3. Green Belt and Exceptional Circumstances
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60611
Received: 26/11/2013
Respondent: Mrs Jenny Martin
Angry that she believes all green belt is now open for development.
Upset at potential impact on house prices and potential inability to sell due to new housing building works.
Believes that using brownfield sites and converting old housing would be the better option.
Like every villager, I am aghast at the plans to build over greenbelt wherever speculators can lay their hands on land. A total free for all, with the rules applied to individuals dispensed with eg ecology, infrastructure, trees.
And all for what...
The interests of residents are clearly not of interest to those elected to serve them. Who cares that I & my neighbours will be tens of thousands of pounds poorer & trapped in unsaleable houses? Living 10 yards from a building site? (Where a field used to be) . Surely this should be taken into account? It seems not. But Not in your Backyard!
Once the country is turned into a vast housing estate, there can be no turning back. The extra cost of converting old housing & brownfield sites would pay in the long run.
I am sure my voice is not alone.
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61194
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Martin Teodorczyk
The NPPF generally protects Green Belts from development. It does encourage some specific growth, but this should be concentrated on previously-developed land or within towns/villages, NOT to the edge of villages.
WDC has by its own admission not yet completed its work with neighbouring authorities, so assessing based on the maximum 12,300 across the district is premature.
WDC has not clearly adopted a sequential test to prioritise development in brownfield locations, and is not doing enough to deliver homes on current development sites (e.g. land SE of Leamington station and Morrisons).
The NPPF generally protects Green Belts from development. It does encourage some specific growth, but this should be concentrated on previously-developed land or within towns/villages, NOT to the edge of villages.
WDC has by its own admission not yet completed its work with neighbouring authorities, so assessing based on the maximum 12,300 across the district is premature.
WDC has not clearly adopted a sequential test to prioritise development in brownfield locations, and is not doing enough to deliver homes on current development sites (e.g. land SE of Leamington station and Morrisons).
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61240
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Laura Teodorczyk
The NPPF generally protects Green Belts from development. It does encourage some specific growth, but this should be concentrated on previously-developed land or within towns/villages, NOT to the edge of villages.
WDC has by its own admission not yet completed its work with neighbouring authorities, so assessing based on the maximum 12,300 across the district is premature.
WDC has not clearly adopted a sequential test to prioritise development in brownfield locations, and is not doing enough to deliver homes on current development sites (e.g. land SE of Leamington station and Morrisons) and other derelict urban sites (eg along the canal).
The NPPF generally protects Green Belts from development. It does encourage some specific growth, but this should be concentrated on previously-developed land or within towns/villages, NOT to the edge of villages.
WDC has by its own admission not yet completed its work with neighbouring authorities, so assessing based on the maximum 12,300 across the district is premature.
WDC has not clearly adopted a sequential test to prioritise development in brownfield locations, and is not doing enough to deliver homes on current development sites (e.g. land SE of Leamington station and Morrisons) and other derelict urban sites (eg along the canal).
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61422
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: The Bateman Settled Trust and Mr A Rajkowski
Agent: Savills
-There is clear justification for altering Green Belt boundaries to allow for future development but the Green Belt boundaries should be further revised to allow for long-term needs of the Primary Service Villages. Boundaries should not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period.
see attached
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61723
Received: 22/01/2014
Respondent: Dr E R Austin
-The argument presented is ambiguous. Whereas Green Belt is clearly defined and has been for many years, according to the plan it can now be manipulated.
-There must be 'exceptional circumstances' before building on Green Belt land is allowed. The plan does not say what these circumstance could be.
-When the NPPF was published the government promised it would not be a 'free for all' for 'developers'. Mr Pickles was quoted saying 'The Green Belt is safe in our hands'. I wish this were true. One example of a planning application being approved on Green Belt is, Gateway.
see attached
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61736
Received: 22/01/2014
Respondent: Dr E R Austin
-The argument you present is ambiguous because whereas the Green Belt is clearly defined and has been for many years, your article seems to say that it can now be manipulated/altered at will.
-My understanding is that there must be ''exceptional circumstances'' before building on Green Belt land can be allowed. Your book does not say what they might be and no examples are discussed.
see attached
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61762
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: Ian Saunders
-WCC proposal to remove some villages from the green belt to accommodate limited development suggest that all villages/hamlets should be excluded. When grouped they form part of the large parish and are at risk of becoming even more isolated without allowing for modest growth.
-Villages did not spring up overnight. They have all developed and decreased/increased in size over a long time.
-The sensible village boundaries would need to be agreed by the individual Parish Councils. Green Belt policy is designed to protect the boundaries between settlements and retain our countryside and this in my opinion would not be compromised.
Can you tell me if there has been any consideration given to removing the green belt 'washover' on any smaller villages in the district?
Villages for example like Rowington, Norton Lindsey, Lapworth, Pinley Green, Little Shrewley, Hatton Green and similar
Your proposals to remove some villages from the green belt to accommodate limited development, suggests that in fact, all villages and Hamlets should be excluded from the green belt, particularly as when grouped collectively, smaller villages are after all, linked to and form part of the larger parish and are at risk of becoming even more isolated without allowing for modest growth. Villages after all didn't just spring up overnight, they've all developed and either decreased or increased in size over a very long time.
I appreciate that sensible village boundaries would need to be agreed by the individual Parish Councils, but the green belt policy is designed to protect the boundaries between settlements and to retain the open space aspect of our countryside and this, in my opinion, would not be compromised.
It's clear to see that the an increase in housing numbers is required throughout the district and the opportunity for villages to allow a sensible and proportionate increase in their housing numbers within the village envelope, will obviously help provide some of the increases required when looked at on a district wide basis.
I'm quite sure there will many objections coming forward against the larger scale developments being suggested, and proportionate infill, within the current villages, could alleviate some of the many those concerns.
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 63535
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Lenco Investments
Agent: RPS Planning & Development
RPS contests that not only is the current boundary amendment insufficient to address the needs of the village during this plan period, it is also insufficient to accommodate the needs of the village beyond the plan period, including the additional need that will be generated given its expansion during this plan period.
see attached
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 63538
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Agent: AMEC
The District Council's decision to review Green Belt boundaries is consistent with national planning policy guidance:
-The NPPF at paragraphs 83-84 states that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in 'exceptional circumstances', through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. Further, when reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development.
-To boost significantly the supply of housing, the NPPF (Paragraph 47) requires local authorities, in preparing their local plans, to ensure that the full objectively assessed needs for housing are met as far is consistent with policies set out in the Framework. Seeking to meet such needs is part of the soundness test of development plans being positively prepared (Para.182). According to the Warwick District Council, the full objectively assessed housing needs for the District is 12,300 dwellings1; a scale of development for which WDC considers there is insufficient suitable and available sites outside of the Green Belt to meet. Then lack of suitable and available sites to meet objectively assessed housing needs provides the exceptional circumstances for a review of Green Belt boundaries.
see attached
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 63539
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Agent: AMEC
Having regard to the aforementioned guidance in the NPPF, and the latest evidence base on District's housing need and housing land supply, AMEC welcomes the Council's decision to undertake a Green Belt review and of its approach to identifying suitable land to be released from the Green Belt.
see attached