The ‘Golden Rules’ sit at the heart of the government's approach to Green Belt release. Alongside requirements for affordable housing, infrastructure and publicly accessible green space, the policy sets out a tightly defined approach to viability in the context of the Green Belt.
GB8(3) and GB8(4) are central to that approach. Together, they limit when developers may seek to rely on viability evidence to justify reduced Golden Rules contributions and, perhaps more significantly, make clear that any such reduction should be difficult to establish in practice.
A quick reminder: What are the Golden Rules?
In high level terms, policy GB8 requires major development involving the provision of housing on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, or on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application, to provide the following three contributions:
Higher levels of affordable housing
Necessary local or national infrastructure improvements
New or improved publicly accessible green space
The NPPF is clear that substantial weight should be given to the importance of complying with these requirements when determining planning applications to which GB8 applies.
GB8(3): A much narrower route to viability arguments
Perhaps the most significant feature of GB8(3) is that it limits the circumstances in which a site-specific viability assessment may be relied upon to justify non-compliance with the Golden Rules. These are:
Where previously developed land is burdened by costs associated with that previous development which were not taken into account in the viability assessment that informed the development plan
Where the scheme is a strategic site
Where the development is of a wholly different type to that considered in the viability assessment that informed the development plan
This is deliberately restrictive. In the response to the NPPF consultation the government indicated that the use of “wholly” at limb (c), in comparison to “materially” as used in Development Viability Policy DM5(2)(a), is intended to create a deliberately narrower gateway for viability reviews in the Green Belt context.
Rather than allowing viability to become a routine discussion after an application has been submitted, GB8(3) reflects the NPPF's broader approach that viability should generally be addressed at the plan-making stage, with scheme-specific viability assessments limited to defined circumstances.
In practice, developers will need to think carefully before assuming that viability provides a route around Golden Rule requirements. In many cases, it may not.
GB8(4): Maximum possible contributions remain the expectation
Importantly, even where a viability assessment is permitted under GB8(3), the policy doesn’t disapply the Golden Rules. The assessment is directed towards the extent of compliance rather than whether compliance is required at all.
GB8(4) states that proposals should still make the maximum possible contribution towards affordable housing and other infrastructure requirements. It goes on to say that contributions falling significantly below the affordable housing levels required by GB8(1)(a)(i) and (a)(ii) will only be acceptable in exceptional cases where they are fully evidenced and justified.
This wording is key.
Historically, viability debates often centred on identifying the minimum level of policy compliance that a scheme could sustain. GB8(4) pushes in the opposite direction. The question is not "what is the least this scheme can provide?" but rather "what is the maximum contribution the scheme can support?" There’s a subtle difference, but it could have a significant effect on negotiations.
For local planning authorities, the policy provides a stronger basis for scrutinising viability evidence and resisting substantial departures from the contributions expected by the Golden Rules.
Key considerations for developers and authorities
For developers, the message is that Green Belt opportunities should be assessed on the basis that Golden Rule compliance is likely to be required from the outset. If a scheme depends on reduced contributions being agreed through viability discussions, early consideration should be given to whether the policy tests in GB8(3) and GB8(4) can realistically be met.
For local authorities, there’s now stronger policy support for asking difficult questions where reduced contributions are sought. A viability assessment is no longer enough on its own. The applicant must first demonstrate that one of the specific GB8(3) circumstances applies and then justify why the proposed contribution represents the maximum achievable level.
The result is a policy framework that seeks to make Green Belt release more politically and socially acceptable by ensuring communities receive meaningful benefits. Whether it achieves that ambition will depend on how decision makers apply the provisions in practice, but GB8(3) and GB8(4) clearly signal a firmer stance on viability in the Green Belt context.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.