'Golden rules' on greenbelt building shouldn't be taken lightly, argue councillors

Councillors have questioned the value of the Government’s ‘golden rules’ on greenbelt building after a housing proposal that sparked pushback at a meeting last week.

Buckinghamshire Council refused proposals for a dozen homes in Dorney that were recommended for approval by officers – a scheme which carries an appeal risk, given its history.

Councillors zeroed in on the Government’s updates to the so-called ‘golden rules’, intended to increase the community benefit of new housing schemes on greenbelt land.

At an East and South Bucks planning committee on February 3, councillors questioned the value of such rules if they cannot be used to turn down applications like this one – which they felt did not cut the mustard.

The scheme is to demolish a barn and convert some buildings to create 12 houses at Boveney Court Farm. Though not a large application, its significance lies in its greenbelt status.

Officers recommended it for approval, saying that the site is previously developed land, and thus building on it would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the greenbelt.

A near-identical proposal was refused in 2023 and later dismissed on appeal – but only because the bat surveys were out of date.

The planning inspector found the greenbelt and affordable housing issues acceptable in principle.

These findings still carry weight, which is partly why officers felt approval was the best option for the new scheme.

But during a long discussion last Tuesday, Buckinghamshire councillors said they felt the proposal failed to satisfy the golden rules.

The Government amended these last year, upping the amount of affordable housing on major housing developments.

Such schemes should deliver an amount that is 15 percentage points above the local affordable housing target but capped at 50 per cent.

In this Dorney scheme, only a 21 per cent off-site affordable housing contribution was offered, well below the 50 per cent benchmark Buckinghamshire would require.

The golden rules also cover infrastructure and publicly accessible green space.

In this case, a modest healthcare payment was the only confirmed infrastructure contribution, and no new public open space was proposed.

Officers acknowledged the shortfalls and said they do count against the scheme, but not heavily. On balance, these matters carry moderate weight, they said.

But councillors said that if a scheme missing such key elements could still be judged acceptable, the ‘golden rule’ label rings hollow and makes it nothing more than a ‘fig leaf’.

They also voiced concerns over whether allowing such a large shortfall in affordable housing would set a bad precedent and weaken the council’s position on future applications.

Ultimately, councillors concluded that the scheme’s failures tipped the scales firmly against it and voted to refuse the proposal.