natural England. I’ll go one step further, across the district biodiversity net gain (BNG) is being addressed by funding that net gain elsewhere in the UK, so the district is likely to become a biodiversity dessert.
Bradford’s Land Housing Supply.
Recent planning committee reports and statements from council officers indicate that the housing land supply for the district sits at approximately 2 to 2.08 years, falling significantly short of the 5-year requirement set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The lack of a 5-year land supply and failure to meet government housing delivery thresholds has heavily influenced recent planning decisions, leading to approvals for residential schemes on sites previously protected or classified under emerging grey belt criteria. This bypasses the previous high bar set in “Very Special Circumstances” rule, diluted to new “Golden Rules” which provides the loophole which developers now exploit. This revision to national planning policy is far less prescriptive to very special circumstances and allows developers to more easily ‘game’ the planning system.
I do note that 2 green belt applications have recently been approved under this framework, one in Menston, the other in Bingley.
The “Golden Rules” for Major Development.
Landowners and developers cannot just build anything on the Grey Belt. To get permission for major housing projects, they must meet ‘strict‘ criteria:
- Affordable Housing: A minimum target of 50% affordable housing (with a floor requirement to provide at least 15% above the existing local policy target), currently set at 30% in Wharfedale.
- Infrastructure: Developers must fund or provide necessary local or national infrastructure (e.g., schools, GP surgeries, transport).
- Green Space: Projects must deliver new or vastly improved public green spaces.
It’s laughable that new or vastly improved green spaces can be delivered by building on the Green Belt, using a small section of the built on site.
Bradford Plans Panels.
I’m confident that Bradford’s plans panel are advised that they’re unable to object on any basis at commencement of Regulatory and Appeals meetings. It’s therefore strange that the panel’s chair; Cllr Matt Edwards, consistently abstains from the vote.
If arguments against housing development are so compelling, then won’t the chair voice an objection? An abstention appears to obscure one simple truth; there were no grounds on which to object, despite what speakers may have voiced during appeals. Moreover, an abstention is basically a wasted vote. If everyone abstained, the development would go through regardless. Under these circumstances, council officers would be forced to make the decision to approve a development under delegated powers. Councillors are elected to make these decisions, and under these circumstances, officers carry the can and the resulting flack for approval. Abstention is not a defensive strategy that delivers the required result, quite the contrary, and forgive me for stating the obviouness of the truth, whether a development is approved or otherwise is a binary decision – for or against.
Meanwhile at Kirksatll Forge…
In 2014, Kirkstall Forge was identified; by Leeds City Council and ceg:, as a brownfield site that would accommodate a 1,000 new homes. There apparently an urgent, unmet housing need to build homes at the time. Today, there are only 2 test homes at the site, so much for urgency. We did however, manage to build a station, the total cost £15.9 million, £9.5 million from a DfT government subsidy/grant, the remainder from a £5 million loan. See the report published by West Yorkshire’s Combined Authority.
Shortly after Kirkstall Forge was approved, plans for a housing development came forward for 500 homes at Sun Lane Burley in Wharfedale. These were subsequently approved, and work commenced immediately afterwards.
Kirkstall Forge completion date 2028, Sun Lane commence in 2022 and is currently being delivered at pace.
g, why didn’t building commence at that time at Kirkstall Forge?
