Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.
The following washed over settlements/areas have been identified for potential removal from the Green Belt as they do not have an open character that makes a contribution to the openness of the Green Belt. This does not mean that they do not have a rural character or other positive character attributes.
Cheswick Green – A settlement of some 900 dwellings with most of the settlement being washed over Green Belt, the exception being the new development (of over 200 dwellings) at Mount Dairy Farm (marketed as Cheswick Place). Having two different approaches to how the village is subject to Green Belt policies is not logical. The size and density of the original settlement does not add to the openness of the surroundings. If the washed over status were to be removed then this would allow the settlement to potentially accommodate development other than just infill. For instance development r/o 575-587 Tanworth Lane which was promoted through the call-for-sites exercise.
Millison's Wood – A redeveloped site that now accommodates around 200 dwellings in a fairly compact form that does not add to the openness of the wider area.
Tidbury Green – A settlement of around 400 dwellings largely accommodated in a linear form along Norton Lane, Lowbrook Lane, Fulford Hall Road (which form a compact triangle) and Tilehouse Lane. The extended nature and continuous character of the built frontages do not add to the openness of the wider area. Two major developments (Lowbrook Farm and Tidbury Green Farm) sit adjacent to the village on either side of it in areas not subject to Green Belt status. Both of these new developments will accommodate at least 200 dwellings each and having two different approaches to how the village is subject to Green Belt policies is not logical.
Whitlock's End – Frontage developments on Tilehouse Lane and Houndsfield Lane that accommodates around 30 dwellings and the park & ride station just to the north. Whilst the car park of the station has an open (albeit urbanised) character, the frontage developments do not add to the openness, especially when seen in conjunction with the release of site 4 (land west of Dickens Heath) which is directly opposite on the other side of Tilehouse Lane. If the washed over status were to be removed then this would allow the settlement to potentially accommodate development other than just infill. For instance development r/o 146-152 Tilehouse Lane which including some previously developed land, that was promoted through the call-for-sites exercise and has been the subject of a previous planning application.
Widney Manor Road – Mainly ribbon development of up to around 100 dwellings that are located between the rail line and Widney Manor Road. This side of the road does not add to the openness of the wider area and instead of using the railway line as the Green Belt boundary, the road itself would be used. If the washed over status were to be removed then this would allow the settlement to potentially accommodate development other than just infill. For instance development r/o 114-118Widney Manor Road, which was promoted through the call-for-sites exercise and has been the subject of a previous planning application.
34 Should the washed over Green Belt status of theses settlements/areas be removed, and if so what should the new boundaries be? If not why do you think the washed over status of the settlement should remain?
Settlements where their washed over status remains appropriate as they do contribute to the openness of the Green Belt, and their status should remain:
In addition to the above, there are 'ribbons' of development extending from the urban edge, or from 'inset' settlements, that contain often long stretches of development that present a virtually continuous frontage (save for the normal gaps between dwellings) to the road. These include Lady Byron Lane and Grove Road. If these areas were removed from the Green Belt then it is likely to produce illogical boundaries to the Green Belt. It is therefore considered that their status should remain, but it be acknowledged that in accordance with the NPPF that appropriate, limited infilling would not amount to inappropriate development.
The new NPPF introduces the potential for compensatory provision to be made when land is removed from the Green belt. It states (at paragraph 138) that development plans:
"should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land."
These improvements could take the form of creating recreational areas where land is laid out to provide access to open areas, or biodiversity improvements to remaining open land. Ideally these opportunities should be provided close to where the land is removed from the Green Belt so that communities affected by this can take advantage of the compensatory provision.
As this is a new opportunity provided by the revised NPPF, there is no local practice to set out how such opportunities should be bought forward, particularly in terms of establishing a proportionate yet meaningful contribution.
The Council is keen to hear stakeholder's views on this issue, including from those promoting sites for development that have been included in this plan, especially where the whole of a site may be being considered appropriate for development – i.e. where else would the compensatory provision be made?