DS19 Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 65989

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Local Planning Authorities with Green Belts in their area should only alter the Green Belt boundary in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.Green Belt boundaries should have permanence in the long term and be capable of enduring beyond the Plan period.The Council has not undertaken a strategic review of the Green Belt and therefore does not have the evidence base to selectively remove sites, such as Red House Farm, from the Green Belt.

The Council has identified that it is their intention to undertake a revised evidence base for the wider Housing Market Area which, importantly, includes a review of the Green Belt. This evidence base must inform this Local Plan as changes to Warwick's Green Belt cannot be implemented through a partial review.

Support

Representation ID: 66006

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: NHS Property Services

Agent: Marrons Planning

NHS Propert Services has interests in land at Beausale Lane/Birmingham Road, Hatton. It therefore supports the Council's decision to exclude Hatton Park from the Green Belt and further supports the boundary as proposed and shown on Local Plan Policies Map 21. Consequential support is therefore given to Policy DS19 and paragraphs 2.79-2.81 as they relate to Hatton.

Object

Representation ID: 66010

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: University of Warwick

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Removal of what is referred to as "Central Campus West" from the Green Belt has been a longstanding objective of the University. This is in order to establish a secure long-term boundary around the edge of the campus and to allow development to be approved and to proceed without the unnecessary constraints of Green Belt policy which are no longer relevant to the University's circumstances. The University therefore supports the revised Green Belt boundary under policy DS19.

However the University considers that Local Plan policy DS19 is not sound because it is inconsistent with para 83 of the NPPF which requires exceptional circumstances to be identified. These should be specifically included in the supporting text.

Support

Representation ID: 66039

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

The Council has recognised the need to allocate existing Green Belt land for residential development. This has been fully justified. It is therefore essential that the Green Belt boundaries be amended to allow the development to proceed, as set out in DS19 and paragraph 2.80.

Object

Representation ID: 66052

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council has failed to give the Green Belt a degree of permanence as required by the NPPF in that it cannot endure within the current plan period, yet alone beyond it. The Plan is unjustified and thus unsound.

The level to which the Green Belt has been amended is therefore insufficient to meet the needs of the District and Sub-Region.There is also clear evidence that Warwick District is severely under providing for housing need, land within the Green Belt offers sustainable options for addressing this.

RPS objects to the methodology applied to the land parcel C11a at Baginton, on the basis that the fourth criterion has been misapplied. PPG2 set out very clearly that this purpose was 'to preserve the setting and special
character of historic towns'. The assessment applied this purpose to Baginton Village which while it is acknowledged has a conservation area, it is not a town of special character, nor is it of special historic context.Against this misapplication of the Green Belt policy the parcel was discounted.

In conclusion the Council's own evidence therefore indicates that the authority was incorrect in its assessment of Green Belt Parcel C11a, as has been clarified by its more recent evidence that would have necessitated the further consideration of the site in the appraisal process.Taken on the whole, it is clear that the Green Belt Parcel C11 should have been appraised more
appropriately and the Council must have due regard to significant changing circumstances in reaching its conclusions now.

Support

Representation ID: 66089

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Gleeson Developments

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

Inline with Policy DS19, the Council has identified that Southcrest Farm will be removed from the Green Belt in accordance with the exceptional circumstances set out in the NPPF. This is entirely in accordance with NPPF policy. However, should the land swap between Southcrest Farm and the two Kenilworth school sites not take place, the land at Southcrest Farm should be "safeguarded" in accordance with paragraph 85 of the NPPF to meet longer term development needs both within the current plan period and beyond in accordance with the NPPF. This would either be to meet unmet needs for housing and/or educational uses arising out of the failure to deliver the proposed level of housing at Thickthorn and the two existing school sites.

Object

Representation ID: 66171

Received: 07/06/2014

Respondent: Mrs Eleanor Hucklesby

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I object to this part of the plan. For an area which will suffer knock on effects of HS2, use of more greenbelt for development seems unwarranted.

I would like to know how WDC has proven that there are exceptional circumstances to justify re defining Greenbelt in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 66196

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr David A Ellwood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Revised Development Strategy RDS8 was clear that "A policy framework for the site will be developed which d) ensures the land is retained within the Green Belt until such time the site is fully developed". It was not proposed to change the greenbelt boundary.

Support

Representation ID: 66215

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Savills

We support the Council's commitment to releasing Green Belt land for development where required and in appropriately sustainable locations in order to deliver the strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 66216

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: NFU

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Does not refer to agricultural and rural businesses located in the Green Belt. Green Belt policy should be more flexible to allow rural businesses to develp and evolve, which will help safeguard their long term viability.
Agricultural business located within greenbelt have to respond to the same pressures to comply with higher welfare and environmental management standards in the same way as those businesses located in other areas of the county.
It should also recognise that farming businesses have an essential role in maintain the local landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 66240

Received: 24/06/2014

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Agent: d2planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to this policy which does not remove land at Lodge Farm, Westward Heath Road from the green belt and allocate, the site for a housing led development in accordance with the Garden Towns principles.

These objections should be read in conjunction with those made in respect of Policy DS6 Level of Housing Growth and DS7 Meeting the Housing Requirement. As part of the preparation of the Local Plan, the Planning Authority has unde1taken a green belt review. The details of this are set out in the Coventry Joint Green belt Review (January 2009). The land in question was identified as site C14C (see attached). It was reviewed in relation o the 5 green belt functions identified in PPGJ 'Green Belts' (now paragraph 80 of the NPPF). This assessment concluded that the land is one of the least constrained parcels south of Coventry and potentially suitable to be released from the green belt.

Our representations in respect of the Policies identified above have concluded that the housing provision for the distric1 needs to be substantially increased. The Local Plan accepts in Policy DS 19 that land currently located within the green belt needs to be released to assist in meeting the housing requirement. Furthermore, this does not take into account land which needs to be released to meet the housing needs from adjoining Districts e.g. Coventry. We are firmly of the view that as the housing provision needs to be substantially increased and accordingly land within the green belt needs to be released as it is accepted within the Local Plan that there are insufficient brownfield sites or unconstrained green belt sites to meet the housing requirement. Accordingly, this site is ideally placed to be released for green belt. In accordance with our objections to Policy DS 11 that the site is available, suitable and deliverable in line with the SHLAA.

Support

Representation ID: 66289

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

We support the confirmation that Green Belt policy will follow that set out in national policy. On that basis, the Green Belt boundary should be long term and defensible, and safeguarded land should be identified in this Local Plan in accordance with NPPF paragraph 85.

Object

Representation ID: 66343

Received: 29/07/2014

Respondent: Shirley Estates

Agent: Davis Planning Partnership

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy should allow for Green Belt Review to allow sustainable development.

Object

Representation ID: 66346

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to policy DS19 Green Belt which defines the extent of the Green Belt in the District.

Whilst the Council has undertaken a review of the Green Belt and commissioned further independenet work to critically assess the review we do not consider that the work undertaken has been expressively thorough or unbiased.

The Green Belt Criticial Reveiw provides an assessment of the preferred option sites, but fails to consider any of the sites that have been dismissed. In contrast to the Council's Green Belt Review, it focuses on the specific sites.
This more detailed approach results in very different conculsions. Whilst the Green Belt Review considers Parcel BG3 (within which the preferred option site is located) to be of high Green Belt value the Green Belt Critical Reveiw consideres the preferred option site to be of low to medium value.
It concludes that given the characteristics of the site, it could be removed from the Green Belt with a modest impact on the fundamental aims, essential characteristricts and purposes of the Green Belt.

It is worth noting the Inspector's Main Modifications to the Leeds City Council Core Strategy, which recommended that full Green Belt review should be undertaken to accommodate the identified level of housing and employment growth rath than a selective review as the Council originally propoposed.

Object

Representation ID: 66364

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Dean Epton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site H28 lies within Green Belt. No exceptional circumstances as required by NPPF. Housing Needs Survey demonstrated need for 12 dwellings for which there is already windfall and brownfield sites. Survey for Parish Plan shows 65% opposed to further development in Parish and 80% opposed to change in Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 66524

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Number of people: 4

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We object to the proposals in this policy to remove land from the Green Belt at Southcrest Farm, Kenilworth, and in the vicinity of Coventry Airport.

Warwick District Council does still need to determine 'robust criteria' for each site it proposes to remove from the Green Belt.

We note that in Appendix 9 -Green Belt Critical Review, the reviewer stresses that the 'fundamental aim and five purposes of Green Belt' are still important (page 19) and 'robust criteria' in the form of 'Sustainable Development Constraints' will need to be established ' to ensure that any land proposed for release from Green Belt status for potential development can be achieved in a way that:
* does not damage land with important landscape or nature conservation value;
* does not damage land which performs an important floodplain function; and
* is readily accessible to and from existing, or easily extended, facilities or services'.
Also, the reviewer states (on page 23 )'There should not be a 'call for sites' exercise, as this could imply that the Assessment is 'developer-led', rather than being an appropriate assessment considered against strict Green Belt criteria and based on proportionate evidence.' This is particularly relevant in the case of the Kings Hill site which has been suggested again recently by Coventry City Council. This site was considered early on in the Local Plan review process and rejected when 'considered against strict Green Belt criteria'. It is also relevant to the proposed relocation of Kenilworth School at Southcrest Farm - the proposed site has already been rejected when 'considered against strict Green Belt criteria'.

Object

Representation ID: 66551

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: CPRE WARWICKSHIRE

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The removal of the land in the vicinity of Coventry airport from the green belt was not included in previous versions of the emerging WDC plan, some of which explicitly argued against such a course of action. There has therefore been no prior (or proper) consultation on this proposed GB change. This makes the proposed policy unsound and unjustified because the consultation process has not allowed effective engagement of interested parties. Lack of adequate consultation renders the plan legally non-compliant.

GB boundaries should only be altered in 'exceptional circumstances'. There is no evidence of exceptional circumstances for the proposed change, making the Plan unsound. WDC proposes that it would review its proposed policy on sub-regional employment site if the SoS rejects the Gateway application. However, if the site has been taken out of the GB meanwhile, this approach would be futile. This could be extremely damaging, leaving the area around Coventry Airport open to piecemeal development and urban sprawl.

Aside from the land at Coventry airport, Removal of land from the Green Belt has not been shown to be justified by 'exceptional circumstances'.
CPRE objects to the removal from the Green Belt of the following locations / sites shown on the proposals map and listed in Policy DS19:
* Red House Farm, Leamington Spa (SE of Cubbington)
* Castle Sixth Form, Rouncil Lane, Kenilworth
* Thickthorn and Southcrest Farm, Kenilworth;
* Land in the vicinity of Coventry Airport (sub-regional employment site)
* University of Warwick; (southern part of area shown)
* Baginton;
* Burton Green;
* Cubbington (H26);
* Hampton Magna (SE of settlement);
* Leek Wootton (whole village proposed for insetting)
* Kingswood (Lapworth).
CPRE also strongly submits that ribbon-development locations which are currently washed-over by Green Belt should not be removed from the Green Belt and 'inset' -Burton Geen and Lapworth. Such areas grew up during the 1920s and 1930s and generally have long gardens and are a single street frontage. If removed from the Green Belt, they would be subject to applications for redevelopment at greater density and the conversion.

Object

Representation ID: 66613

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs S &D & G Harrison & Rowe

Number of people: 3

Agent: CP Bigwood

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

A full review of the Green Belt has not been undertaken and this has resulted in an anomaly where the allocation of Aylesbury House Hotel does not relate to the adjacent village and as a result the adjacent parcel of land would still be designated as green belt but be completely surrounded by development.

Object

Representation ID: 66630

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Chris Walkingshaw

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Object that the Former Honiley Airfield which has been identified as an important investment site continues to remain largely within the Green Belt. The site was not assessed within the Green Belt Review and it is considered based on our own assessment that the site as a whole together with the planning permission which will be implemented this year does not make a significant contribution to the green belt. Whilst extending the MDS would be welcomed, this would still act as a constraint on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 66631

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Dr Diana Taulbut

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

-DS19 says that changes to Green Belt boundaries within the proposed plan are in accordance with the NPPF , in the case of H04 (Red House Farm ) this is not true.
-H04 is contrary to NPPF para's 73 and 74 as H04 contains the riding schools grazing fields. The riding school is a valuable recreational asset that also provides employment opportunities. The plan makes no provisions for the replacement of this facility.
- H04 is contrary to the purposes of including land in the green belt as it will not "safeguard the countryside from encroachment".
- H04 is contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 80) as no specific consideration has been given to the use of brownfield sites elsewhere. Sites in Lillington that should be considered include the Old Round Oak school and the URC on the Cubbington Road (both of which are closer to the shops etc. than Red House Farm).
- The Council has not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" and does not make a coherent or sound argument for the removal of this land from the green belt. The owners willingness to release the land is not "exceptional".
- The intended re-location of the green belt boundary is flawed as it has no physical features to reinforce this line. Therefore it could not be considered a permanent boundary. There is no indication that if this new boundary were put in place that it would not be subject to change at the end of the next plan period.
- The District Council has not given any consideration or weight to the fact that this proposal will damage the remaining green belt(its openness and permanence would be compromised).
- A portion of the area include in allocation H04 was not included in the green belt study.

Object

Representation ID: 66693

Received: 23/06/2014

Respondent: Old Milverton & Blackdown JPC

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Council is pleased that the value of the Green Belt to the North of Leamington has been recognised in the Publication Draft. This narrow area of Green Belt is a vital buffer to prevent Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick coalescing. It preserves the historic setting of Leamington and Warwick, and has immense recreational value for residents of the nearby towns, who enjoy walking, horse riding, cycle riding, running etc. in the area. The North Leamington Green Belt is under constant attack and there is a real danger that over time it will be eroded by continual creeping development.

The planned development of further sports facilities in the area and the possible development of a "park and ride" scheme will result in the increasing urbanisation of the area. In addition construction of HS2 and, if permitted, the Gateway Development at Baginton, will swallow up large tracts of the North Leamington Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 66702

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Local Planning Authorities with Green Belts in their area should only alter the Green Belt boundary in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.Green Belt boundaries should have permanence in the long term and be capable of enduring beyond the Plan period.The Council has not undertaken a strategic review of the Green Belt and therefore does not have the evidence base to selectively remove sites, such as Red House Farm, from the Green Belt.

The Council has identified that it is their intention to undertake a revised evidence base for the wider Housing Market Area which, importantly, includes a review of the Green Belt. This evidence base must inform this Local Plan as changes to Warwick's Green Belt cannot be implemented through a partial review.

Object

Representation ID: 66722

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Baginton Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

A. Insufficient consideration of alternatives and no consultation of latest proposals.
Policies DS 8 Employment land & DS16 Sub-Regional Employment Site are unsound as there has been insufficient sub regional consultation. There is reference within the Local Plan to a Joint Employment Land Review. However, it is understood that this has not been published and that it does not adequately consider alternative proposals.
BPC believes that exceptional reasons do not exist for proposing that the land shown on the policy Map 8 is removed from the Green Belt.
As such BPC believes that the lack of adequate consideration of the proposals renders the Local Plan
unsound.
Furthermore, the Local Plan is unsound as the Sub-Regional Employment Site is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, which have not been given adequate consideration. Some alternatives have been proposed in previous BPC correspondence opposing the Gateway.
Furthermore BPC and others have no visibility of the review and have not been consulted on its proposals. BPC believes this lack of transparency, consultation and lack of alternatives renders the Local Plan unsound.
B. No account of desires of local communities.
In previous draft report section 5.5.5 it states:-
"In the 2012 Preferred Options the Council committed to exploring the case for land at the Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway to be identified to provide a major employment site that could meet these needs.
Since then, a planning application has been submitted. Although this application has yet to be formally determined by the Council, the evidence would support the identification of land in this area for a major employment use of sub-regional significance."
You have our letter L090 response to that consultation dated 18.7.12. Many of the points made in that letter remain applicable.
Your policy DS16 Sub Regional Employment Site ignores our previous requests therefore is unsound.
C. No consultation with local communities on removal of Green Belt.
The previous Revised Development Strategy specifically maintained the Gateway development area in the Green Belt. BPC have received previous assurance that this remained the intention of WDC. However, there has been a volte-face with the Local Plan as now presented, with the area suddenly removed from the Green Belt. Post public consultation. Yet there has been no consultation with our and other Parish Councils, our and other local communities and other stakeholders concerning the removal of this land from Green Belt.
We believe that it is unsound, unreasonable and possibly illegal for WDC to change their mind on such a fundamental issue without adequately consulting the local community. The Local Plan policies DS8, DS16 and DS19 are therefore unsound.
D. Contrary to the NPPF.
BPC remain wholly opposed to the Sub-Regional Employment Site (Gateway Development) for all the legitimate planning reasons given in our extensive correspondence objecting to the development and lodged on the WDC website along with over 800 other objectors against planning application W12/1143.
In summary, the Sub-Regional Employment Site Gateway is unsustainable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt with no very special circumstances and is ruinous to the openness and rural character of our Parish. The open fields also act as a vital barrier against urban sprawl. The proposal will not support regeneration within the Coventry & Nuneaton Regeneration Zone, as it would directly compete with established underutilized sites with extant planning permission such as that at Ansty. There are many suitable alternative sites outside the Green Belt and no preferential sites within the Green Belt. Development can and should be carried out on existing sites with hundreds of acres of already available land.
The Gateway application has been subject to a Public Inquiry, which has just closed. The PI has written to us advising that the SoS is due to make a decision on or before 5th December 2014.
BPC and Parishioners continue to vociferously object to any mention of the Sub-Regional Employment Site Gateway in the Local Plan. BPC requests that the Local Plan be withdrawn and amended to remove all references to the Gateway, with all its projections amended accordingly.
BPC is of the view that policy DS16 is fundamentally flawed as it is contrary to the NPPF for all the reasons given in previous representations; hence the Local Plan is unsound.
Furthermore the Local Plan must not be concluded until the SoS has completed his deliberations following the recently completed Public Inquiry. As such the Local Plan as written can be seen to be prejudging the outcome of this inquiry and is unsound.
E. Based on out of date excessive growth projections.
As such we believe that the Local Plan is fundamentally flawed as it is based on out of date information. Had it been based on the latest predictions there would be further demonstration that there is no need for the Gateway (or for the proposed level of increase in housing across the District). As the Local Plan is based on very significantly higher population growth this is unsound.
On 29.5.2014 the ONS published the mid-2012 based population projections for all local authorities in England & Wales. This shows that in Warwick District, the population growth by 2029 will be about 29% less than anticipated by the Joint SHMA which was predicated on the mid-2011 ONS projections.
At the Council meeting on the 23rd April, when it was decided that the publication draft should proceed to a public consultation on its soundness, the Chief Executive, in answering a question from a Councillor said, that if these anticipated projections demonstrated a significant change to the provision in that plan, then the situation would need to be reviewed.

Support

Representation ID: 66730

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Sir Thomas White's Charity & King Henry VIII Endowed Trust

Agent: Stansgate Planning

The Council has recognised the need to allocate existing Green belt land for residential development. This has been fully justified. It is therefore essential that the Green Belt boundaries be amended to allow the development to proceed, as set out in DS19 and paragraph 2.80.

Object

Representation ID: 66768

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Burman Brothers

Agent: Nigel Gough Associates Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

2.81 - release of green belt in Hatton is wrong and should relate to release of land at Hatton Park
It has been necessary for Warwick to consider amendment of Green Belt boundary. Hatton Park is acknowledged sustainable settlement and 'growth village'. Boundary drawn however does not conform to NPPF and guidance and is therefore unacceptable, unsound and irrational. A proper Green Belt boundary runs along a treed and hedged boundary running along length of Clients ownership a short distance from allocation. This is proper GB boundary that exists and should be used and the allocation properly adjusted to take new boundary into account even if it means fewer dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 66774

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy is superfluous given that it appears to only state that the Council's approach to the Green Belt will be as per the approach at the national level, as in the NPPF and PPG. Supporting text should refer to Hatton Park and specifically site H28 rather than simply Hatton. Green Belt boundaries should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. Hatton Park is recognised as a 'Growth Village' which recognises the sustainability of the settlement for future residential growth. The scale of the allocation at Hatton Park (H28) should be increased to take in a wider area, enabling development of approximately 180 dwellings and forming a logical green belt boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 66851

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Protect Lillington Green Belt [Petition]

Number of people: 555

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

-DS19 says that changes to Green Belt boundaries within the proposed plan are in accordance with the NPPF , in the case of H04 (Red House Farm ) this is not true.
-H04 is contrary to NPPF para's 73 and 74 as H04 contains the riding schools grazing fields. The riding school is a valuable recreational asset that also provides employment opportunities. The plan makes no provisions for the replacement of this facility.
- H04 is contrary to the purposes of including land in the green belt as it will not "safeguard the countryside from encroachment".
- H04 is contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 80) as no specific consideration has been given to the use of brownfield sites elsewhere. Sites in Lillington that should be considered include the Old Round Oak school and the URC on the Cubbington Road (both of which are closer to the shops etc. than Red House Farm).
- The Council has not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" and does not make a coherent or sound argument for the removal of this land from the green belt. The owners willingness to release the land is not "exceptional".
- The intended re-location of the green belt boundary is flawed as it has no physical features to reinforce this line. Therefore it could not be considered a permanent boundary. There is no indication that if this new boundary were put in place that it would not be subject to change at the end of the next plan period.
- The District Council has not given any consideration or weight to the fact that this proposal will damage the remaining green belt(its openness and permanence would be compromised).
- A portion of the area include in allocation H04 was not included in the green belt study.

Object

Representation ID: 67139

Received: 24/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Ray Steele

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Also applies to greenfield sites:
- to check unrestricted sprawl
- to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
- to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

WDC comprises 82% of Green Belt and 18% of green field. This cries out for a relaxation of Green Belt as a special case. Use of any of the Green Field space will have adverse effects on its near residents