Justification for the Preferred Option for the Green Belt
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46638
Received: 19/07/2012
Respondent: G Ralph
The exceptional circumstances that are required to change the existing green belt have not been demonstrated.
The exceptional circumstances that are required to change the existing green belt have not been demonstrated.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46725
Received: 23/07/2012
Respondent: Joanna Illingworth
This section has little to say about agriculture and food production. It regards the Green Belt in the main as a playground for the residents of urban areas.
This section has little to say about agriculture and food production. It regards the Green Belt in the main as a playground for the residents of urban areas.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46878
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: Mark Robins
Redrawing the Green Belt in NL is not required, over the last thirty years the village has had a number of infill and brown site developments that have met the needs for new homes, whilst maintaining the integrity of this ancient Warwickshire hill top village. It can keep its historical environment by being allowed to evolve and not be radically changed by a development of 30-80 houses.
Redrawing the Green Belt in NL is not required, over the last thirty years the village has had a number of infill and brown site developments that have met the needs for new homes, whilst maintaining the integrity of this ancient Warwickshire hill top village. It can keep its historical environment by being allowed to evolve and not be radically changed by a development of 30-80 houses.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46913
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: Mrs Gillian Crisp
The existing Green Belt legislation has protected Norton Lindsey without preventing limited small development of required housing. It is very important that its protection remains in place.
The existing Green Belt legislation has protected Norton Lindsey without preventing limited small development of required housing. It is very important that its protection remains in place.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46948
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Mrs Julie Tidd
There is no clear evidence that this level of growth is required, and local people do not want it. Given this, there is no way it can be justifiable to destroy precious green belt land on the back of spurious projections. Once its gone its gone forever. There are no 'exceptional cirumstances' (and irrefutable proof of them) to make this type of plan acceptable or even sensible.
There is no clear evidence that this level of growth is required, and local people do not want it. Given this, there is no way it can be justifiable to destroy precious green belt land on the back of spurious projections. Once its gone its gone forever. There are no 'exceptional cirumstances' (and irrefutable proof of them) to make this type of plan acceptable or even sensible.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47109
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Ms Lisa Abba
exceptional circumstances have not been met
exceptional circumstances have not been met
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47238
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: ms cymone de-lara-bond
A failure to conduct a methodical approach to this issue leaves the proposed preferred options flawed.
A failure to conduct a methodical approach to this issue leaves the proposed preferred options flawed.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47291
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Miss Alison Reid
It is stated below that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. A desire to build 180 houses is not 'an exceptional circumstance'. At the meeting at Woodloes School, the official in charge of the plan failed to recall even half of the 5 points to consider when deciding to alter Green Belt boundaries. He provided information contradictory to that which he had given on a previous occasion. He was also unaware of relevant environmental points made by those gathered, suggesting that sufficient consideration of the environmental implications of building on this land had not been given.
It is stated below that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. A desire to build 180 houses is not 'an exceptional circumstance'. At the meeting at Woodloes School, the official in charge of the plan failed to recall even half of the 5 points to consider when deciding to alter Green Belt boundaries. He provided information contradictory to that which he had given on a previous occasion. He was also unaware of relevant environmental points made by those gathered, suggesting that sufficient consideration of the environmental implications of building on this land had not been given.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 50209
Received: 03/08/2012
Respondent: Old Milverton & Blackdown JPC
Agent: Hunter Page Planning
Joint Green Belt Study (JGBS)
- The JGBS indicated that variations in the quality of land in the green belt and therefore some areas around the towns may be considered for development and therefore, removed from the green belt. It is fundamental to note that green belt is not a designation for landscape quality, but rather a functional planning designation for the purposes set out in the NPPF.
- The scoring system of the green-belt study is not consistent with the up-to-date guidance set out in the NPPF.
- However landscape character and quality is an important consideration and is addressed by the Cooper Partnership Landscape Appraisal.
See attachments