swjcs green belt review...swjcs green belt review july 2010 dns planning+design prepared by dns...

SWJCS GREEN BELT REVIEW

July 2010

dnsplanning+design

Prepared by DNS Planning and Design/ Nicholas Pearson Associates on behalf of SWJCS Team

Green Belt Review SWJCS Team SWJCS Area

DNS / NPA Date: 29 July 2010

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6

2. Parameters of the Study ............................................................................................... 9

3. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 11

4. Planning Policy Considerations .................................................................................. 13

5. Green Belt Evolution in the Study Area ...................................................................... 24

6. Evaluation And Analysis ............................................................................................. 28

Definitions ................................................................................................................... 28

1. Area Between Stourport-On-Severn and A449 ...................................................... 31

2. Area Between A449 and M5 (Includes Cutnall Green) .......................................... 33

3. Area Between M5 and Littleworth; at the Boundary of the SWJCS Study Area .... 36

4. Area At North-Western Edge of SWJCS Study Area in the Vicinity of New End and Cookhill ............................................................................................................. 38

5. Area Between Droitwich Spa and Worcester ......................................................... 40

7. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 45

FIGURES

Figure 1 Study Area

Figure 2 Aerial photograph showing residential development in the Green Belt at Impney Green, Droitwich Spa

Figure 3 Plan showing Green Belt boundary at Perdiswell, Worcester

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Methodology

Appendix 2 PPG2 – Green Belts

Appendix 3 Land to the south and west of Worcester

Appendix 4 Development Plan Policies

Appendix 5 Letter to Planning Authorities from Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government dated 06 July 2010



Executive Summary

A comprehensive review has been undertaken of the existing Green Belt, and adjoining land,

within the SWJCS area (see figure 1). This has appraised:

a. The history of Green Belt designation in the area as part of the wider West Midlands

Green Belt.

b. The existing Green Belt area against the purposes of PPG2.

c. The land adjoining the existing Green Belt as to whether these areas potentially fulfil

PPG2 purposes in the context of the wider strategic function of the West Midlands

Green Belt.

d. Land to the south and west of Worcester and north and north east of Malvern as to

whether these areas potentially fulfil PPG2 purposes in the context of the wider

strategic function of the West Midlands Green Belt.

e. Green Belt boundaries with regard to their definition and enduring qualities.

f. Identified recent development within the existing Green Belt and associated effects

upon the same.

g. Local exclusions („insets‟) from the Green Belt and changing circumstances.

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The wider strategic Green Belt is long established. Its role has been to fulfil the

purposes of PPG2 in respect of the urban areas of the West Midlands conurbation,

which includes the urban settlements to the north of Worcester.

2. This report is concerned with the Green Belt within the SWJCS area. There have in

the past been small changes to the Green Belt comprising the exclusion of the Areas

of Development Restraint (ADRs) and also development within it. Notwithstanding

these alterations the fundamental extent, the overall area and importantly the

boundaries of the Green Belt have remained unaltered since its various designations.

3. The existing Green Belt within the SWJCS area is considered to fulfil the purposes of

PPG2. In this respect the designated areas are robust. Therefore, except for one

minor boundary realignment, see paragraphs 6.41, 6.45 and 7.4 below, it is not



considered that the existing Green Belt should be modified in any other way either by

its extension or conversely by its reduction.

4. The only minor modification of the Green Belt which is recommended is at the

northern edge of Droitwich Spa at Impney Green (see figure 2) where a small area of

residential development has been implemented within the existing Green Belt and

where the Green Belt boundary would be more robust if it were now to define the

edge of and exclude this residential development area from the Green Belt.

5. The boundaries to the Green Belt are, in all but one instance, enduring and relate to

clearly defined features as set out in PPG2 paragraph 2.9. The exception is at

Perdiswell Leisure Centre where the Green Belt boundary is currently undefined on

the ground (see figure 3). Whilst this situation has been recognised by a previous

Local Plan Inspector, it is recommended that a clearly defined boundary, such as a

cycleway link as proposed in the City of Worcester Local Plan 1996 - 2011, is

identified on an appropriate proposals plan.

6. With regard to land adjoining existing Green Belt, PPG2 paragraph 2.8 states that a

boundary should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. It is not considered

that such exceptional circumstances exist with respect to land adjacent to the

Green Belt and so no additional areas of Green Belt are considered necessary, as

the strategic purposes of the Green Belt are variously fulfilled by its current

designation.

7. With regard to land to the south and west of Worcester and north and north east of

Malvern, there has been consistent recommendation from previous reviews that this

land should not be designated as Green Belt as it would constrain potential

requirements to accommodate the future development of Worcester. Before the

revocation of the Regional Strategy on 06 July 2010 by the Secretary of State, the

approach previously adopted when considering the question of expansion was most

recently reiterated in the Panel Report of the RSS Phase Two Revision published in

September 2009. In response to the proposed extension of the Green Belt around

Worcester, the Panel was not convinced that this would be justified. The Report

stated that imposing a Green Belt around Worcester would build in unnecessary

policy inflexibility into consideration of future needs or responding to infrastructure

needs. Notwithstanding the changes to the development plan, this approach to the

aforementioned area of Green Belt is still consistent with PPG2 paragraph 2.8 and

the need to establish Green Belt boundaries that will endure. It is recommended that

this land is not designated as Green Belt.



8. Recent developments in the Green Belt have related to long term established uses

which are considered acceptable by the local planning authorities. It is not necessary

to exclude such uses and related site areas from the Green Belt.

9. Local exclusions (insets) are considered to be appropriate and no changes to existing

boundaries are necessary

10. There exists development in the Green Belt which has been consented since its

establishment and there are proposals for development within the existing

Green Belt. It is considered that any future development, unless it is demonstrated to

fulfil the requirements of very special circumstances as required in PPG2, would

result in change that would be detrimental to the existing Green Belt and its policy

objectives.



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 DNS Planning & Design, working in association with Nicholas Pearson Associates,

has been appointed by the South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy (SWJCS)

team (Worcester City Council, Malvern District Council and Wychavon District

Council; which comprise the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs)) to undertake a

review of the Green Belt within the SWJCS area (see figure 1).

1.2 This study forms part of wider, ongoing work by the LPAs to deliver an evidence

base in support of the emerging SWJCS.

1.3 A review of the existing Green Belt, in particular the area between Droitwich Spa

and Worcester, is appropriate and necessary to inform the evidence base of the

emerging Joint Core Strategy.

1.4 This report does not provide a detailed appraisal of the land to the west and east of

Worcester, and south to Malvern, for Green Belt purposes. Rather reference is

made to the wider area in Appendix 3 which briefly discusses the principles of

potential additional Green Belt designation in such locations.

1.5 The scope of work therefore provides for a comprehensive review of the existing

Green Belt in the SWJCS area, which is contained within two of the three LPAs,

namely Worcester City and Wychavon District.

1.6 Specifically the brief is to:

i. Review the role and function of the Green Belt;

ii. Make an assessment as to whether the extent of the designated Green Belt is

still appropriate and justified;

iii. Review the existing Green Belt boundaries to assess whether they follow

readily recognisable and enduring features;

1.7 The Review addresses the existing Green Belt and its boundaries at the edges of

the larger urban centres of Worcester and Droitwich Spa and also in relation to the

larger villages either within or in close proximity to the existing Green Belt e.g.

Fernhill Heath; Wychbold and Hartlebury.

1.8 The Review also considers those areas immediately adjacent to existing Green Belt

which might be appropriate for inclusion within the Green Belt, as part of an

extension to it.



1.9 PPG2 states that in paragraph 1.4 that, “the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is

to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important

attribute of Green Belts is their openness”. Paragraph 1.6 advises that once Green

Belts have been defined, the use of land in them has a positive role to play in

fulfilling a number of objectives. Paragraph 1.7 makes it explicit that, not

withstanding these objectives, “the extent to which the use of land fulfils these

objectives is however not itself a material factor of the inclusion of land within a

Green belt or its continued protection for example, although Green Belts often

contain areas of attractive landscape, the quality of the landscape is not relevant to

the inclusion of land within a Green belt or to its continued protection. The purposes

of including land in Green belts are of paramount importance to their continued

protection, and should take precedence over the land use objectives.”

1.10 It is recognised that in particular locations there is development pressure on land in

the Green Belt. In certain locations as a result of settlement patterns the width of

the Green Belt cannot always be, in practicable terms, several miles wide.

Regardless of the size of the Green Belt, in such locations, the primary test is

whether it fulfils the purposes of the Green Belt and whether it continues to fulfil the

essential characteristics as defined in PPG2.

1.11 For the above reasons this Review does not place weighting or value on individual

parcels of land, whatever their size, within the Green Belt in terms of, for example,

sensitivity to change, specific landscape character or the ability of the wider Green

Belt to continue to function should areas on its inner or outer edge be removed from

the Green Belt. The review as advised by PPG2 focuses on the purposes of

including land in the Green Belt and the continued protection of the same. Matters

associated with landscape character, heritage, biodiversity and recreational

provision are covered by other documents including the Green Infrastructure Study.

1.12 The approach taken is informed by PPG2 paragraph 2.6 which addresses

boundaries and states that once the general extent of a Green Belt has been

approved it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances, and that detailed

Green Belt boundaries should be altered only exceptionally.

1.13 There are particular areas either on the boundaries of or within the Green Belt which

potentially will be promoted for development in the future. The study has found that

the Green Belt and associated boundaries fulfil their purposes and that there is no

reason to change the area covered by Green Belt or associated boundaries except

in one specific case. PPG2 paragraph 2.1 states that the essential characteristic of

Green Belt is their permanence. Their protection must be maintained as far as can

be seen ahead, and with specific respect to the boundaries they should be enduring.



1.14 With respect to development, PPG2 states at 3.2 that, “inappropriate development

is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why

permission should be granted”. Development is inappropriate unless it is for the

purposes as stated in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2.



2. PARAMETERS OF THE STUDY

2.1 This report has been prepared in accordance with the SWJCS brief and is a review

of the existing Green Belt within the SWJCS area.

2.2 This report does not consider in detail the potential for creating additional substantial

Green Belt designations either around Worcester or between Worcester and

Great Malvern. The only consideration is to the desirability of designating land

immediately adjoining the existing boundary.

2.3 The potential for, and possibility of, larger and / or additional areas of Green Belt

designated land adjacent to or encircling Worcester has been variously proposed

since the introduction of Green Belt policy in 1955. The reasons for this have

included:

i. Local pressure to protect land from development;

ii. As a means of „compensating‟ for either removal of Green Belt designation

elsewhere (actual or proposed); and/or

iii. As means of compensating for the loss of green field sites to development.

2.4 The decision not to fully review the surrounding areas was based upon the following

reasons:

1. The methodology of this review is to appraise existing Green Belt and it is not

considered appropriate to apply the same approach for areas of

undesignated Green Belt land.

2. The proposal of additional Green Belt designated land would require clarity

on future boundaries. Given the uncertainty over future urban extensions

such appraisal work would be subject to review when proposed or actual new

urban boundaries had been established.

3. It is noted in the 1992 Green Belt plan that to extend the Green Belt beyond

the designated area, for example around the whole City, would conflict with

the express wishes of successive Secretaries of State when approving the

Worcestershire Structure Plan in 1975 and the Hereford & Worcester

Structure Plan in 1985 and 1990.

4. Prior to the revocation of the Regional Strategy on 06 July 2010 the Panel

Report to the RSS had specifically advised in paragraph 8.102 that the



encirclement of Worcester by Green Belt would be inappropriate as it would

constrain the potential for sustainable future urban development and this is

material to the Green Belt Review.

2.5 In order for a study to assess whether other areas beyond the existing urban

boundary of Worcester (eg. to the east, south and west), or of other settlements,

meet the purposes of Green Belt, in accordance with PPG2, and if so whether such

land should be considered for potential designation as Green Belt it will therefore be

necessary either to:

a. Assess the area beyond the existing urban edge as if no such urban

extension is proposed, or;

b. Define a clear urban boundary, or boundaries, for such an extension beyond

which the land can then be tested against the purposes of PPG2, which are

set out in section 4 of this report.

2.6 This study does not take into account these potential major areas of planned growth

into the countryside, which are currently indicative only, because there is no

certainty of this change, and therefore no long term and enduring urban boundary

from which to assess any Green Belt definition. Appendix 3 deals with the principles

of potential additional Green Belt designation in such locations.



3. METHODOLOGY

Best Practice

3.1 A review was undertaken of existing Green Belt reviews and appraisals to derive a

detailed methodology that utilises best practice and that is appropriate to the

SWJCS area. As part of this research a Green Belt history for Worcestershire has

been undertaken that chronicles the evolution of the current boundaries. Details of

the reports reviewed and derived methodology is set out in Appendix 1.

Methodology

3.2 The method of approach adopted is reported as follows:

Planning Policy Considerations:

3.3 Reviews the policy framework of the Development Plan in the SWJCS local

authorities with Green Belt designations and also considers other material policy

documents including Government Guidance in PPG2 – Green Belts.

The Green Belt Study Area:

3.4 Provides a context to the South Worcestershire Green Belt and deals with the

evolution of policy nationally and locally. It sets out the reasons for the original

Green Belt designations, and any subsequent amendments, including the rationale

of the Green Belt boundary in each instance (eg. M5, other roads, and railway

lines), as relating to the three constituent local authorities in South Worcestershire.

Evaluation and Analysis

3.5 Definitions: PPG2 elements are defined and include what constitutes “openness”

in Green Belt terms; whether Green Belt is required to fulfil more than one of the

purposes of PPG2; whether there is a minimum size for an area to be designated as

Green Belt; and how the existing Green Belt has been assessed in this study.

3.6 Study areas: The Green Belt has been divided into appropriate sub-areas to assist

in the evaluation and analysis process.

3.7 Changes: Identification of any major physical changes, including any substantial

new development, within the existing Green Belt since its various designations.



3.8 The Five Green Belt Purposes: An appraisal of whether the existing Green Belt

(as located in both areas) fulfils its role in terms of the five purposes set out in

PPG2, as well an appraisal of the robustness of existing boundaries, by taking each

purpose in turn and assessing whether the criteria is still applicable.

3.9 Appraisal: From this, appraisal of the existing Green Belt in terms of land within it,

which might be considered for exclusion on the grounds that it no longer fulfils the

purposes of the Green Belt in terms of PPG2. This might include land on the urban

edges of the existing Green Belt which has been separated by the main body of the

Green Belt by reason of development. If any area of existing Green Belt were

recommended for such exclusion, undertake appraisal of the effects of such on the

integrity and function of the remaining Green Belt.

3.10 Consideration of the contextual land immediately adjacent to, and extending from,

the existing Green Belt in terms of:

i. Whether any such land would meet purposes of PPG2;

ii. The openness of the land in question and preservation of the same;

iii. The existence of elements which could provide a strong and enduring long

term boundary.

Conclusions and Recommendations

3.11 The final synthesis of this information has been presented in written form. Matrices

are not used as it is not considered that qualitative judgments can be given a

quantitative weighting or score for comparative purposes.

3.12 The Review makes independent recommendations about the future of the Green

Belt to the SWJCS team based on an evaluation of the findings and whether the

land continues to fulfil its purpose as Green Belt within the study area.



4. PLANNING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Overview of Green Belt Policy

4.1 Following the establishment of the first „green belt‟ by the Greater London Regional

Planning Committee in 1935 the principle was enacted in the 1947 Town and

Country Planning Act which enabled local authorities to designate areas that should

be protected from development, including Green Belts, in their Development Plans.

4.2 The Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave advice to local authorities on

Green Belts in Circular (42/55) and stated that the three main functions of a

Green Belt should be:

i. to check the growth of a large built up area,

ii. to prevent neighbouring settlements from merging into another; or

iii. to preserve the special character of a town.

4.3 Further advice was set out in Circular 50/57 which established the principle of „white

land‟. This was land that, although not allocated for development could be

developed later without prejudicing the Green Belt.

4.4 A government publication in 1962, The Green Belts, gave more detailed advice on

the purpose of Green Belts. It emphasised the strict control of development and

that there should be a presumption against building, although development which

would not interfere with the open character of the land might be permissible. It

emphasized the recreational value of Green Belts and the need to maintain and

improve the landscape.

4.5 Circular 14/84 set out further advice, including the definition of detailed boundaries

in Local Plans. It states the essential characteristic of Green Belts is their

permanence and that boundaries should be altered only in exceptional

circumstances.

4.6 PPG2 - Green Belts was originally published in January 1988 and drawing on the

previous advice it explicitly extended the original purposes of the Green Belt to add:

to safeguard the surrounding countryside from further encroachment;

to assist in urban regeneration.



4.7 The concept of Green Belts remains an important aspect of planning policy today

and the total area protected by Green Belts has increased by 25,000

square hectares since 1977 with a further 12,000 hectares due to be announced in

local authority plans. It is estimated that Green Belts now cover 13% of England.

4.8 It is stated in the Cambridgeshire Green Belt Review that although Green Belts are

widely held to be one of the most effective planning policies for protecting the

environment around cities, there are concerns about their impact and

appropriateness in effective spatial planning. Both the Royal Town Planning

Institute (RTPI) and the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) have called

for a review of Green Belt policy. While both organisations support Green Belts,

they considered an assessment should be carried out to determine how far they

could contribute to the achievement of the Government‟s objectives of sustainable

development. Additionally, both the RTPI and TCPA raise concerns about the

impact of Green Belt designation on the rural economy. Strict interpretations about

what development is considered appropriate is viewed as „unimaginative‟ and

„restrictive‟ and both organisations seek to promote more effective and positive land

uses in the Green Belt.

National Planning Policy - PPG2: Green Belts

4.9 Government Guidance on Green Belts is set out in PPG2. The current guidance

was published in January 1995 and amended in March 2001. Local planning

authorities must take into account PPG2 in preparing their Development Plans.

4.10 The Guidance states at paragraph 1.4 that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy

is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important

attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Green Belts can shape patterns of urban

development at sub-regional and regional scale, and help to ensure that

development occurs in locations allocated in Development Plans. They help to

protect the countryside, be it in agricultural, forestry or other use. They can assist in

moving towards more sustainable patterns of urban development.

4.11 Paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6 set out the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt

and the objectives of land use once the designation has been made.

4.12 The five purposes for including land are:

i. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

ii. to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;

iii. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;



iv. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

v. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and

other urban land.

4.13 It is noted that PPG2 makes no reference as to whether one or more of the

purposes are to apply to any Green Belt area or whether any value or weighting can

be attributable to areas which „better‟ meet the purposes of the designation.

4.14 Within the Green Belt, land has a role to play in achieving the objectives set out

below. Paragraph 1.7 is considered to be important in that it states that the extent

to which the use of land fulfils these objectives is not itself a material factor in the

inclusion of land within a Green Belt, or in its continued protection. For example,

although Green Belts often contain areas of attractive landscape, the quality of the

landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within a Green Belt or to its

continued protection. The purposes of including land in Green Belts are of

paramount importance, and should take precedence over the following land use

objectives.

to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban

population;

to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban

areas;

to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where

people live;

to improve damaged and derelict land around towns;

to secure nature conservation interest; and

to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.

4.15 In considering the designation of Green Belts the Guidance states that the essential

characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence and their protection must be

maintained as far as can be seen ahead, beyond the plan period to 2026.

4.16 When defining boundaries paragraph 2.6 states that once the general extent of a

Green Belt has been approved it should be altered only in exceptional

circumstances. If such an alteration is proposed the Secretary of State will wish to

be satisfied that the authority has considered opportunities for development within

the urban areas contained by and beyond the Green Belt. Similarly, detailed Green

Belt boundaries defined in adopted local plans or earlier approved Development



Plans should be altered only exceptionally. Detailed boundaries should not be

altered or development allowed merely because the land has become derelict.

4.17 Paragraph 2.7 states that where existing local plans are being revised and updated,

existing Green Belt boundaries should not be changed unless alterations to the

Structure Plan have been approved, or other exceptional circumstances exist, which

necessitate such revision.

4.18 Where detailed Green Belt boundaries have not yet been defined paragraph 2.8

states that it is necessary to establish boundaries that will endure. They should be

carefully drawn so as not to include land which it is unnecessary to keep

permanently open. Otherwise there is a risk that encroachment on the Green Belt

may have to be allowed in order to accommodate future development. If boundaries

are drawn excessively tightly around existing built-up areas it may not be possible to

maintain the degree of permanence that Green Belts should have. This would

devalue the concept of the Green Belt and reduce the value of local plans in making

proper provision for necessary development in the future.

4.19 Paragraph 2.9 states that wherever practicable a Green Belt should be several

miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable open zone all round the built-up area

concerned. Boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable

features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible.

Well-defined long-term Green Belt boundaries help to ensure the future agricultural,

recreational and amenity value of Green Belt land, whereas less secure boundaries

would make it more difficult for farmers and other landowners to maintain and

improve their land.

4.20 When drawing Green Belt boundaries in Development Plans local planning

authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of

development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development

(for example in terms of the effects on car travel) of channelling development

towards urban areas inside the inner Green Belt boundary, towards towns and

villages inset within the Green Belt, or towards locations beyond the outer Green

Belt boundary; paragraph 2.10.

4.21 Wychavon District Council has previously adopted a policy of development restraint

through Local Plan ADR allocations. Safeguarded land is addressed in PPG2 at

paragraphs 2.12, 2.13 and in Annex B, which provides guidance on identifying

safeguarded land and development control policies within it.

4.22 The guidance states that when local planning authorities prepare new or revised

structure and local plans, any proposals affecting Green Belts should be related to a



time-scale which is longer than that normally adopted for other aspects of the plan.

They should satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be

altered at the end of the plan period. In order to ensure protection of Green Belts

within this longer timescale, this will in some cases mean safeguarding land

between the urban area and the Green Belt which may be required to meet longer-

term development needs. Regional/strategic guidance should provide a strategic

framework for considering this issue.

4.23 In preparing and reviewing their Development Plans authorities should address the

possible need to provide safeguarded land. They should consider the broad

location of anticipated development beyond the plan period, its effects on urban

areas contained by the Green Belt and on areas beyond it, and its implications for

sustainable development. In non-metropolitan areas these questions should in the

first instance addressed in the structure plan, which should, where necessary,

indicate a general area where local plans should identify safeguarded land.

4.24 It is also worth clarifying that Green Belt policy is a planning designation. The issue

was raised in a Westminster Hall debate on 7 May 2008, where Iain Wright, Under

Secretary at DCLG, stated the Government position:

“Perhaps the key point in any discussion about green belt planning policy is to acknowledge that it is a planning designation, as opposed to some sort of assessment of the quality and biodiversity of the land. It was not intended or planned to be a nature or landscape conservation measure, although I fully recognise that biodiversity and the countryside benefit incidentally as a consequence of green belt designation. The objectives of green belt policy remain similar to what they always have been: to check the unplanned and unrestricted sprawl of developed areas, to prevent neighbouring towns and urban areas from merging into one another…..to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and to preserve the special character of our historic towns. Another objective, which is often overlooked in discussion of green belt policy…is to assist in the regeneration of our urban communities by encouraging the recycling of derelict brownfield and other urban land. The intention is strategic. If any other designation is required on a particular stretch of land, such as a site of special scientific interest or an area of outstanding natural beauty…that designation and whatever protection it confers would be imposed on top of green belt status, which does not override or compromise them.”

Planning Policies Relating to the Green Belt Study Area

4.25 This section reviews the current planning policy framework affecting the SWJCS

Green Belt area. It has regard to the policies of the Development Plan and also to

emerging policy. The full policy text is set out in Appendix 4.



The Development Plan

4.26 For the purposes of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase

Act 2004 the Development Plan that covers the Green Belt study area includes:

Worcestershire County Structure Plan, 2001 (saved policies)

The Worcester City Local Plan, 2004 (saved policies)

The Wychavon District Local Plan, 2006 (saved policies)

The South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy, Preferred Options –

September 2008

4.27 The LPAs will use the saved policies of the above Structure and Local Plans as the

starting point for development management decisions, including the determination

of planning applications, in accordance with s.38(6) having regard to all other

material considerations. This is the current policy basis applicable to the Green Belt

in the Study Area.

Revocation of Regional Spatial Strategy

4.28 On 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State1 announced the revocation of Regional

Strategies with immediate effect and confirmed that they no longer form part of the

development plan for the purposes of s.38(6).

4.29 The revocation of Regional Strategies was announced in a letter to local planning

authorities in England, dated 6 July 2010. This was accompanied by a guidance

note, which at point 22 addressed the question; whether the end of Regional

Strategies means changes to Green Belt? The guidance states that,

“The Government is committed to the protection of the Green Belt and the

revocation of Regional Strategies will prevent top-down pressure to reduce

the Green Belt protection. Local planning authorities should continue to apply

policies in PPG 2. As part of their preparation or revision of DPDs, planning

authorities should consider the desirability of new Green Belt or adjustment of

an existing Green Belt boundary, working with other local planning authorities

as appropriate.”

4.30 This Review of the Green Belt study area will inform the preparation of the SWJCS

Core Strategy and associated DPDs post the revocation of the Regional Strategy.

1 Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government



4.31 Notwithstanding the revocation of the Regional Strategy the Review was prepared in

the context of the emerging revisions and these are material to the conclusions

drawn. This includes having regard to the comments made in the Panel Report that

a review of the existing Green Belt in south Worcestershire in the SWJCS area and,

in particular the area between Droitwich Spa and Worcester, is appropriate and

necessary to inform the evidence base of the emerging Core Strategy. Also that the

encirclement of Worcester by Green Belt would be inappropriate as it would

constrain the potential for sustainable future urban development.

Saved Worcestershire Structure Plan Policies

4.32 The Structure Plan covers the period 1996 to 2011. Under the provisions of the new

planning system it is being phased out but the Department of Communities & Local

Government has allowed Structure Plan polices to be “saved” for consideration until

2011.

4.33 The saved policies of the Structure Plan remain part of the statutory development

plan and will remain in place until they are superseded by the emerging SWJCS and

other DPDs.

4.34 The current supporting text to the Green Belt states that the environmental

character of the northern part of Worcestershire is in large measure due to the

presence of a Green Belt in the area. The control over development has restricted

the expansion of the larger towns and this in turn has helped to ensure that people

living in towns have easy access to nearby open countryside and outdoor recreation

areas as well as playing a part in conserving areas of landscape and agricultural

value. This is especially the case in the area to the north of the SWJCS area.

4.35 It is established that the main aims of the Green Belt in Worcestershire are focussed

on preventing the sprawl of the West Midlands Conurbation and preventing the

coalescence of settlements and acknowledges that this has generally been

achieved. These aims continue to be relevant in view of the continuing pressure for

development in the Green Belt.

4.36 The full policy text is set out in Appendix 4 and the reasoned justification is set out in

the adopted Structure Plan. The policies can be summarised as follows:

4.37 Policy D.12 - Housing in the Green Belt - will only be allowed in accordance with

the provisions of PPG2 where very special circumstances exist and it is for local

need.

4.38 Policy D.38 - General Extent and Purposes of the Green Belt - will be

maintained, with the purposes being to: check unrestricted sprawl of the

http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/cms/environment-and-planning/strategic-planning/structure-plan.aspx



conurbation; prevent the coalescence of settlements; safeguarding the countryside;

preserve historic towns; and assist in urban regeneration.

4.39 Policy D.39 - Control of Development in the Green Belt - a presumption against

inappropriate development as defined in PPG2 unless in the case of very special

circumstances which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

4.40 Policy D.40 - Green Belt Boundary Definition – where defining boundaries District

Councils should have regard to the purposes of the Green Belt set out in Policy

D.38 and the need to safeguard land for longer term development needs.

4.41 In relation to the SWJCS area the explanatory memorandum to the saved policies

states that within land designated as Green Belt there is a presumption against

inappropriate development in order to achieve the purposes of the Green Belt as set

out in Policy D.38. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green

Belt. The intention of Policy D.39 is not to replicate National Planning Policy

Guidance Note 2: Green Belts (1995) to which reference should be made. PPG2

indicates the types of development which are not inappropriate development in the

Green Belt. In summary these are: new buildings for the purposes of agriculture

and forestry; to provide essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation,

for cemeteries and for other uses which preserve the openness of the Green Belt; a

limited extension alteration or replacement of existing dwellings; limited infilling in

existing villages and limited affordable housing for local community needs; limited

infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in adopted

local plans; mineral extraction and other development which maintain the openness

of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the proposals of including land in the

Green Belt.

4.42 The issue of new housing in the Green Belt is addressed in Policy D.12 and it is

stated that in accordance with PPG2 not all forms of housing development is

inappropriate and may be acceptable in certain defined circumstances.

City of Worcester Local Development Framework

Saved City of Worcester Local Plan Policies

4.43 The South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy is being prepared jointly by

Worcester City Council, Wychavon and Malvern Hills District Councils will not be

adopted before 2011. This will replace many policies within the County Structure

Plan and respective Local Plans and provide the principal guide for strategic

development. Other Development Plan Documents will be adopted thereafter in



accordance with the programmes set out in the Local Development Schemes for the

respective Local Authorities.

4.44 Policy NE12 – Green Belt Area, of the City of Worcester Local Plan is a saved

policy.

4.45 The reasoned justification for the policies confirms that the Green Belt was first

defined for Worcester in the Green Belt Local Plan adopted in April 1992 and

confirms that once defined it should only be altered in exceptional circumstances.

The approach of the City Council is that there are no exceptional circumstances

which justify any incursion into the Green Belt.

4.46 The Local Plan is clear that the purpose of including land in the Green Belt around

the Claines area is to maintain its open character so as to prevent Droitwich Spa

and Worcester merging. To do this, it is important to prevent the built-up area of

Worcester from extending northwards. It is also important that the views of open

land from the roads and footpaths are maintained to preserve the generally open

nature of the area. In respect of this, the importance of this open area in

contributing to the setting and character of the historic city should be taken into

account. The policies are designed to serve this aim whilst also achieving other

objectives, such as allowing the requirements of agriculture to be met. The policies

are restricted to matters of specific Green Belt concern and do not, therefore, cover

all matters that are taken into account in making planning decisions including, for

example, the effect of the proposed development on traffic.


the adopted Local Plan.

Wychavon Local Development Framework

Saved Wychavon Local Plan Policies

4.48 The Local Plan was adopted on 23 June 2006 and the saved policies include those

for the Green Belt.

4.49 The supporting text states that the areas of Green Belt land in the Wychavon District

are found to the north of Droitwich Spa and between Droitwich Spa; Worcester and

part of Redditch. The former has existed since the 1950s whilst the latter was

included as an extension in 1975. The land forms part of the wider West Midlands

Green Belt that surrounds the Birmingham conurbation and Coventry and serves to

prevent the unrestricted expansion of the conurbation, to prevent the coalescence of

towns and villages around it and to safeguard the countryside from encroachment

and to protect historic towns.



4.50 It is stated that the protection of the Green Belt is an overriding planning

consideration and there is a presumption against inappropriate development within

it. Policy SR7 outlines the types of development considered by national planning

guidance PPG2 (Green Belt) to be appropriate within Green Belts. Appropriate land

uses are those which for the most part would retain the openness of the Green Belt.

Development that is necessary to the functioning of such land uses is also an

appropriate type of development in the Green Belt. However, it is still important that

the scale, location or design of buildings or structures does not impair the open

character of the Green Belt.

4.51 The Hartlebury Trading Estate is a Major Developed Site within the Green Belt and

Policy SR8 specifically deals with it, in accordance with the guidance given in PPG2

at Annex C. The policy recognises that the site presents opportunities to help

secure jobs and prosperity without further prejudicing the Green Belt designation. It

is stated that when applying Policy SR8, regard should be had to the defined

development footprint.


the adopted Local Plan. The policies can be summarised as follows:

4.53 Policy SR7 - Development in the Green Belt – is limited so that it would not

detract from the open character of the Green Belt; or would not conflict with the

purposes of including land within it; and for the one of the listed uses including land

uses for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, outdoor sports and recreation, horse

riding, cemeteries and other uses suitable to the rural area and which preserve the

openness of land. Other small scale development involving the re-use or limited

infilling / extension in accordance with other Local Plan policies.

4.54 Policy SR8 - Major Developed Site in the Green Belt – Hartlebury Trading

Estate – regards this as being suitable for redevelopment and environmental

improvement under the provisions of PPG2 Annexe C and sets out the criteria for

development proposals, including having no greater impact than the existing

development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land

within it, and where possible have less.

Areas of Development Restraint

4.55 The previous Local Plan identified areas of development restraint (ADR) within the

Green Belt to provide land for long-term development needs beyond the Plan

period, whilst not prejudicing the protection of the Green Belt.



4.56 The identified ADRs, alongside the A38, in Wychavon are two at Droitwich Spa, one

at Fernhill Heath, two at Wychbold and one at Hartlebury. The Droitwich Spa ADRs

comprise a large greenfield site to the south of the main built-up area of the town

and a smaller area directly to the south-east of the urban area, abutting the M5.

The Local Plan Inspector considered the ADR sites to be those where new

development would contribute to minimising the need to travel and achieving

balanced communities.

4.57 The Local Plan states that the existing ADR land has been retained for this Plan

period to meet possible longer-term development needs beyond 2011. When

adopted the development strategy for the Local Plan did not require greenfield land

releases around Droitwich Spa to accommodate development within the period up

to 2011. As a result, the existing Green Belt boundary remains unchanged in this

Plan and the ADR land will be retained and will not be used to accommodate

development unless, and until it is required to do so in a future review of the housing

need and supply

4.58 Policy SR9 – Areas of Development Restraint - identifies land which will be

safeguarded and will not be released unless and until it is required for development

in a future review of the Local Plan.



5. GREEN BELT EVOLUTION IN THE STUDY AREA

Background to the Worcestershire Green Belt

Context

5.1 The Green Belt land in the SWJCS area is found to the north of Droitwich Spa and

between Droitwich Spa and Worcester, and south of Redditch. The land forms part

of the wider West Midlands Green Belt that surrounds the Birmingham conurbation

and Coventry and serves to prevent the unrestricted expansion of the conurbation,

to prevent the coalescence of towns (such as Redditch, Stourport-on-Severn and

Bromsgrove, as well as Droitwich Spa and Worcester) and villages around it and to

safeguard the countryside from encroachment and to protect historic towns.

5.2 The broad expanse of Green Belt to the north of Droitwich Spa has existed since the

1950s whilst the land between Worcester and Droitwich Spa, which includes

Claines, Hindlip and Martin Hussingtree, was included as an extension in 1975.

History

5.3 The West Midlands Green Belt was created in the 1950s to restrain the outward

growth of the main built-up areas of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country,

and to protect the countryside in the adjacent counties of Shropshire, Staffordshire,

Warwickshire and Worcestershire. Within Worcestershire it also aimed to protect

and maintain the special character of towns such as Bromsgrove and Redditch.

5.4 In 1975 the Structure Plan for Worcestershire enlarged the extent of the Green Belt

in the county and included an area between Worcester and Droitwich Spa with the

intention of maintaining the open countryside between them and thereby preventing

their coalescence. The Structure Plan stated that to do this it is important to prevent

the built-up area of Worcester from extending northwards. Similarly it is also

important that the views of open land from the roads and footpaths are maintained

to preserve the generally open nature of the area. In respect of this, the importance

of this open area in contributing to the setting and character of the historic city

should be taken into account. The development control policies of the subsequent

Local Plans were designed to serve this aim whilst also achieving other objectives,

such as allowing the requirements of agriculture to be met.

5.5 In 1982 a proposed modification to the Structure Plan was put forward to extend the

Green Belt boundary westwards as far as the River Severn and the proposal were

subject to public consultation.



5.6 In 1985 the Secretary of State (SoS) in the Notice of Approval for the Structure Plan

modified the key diagram so that the western boundary to the Green Belt was an

undefined line west of the railway line, which would be delineated in the Local Plan.

It was the view of the SoS at the time that the Green Belt between Droitwich Spa

and Worcester should not extend as far west as the River Severn. In relation to the

Fernhill Heath, the SoS Proposed Modifications allowed scope for the Green Belt to

take in the settlement itself but considered this to be a matter for the Wychavon

District Local Plan.

5.7 The County Council did commence work on a County Green Belt plan but this was

not adopted and the Districts undertook to prepare their own Local Plans for the

purpose of defining the Green Belt.

5.8 The 1992 City of Worcester Green Belt Local Plan was adopted and was in general

conformity with the Structure Plan and was only concerned with the area of open

countryside in the Claines and Blackpole area.

5.9 It is noted in the 1992 Green Belt plan that to extend the Green Belt beyond the

designated area, for example around the whole City, would conflict with the express

wishes of successive Secretary of States when approving the Worcestershire

Structure Plan in 1975 and the Hereford & Worcester Structure Plan in 1985 and

1990.

5.10 The extent of the Green Belt in the County has remained broadly the same since

1975 and the boundaries of the Green Belt in the SWJCS area have subsequently

been defined in detail in Local Plans.

Recent History

5.11 The adopted Local Plans for the City of Worcester and Wychavon now form part of

the Local Development Frameworks for the respective authorities and the current

Green Belt policies are set out in the planning policy chapter to this report.

Wychavon

5.12 The 2005 Inspector‟s Report to the Local Plan objections made general conclusions

on the plan strategy. In relation to the Green Belt the Inspector recommended at

[2.3.108 ix)] that there is no good case for allocating any land for development in the

Green Belt and that existing Green Belt boundaries should remain unaltered.

However in [2.3.109 x)] it was recommended that it was time to consider whether

the existing Areas of Development Restraint (ADRs) in the light of the emerging

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy should be retained, or deleted. The

Inspector noted at [2.13.7] that the ADRs all comprise greenfield land which falls



between settlement boundaries and the defined Green Belt. They come within the

policy ambit of “safeguarded land”, described in PPG 2, paras.1.12-13 and Annex B.

It was stated that PPG2 does not require such areas of safeguarded land to be

defined, but it provides the policy justification for doing so in appropriate situations.

Having regard to the evidence at the Local Plan Inquiry the Inspector did not

recommend that any of the existing ADRs should be developed before 2011, or that

any new ADRs be identified.

5.13 Of all the objections made to the emerging Local Plan the Inspector only made one

recommendation for a very minor amendment to the Green Belt boundary at

Sling Lane in Fernhill Heath to, in effect, correct an anomaly in the boundary.

City of Worcester

5.14 The 2004 Inspector‟s Report to the Local Plan objections stated clearly that the

release of land in the Green Belt would not be supported.

5.15 In relation to the Green Belt area consideration was given to the following key

issues:

1. Whether the Green Belt boundary at Perdiswell was appropriately defined.

2. Whether the Green Belt designation north of Worcester and at the Moorlands

Riding Centre, Hindlip Lane, should be removed to open up development

opportunities.

3. Whether land between the A449 Ombersley Road in the west, the A38

Droitwich Road in the east and the A449 northern link road should be

excluded from the Green Belt.

4. Whether the corridor of land either side of the A38 Droitwich Road should be

excluded from the Green Belt.

5. Whether land lying between the A449 to the north, Blackpole Road to the

west and the Worcester and Birmingham Canal to the south and east should

be excluded from the Green Belt and allocated for employment development.

5.16 The Inspector recommended that no modification be made to the Local Plan as a

result of the objections forming the above key issues.

5.17 The comments of the Inspector in relation to delineation of the Green Belt boundary

at Perdiswell are of particular relevance to this review.



5.18 Issue 1 concerns the delineation of the Green Belt boundary at the Perdiswell

Leisure Centre. It is stated at paragraph 3.14.3 that the City Council acknowledges

that the Green Belt boundary appears, on initial inspection, to have been drawn in

an arbitrary fashion. However, it is pointed out that the character of land to the

south of that line is protected by the Local Plan Green Network designation. The

planning authority considered it important that the future development of Perdiswell

for leisure and related purposes should not be prejudiced. The Inspector noted that

in this regard that the south-eastern area of the land is allocated for new Sub

Regional Indoor Sports Facilities under Policy CLT21. While the existing golf course

and sports pitches would comply with Green Belt policy, the planning authority says

there is a likelihood of substantial new buildings being required in the longer term.

Clearly, indoor facilities on such a large scale would not be compatible with the aim

of preserving the open character of the Green Belt.

5.19 At paragraph 3.14.4 the Inspector noted that the Perdiswell Sports Centre opened

as long ago as 1981 and agreed with the City Council that the Green Belt Local Plan

Inspector reporting in 1990 would have taken its location and potential for expansion

into account when he concluded that the Green Belt boundary as proposed then,

and now carried forward into the City of Worcester Local Plan 1996-2011,

represented an acceptable compromise. The Inspector did not consider it

necessarily to be an interim boundary. This view is reinforced by the Inspector‟s

remarks that the area included some existing development and land which it was

clearly not essential to keep permanently open. Since then an office development

centred on the listed building of Perdiswell Coach House and its walled garden,

Park and Ride facilities and other leisure uses have been implemented making it

even more inappropriate to extend the Green Belt boundary southwards to

Bilford Road.

5.20 The Inspector concluded that no exceptional circumstances have been

demonstrated to warrant an alteration to this section of Green Belt but did agree that

it would be desirable to have a Green Belt boundary physically demarcated by

existing landscape features. However, this is not feasible until such time as the

scope and extent of any new leisure uses in the area have been established. It was

noted that there was a Plan proposal for a cycle route across Perdiswell (see figure

3). When implemented that feature could provide the sort of definitive boundary

recommended by PPG2 that will be defensible and will endure. The Inspector felt it

appropriate, as part of a future Local Plan Review, to re-examine the Green Belt

boundary at that time and make any necessary detailed adjustments.



6. EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS

Study Areas

6.1 The existing Green Belt has been divided into the following areas (see figure 1), for

the purposes of evaluation and analysis:

1. Area between Stourport-on-Severn and A449 (includes Hartlebury)

2. Area between A449 and M5 (includes Cutnell Green)

3. Area between M5 and Littleworth; at the boundary of the SWJCS jurisdiction

4. Area at north-western edge of SWJCS jurisdiction in the vicinity of New End

and Cookhill

5. Area between Droitwich Spa and Worcester.

6.2 Areas 1 – 3 are contiguous, located at the northern extent of the SWJCS area, with

open land beyond this, to the north, also designated as Green Belt with the

adjoining authorities (Redditch Borough Council, Bromsgrove District Council and

Wyre Forest District Council).

6.3 Area 4 is a small „pocket‟ of Green Belt designated land within the SWJCS area,

again which co-joins other Green Belt land to the north and east. Area 5 is a

separate area of Green Belt.

6.4 The types of Green Belt designated and non designated land that have been

appraised are:

Existing Green Belt Areas

„ Inset‟ islands of non Green Belt land within wider Green Belt

Land adjacent to existing Green Belt

DEFINITIONS

6.5 Having regard to the planning considerations set out above the following definitions

have been adopted in this report.



Definition of Openness

6.6 The definition of openness has been variously tested at planning appeals. It is

generally understood to relate to land which is undeveloped in terms of built form

and engineering structures (including engineered landforms).

6.7 Openness, in terms of PPG2 policy, does not relate to the absence of vegetation

(eg. woodland or forestry), and hence the presence of such features does not

reduce „openness‟.

6.8 At the edges of Green Belt, especially at its „inner‟ boundary with the existing urban

area, development can and does have an influence on the openness of adjacent

Green Belt land. However such an effect is very likely, to varying degrees, to exist at

such inner boundaries, since it is the very nature of Green Belt designation that

boundaries can and are drawn tight to urban areas to enable the purposes of the

Green Belt to be met.

6.9 Consideration is made within the planning process of the effect of proposed new

development on the „openness‟ of existing Green Belt land, which might affect the

integrity of the Green Belt.

Fulfilment of more than one of the purposes of PPG2

6.10 Within PPG2 there is no indication or statement that land designated at Green Belt

need perform or fulfil more than one or conversely all the functions. Only at

paragraph 1.5, it simply states that „there are five purposes of including land in

Green Belts…‟ There is no judgement or guidance that land within the Green Belt

must fulfil several or a combination of functions and that one or more have greater

importance.

6.11 Indeed there are numerous occasions where Green Belt extends to an outer

boundary with the countryside, where no other settlement is within the general area,

and hence where it is impossible for the purpose „to prevent neighbouring towns

from merging into one another‟ to be met. In other instances, for example between

Worcester and Droitwich Spa four purposes of the Green Belt are met in its existing

designation. To reiterate, it is considered there is no requirement that more than one

function of the Green Belt to exist for land to successfully serve Green Belt

purposes.



Minimum size for an area to be designated as Green Belt

6.12 PPG2 paragraph 2.9 states that „….wherever practicable a Green Belt should be

several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable open zone all round the built up

area concerned….‟

6.13 There is no other specific guidance on the size of Green Belts, other that a general

inference that Green Belt policy is a strategic planning instrument which might infer

that areas need to be of a large scale.

6.14 As such there is no absolute requirement for areas to be of a specific size before

Green Belt designation should be applied. However the term „appreciable‟ is noted

in that it infers that an element of visual judgment could be used to determine

whether an area of Green Belt is of sufficient size.

How the existing Green Belt has been assessed

6.15 The existing Green Belt has been assessed for the purposes of this study by a

qualitative rather than quantitative method, where the purposes of the Green Belt

are tested in respect of the land in question and professional judgments made as to

whether these are variously fulfilled. This has been undertaken by a comprehensive

site appraisal of the existing Green Belt, its boundaries and the land which lies

adjacent, as well an appreciation of the broader contextual area. This is reported in

words rather than using a scoring or weighting (eg. quantitative process), because

Green Belt cannot be usefully determined by such means.

6.16 PPG2 does not differentiate between the importance of one purpose over another

nor requires Green Belt to fulfil more than one or all criteria, and it is not considered

that this should be otherwise.

Boundaries

6.17 Boundaries of the existing Green Belt relate to the inner and outer edges as they

are defined by physical features, for example the urban edge, roads, canals and

railways.

Existing Green Belt Boundaries

6.18 PPG2 makes reference to what and how Green Belt boundaries should be

delineated. In paragraph 2.8 “…it is necessary to establish boundaries which will

endure…”; in paragraph 2.9 “… Boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily

recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges

where possible.”



6.19 The existing South Worcestershire Green Belt is delineated and bounded by various

features. These include roads, canals, urban edges and garden boundaries. This

review has identified all the boundaries and these are discussed below.

Control Over Development.

6.20 PPG2 establishes that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and

there is a presumption against it. The construction of new buildings in the Green

Belt is inappropriate unless it is for those purposes defined in paragraph 3.4 of

PPG2.

6.21 The guidance is clear that very special circumstances are required to justify

inappropriate development need and that it is for the applicant to demonstrate

grounds for permitting development. The presumption against inappropriate

development carries substantial material weight in terms of the harm to the Green

Belt in the determination of development proposals. Where existing Local Plans are

being revised and updated, existing Green Belt boundaries should not be changed

unless alterations to strategic policy have been approved, or other exceptional

circumstances exist, which necessitate such a revision. It is a matter for the

decision maker to decide whether the need for development within the Green Belt

carries sufficient material weight to be considered as very special circumstances to

permit otherwise inappropriate development, or whether there exist exceptional

circumstances that warrant a change to the Green Belt boundary, both as contrary

to the objectives of PPG2.

1. Area between Stourport-on-Severn and A449

Description

6.22 This area generally comprises open land to the east of Stourport, and includes a

number of scattered hamlets and farms including Leapgate, Charlton and Titton,

which are „washed over‟ by the Green Belt designation. To the immediate east of

Stourport lies Hartlebury Common, an area of public open space.

6.23 The western Green Belt boundary is drawn tight to the urban edge (residential

properties/ garden boundaries) of Stourport – western edge of Hartlebury Common,

and follows the administrative boundary northwards. At the northern edge, an area

of industrial/ engineering/ employment land (Summerfield Research Employment

Site, Summerfield Lane) is a protected employment site (Local Plan Policy ECON1),

washed over by Green Belt (PPG2 – Annex C).

6.24 The southern Green Belt boundary is drawn tight to the edge of the industrial estate

at Sandy Lane to the south of the A4025 (Stourport Road). Moving eastwards the



Green Belt boundary follows the A4025 and then Crown Lane to meet the A449,

south of Waresley.

6.25 At Hartlebury an area of land is designated as an Area of Development Restraint

(Local Plan Policy SR9) has been „omitted‟ from the Green Belt (and is therefore an

„inset‟ in the Green Belt), the latter otherwise generally encircling the settlement and

being bounded variously by residential properties and roads. The „inset‟ land

comprises areas of residential development, school grounds and a number of fields.

Changes

6.26 No major physical changes, including any substantial new development, within the

existing Green Belt since its various designations has been identified in this area.

Appraisal

6.27 It is considered that the Green Belt continues to meet a number of the purposes of

PPG2, specifically;

it prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Stourport-on-Severn at its eastern edge.

it assists, as part of the wider Green Belt, in preventing Stourport merging

with neighbouring towns, specifically Droitwich Spa and Bromsgrove.

it assists in safeguarding the countryside, to the east of Stourport-on-Severn

from encroachment of unacceptable uses.

It preserves in part the historic setting of the settlement of Stourport-on-

Severn.

6.28 At Hartlebury, Green Belt washes over some residential land at its north western

and eastern edges and omits other areas. The omission of „safeguarded‟ land from

the Green Belt was reviewed as part of the Area of Development Restraint (ADR

Policy SR9) policy within the Wychavon Local Plan in 2006. Consideration could be

given in the future to either omitting land from the Green Belt at these points or

increasing Green Belt area to „wash over‟ other property/ land.

6.29 However, at present, the existing Green Belt as designated at Hartlebury continues

to fulfil purposes in accordance with PPG2, as part of the wider strategic role to the

south west of Birmingham, and that the omission of safeguarded land is in

accordance with paragraph 2.12 of PPG2.



6.30 The existing Green Belt boundaries are well established, robust and enduring and

are in accordance with PPG2 recommendations, specifically with regard to

paragraph 2.8.

Consideration of the contextual land immediately adjacent to, and extending from, the

existing Green Belt

6.31 In terms of whether any such land would meet purposes of PPG2, the Green Belt

could be extended to the south east of Stourport-on-Severn to:

To check unrestricted sprawl.

To prevent merging with Droitwich Spa.

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

To preserve the historic setting of the town and local villages.

6.32 In terms of the openness of the land in question and preservation of the same – the

land is open and contains a number of small settlements and individual dwellings

and other rural development.

6.33 In terms of the existence of elements which could provide a strong and enduring

long term boundary, these comprise the River Severn to the west and minor roads

elsewhere. There would be difficulty in providing a coherent boundary southwards in

proximity to the river where no clear enduring feature exists. The current boundaries

are therefore considered appropriate and robust. Further Green Belt designation

would not add further to the purposes of the designation in this location.

2. Area between A449 and M5 (includes Cutnall Green)

Description

6.34 This area generally comprises open land between A449 and M5, to the north of

Droitwich Spa, and includes numerous scattered settlements including Elmley

Lovett, Bryan‟s Green, Broad Alley and Cooksey Green, and farms, – „washed over‟

by Green Belt.

6.35 At Waresley, to the east of the A449, the former Waresley School has been the

subject of residential redevelopment. The school was an existing established

property with associated built form.

6.36 Towards the western edge o this area, Hartlebury Trading Estate (Major Developed

Site – Local Plan Policy SR8); is an area of industrial/ employment land is also



washed over by Green Belt (PPG2 – Annex C). Several other protected (Policy

ECON1) employment sites/ trading estates are also located in the area.

6.37 At the north eastern edge of Droitwich Spa, to the south of Chateau Impney, the

Green Belt relates strongly to the urban edge, with its varied land uses, and the M5.

6.38 The southern Green Belt boundary follows Crown Lane from the A449 before

turning south to follow the western edge of the railway land, until it meets the

„highway edge‟ of the A38 (Roman Way) at the northern edge of Droitwich Spa. At

this point the boundary turns east and follows the A38 until turning south at the

junction with Bromsgrove Road. The boundary lies to the east of the road before

following the eastern edge of residential properties (rear garden boundaries) at

Pridzor Road (Hill End) and the northern edge of Waterside and Swan Drive, before

returning to meet the M5 to the east of the B4090 Hanbury Road in the vicinity of

newer residential development at Impney Green.

6.39 At Cutnall Green, the main settlement area has been „omitted‟ from the Green Belt

as an „inset‟ in accordance with PPG2 paragraph 2.11. The Green Belt boundary is

formed by residential properties to the west and the A442 to the east. The „inset‟

land generally comprises areas of residential development and a school, although

the playing fields are within the Green Belt. A single/ large property with substantial

grounds on the north west of the settlement is within the Green Belt, as is a small

area of development to the east of the A442.

6.40 The northern edge of the Green Belt area relates to the boundary of the SWJCS

„authority‟ and is a „cross authority boundary‟ designation.

Changes

6.41 Part of the development at Impney Green on the north east edge of Droitwich Spa is

a very minor and localised change where residential development has taken place

in the Green Belt (see figure 2).

6.42 No other major physical changes, including any substantial new development, within

the existing Green Belt since its various designations has been identified in this

area.

Appraisal

6.43 It is considered that the Green Belt continues to meet a number of the purposes of

PPG2, specifically:

it prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Droitwich Spa at its northern edge



it assists, as part of the wider Green Belt, in preventing Droitwich Spa

merging with neighbouring settlements in particular Bromsgrove and

Wychbold.

it assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

6.44 At the former Waresley School, the residential proposals were approved as an

acceptable development in the Green Belt. Notwithstanding this, the Green Belt

designation continues to provide a means of planning control over the site.

6.45 At the north eastern edge of Droitwich Spa, some of the residential development at

Impney Green is within the Green Belt. This has resulted in a local loss of openness

and is an encroachment of development into the countryside. This impact has a

localised effect on the narrow strip of land located between the M5 to the south and

the railway land to the north.

6.46 The existing boundaries are generally well established, robust and enduring and are

in accordance with PPG2 recommendations. This is the case along the majority of

the edge of the urban area of Droitwich Spa, except for at the north eastern edge of

Droitwich Spa in the vicinity of Impney Green where there is poorer definition, not

least in respect to recent development. It is recommended that the Green Belt

boundary should be locally realigned to follow the new built edge (including private

gardens) of the recent development which would then provide a strong enduring

boundary for the Green Belt.

6.47 At Cutnall Green, Green Belt washes over a small area of residential land at its

north western and eastern edges and omits other areas. In the interest of

consistency consideration could be given to either omitting land from the Green Belt

at these points or increasing Green Belt area to „wash over‟ other property/ land.


existing Green Belt


could be extended to the west and north west of Droitwich Spa to:

To check unrestricted sprawl.

To prevent merging with Stourport-on-Severn.




6.49 In terms of the openness of the land in question and preservation of the same – the

land is generally open, although the industrial estates at Hampton Lovett are a local

feature which reduces openness.

6.50 In terms of the existence of elements which could provide strong and enduring long

term boundaries should an extension be proposed, Hadley Brook or the A449

further to the west, and the A4133 to the south could provide such an edge.

However it is considered that at present current Green Belt boundaries are

appropriate, robust and enduring, and that further Green Belt designation would not

add further to Green Belt purposes in this location.

3. Area between M5 and Littleworth (in vicinity of Berrow Hill at the boundary of

the SWJCS Study Area)

Description

6.51 This area generally comprises open land north east of Droitwich Spa and south west

of Bromsgrove, and again includes a number of scattered settlements, including

Wychbold, Upton Warren, Hanbury, Ashwood and Ditchford Bank, and farms.

6.52 The southern Green Belt boundary, eastwards from the M5 and edge of

Droitwich Spa follows and aligns with the B4090 Hanbury Road/ Salt Way, until it

reaches Hanbury. At this point the boundary skirts the settlement/ edge of

residential properties before returning to the B4090 Salt Way and continuing to the

SWJCS boundary.

6.53 At Wychbold, the main settlement and some adjacent areas of open land have been

omitted from the Green Belt as an „inset‟ in the Local Plan. The Green Belt boundary

being provided by the M5 and junction 5 slip roads to the west; and Crown Lane,

properties on Worcester Road, Church Lane and Stoke Lane to the north/ east and

south respectively. The inset land, omitted from Green Belt, generally comprises

areas of residential development and areas of open land in the form of paddocks or

agricultural fields.

6.54 Webbs of Wychbold is an established, large garden centre and tourist attraction,

with ancillary retail uses, within the Green Belt. Planning control is maintained

through Local Plan policies.

6.55 The northern edge of the Green Belt area relates to the boundary of the SWJCS

Study Area, except for a very small area of residential development omitted, as part

of an „inset‟ at the western edge of Stoke Prior.



Changes

6.56 No major physical changes, including any substantial new development, within the

existing Green Belt since its various designations has been identified in this area,

except for retail development at Webbs of Wychbold.

Appraisal

6.57 It is considered that this part of Green Belt continues, in strategic terms as part of

the wider designated area, to meet a number of the purposes of PPG2, specifically;

It assists, as part of the wider Green Belt, in preventing the merging with

neighbouring towns, i.e. Droitwich Spa and Bromsgrove.

It assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

6.58 At Wychbold there is some minor inconsistency in Green Belt boundary alignment in

that a few properties have either been included or excluded from the Green Belt,

and areas of open land excluded from the Green Belt.

6.59 At Webbs of Wychbold development has been consented as acceptable and as part

of that incrementally approved over a period of years at this established retail facility

within the Green Belt. The Green Belt designation forms part of continued planning

control at this site. The Webbs site should not be designated as a major developed

site in the context of PPG2, Annex C. It dose not meet the criteria for such sites and

it is considered that the policies of the development plan and Green Belt designation

are appropriate to the location and land use.

6.60 At Hanbury, an area of the settlement area was previously excluded from the Green

Belt in the Local Plan to allow for a limited amount of residential development (now

completed) in accordance with PPG2 paragraph 2.11.

6.61 The B4090 „Salt Way‟, in this location, provides the outer boundary to the wider SW

Midlands Green Belt. It is considered to present a clearly defined boundary that is

robust and enduring.


existing Green Belt

6.62 In terms of whether any land, extending from the Green Belt, would meet purposes

of PPG2, the land to the south of the B4090, if designated, would check the sprawl

of the large built up area of Droitwich Spa east of the M5 and assist in safeguarding

the countryside from encroachment.



6.63 In terms of the openness of the land in question and preservation of the same, the

land is open with development limited to scattered farms and other properties.


long term boundary, to the east of the M5, should additional Green Belt designation

be considered necessary, either the railway or the Worcester and Birmingham

Canal could provide a suitable boundary, with minor roads (running broadly east/

west) offering opportunities for a new outer edge. However, it is considered that at

present current Green Belt boundaries are appropriate, robust and enduring, and

that further Green Belt designation would not add further to Green Belt purposes in

this location.

4. Area at north-western edge of SWJCS study area in the vicinity of New End

and Cookhill

Description

6.65 This comprises a discrete area of Green Belt, within Study Area, and consists of

open land generally west of the A441, south of Astwood Bank and in the vicinity of

Cookhill. The settlements of New End and Cookhill are „washed over‟ by Green Belt.

This area of Green Belt is only separated from Area 3 by virtue of the alignment of

the administrative boundary of Redditch Borough Council.

6.66 The Green Belt boundary variously follows the B4090, Cladswell Lane, Mearse

Lane and the A442 on its inner edge. A short section of Green Belt boundary follows

a watercourse (tributary of Piddle Brook) between Mearse Lane and the A422, west

of Knowle Farm.

6.67 The Green Belt is a cross boundary designation, relating also to the adjoining

Redditch Borough Council.

Changes

6.68 No major physical changes, including any substantial new development have taken

place, within the existing Green Belt since its various designations. A small area of

permitted redevelopment has occurred at the very edge of the Green Belt. This

comprises 3no. detached properties at The Cedars, Knowle Fields on brownfield

land formerly occupied by the Barn Service Station.



Appraisal

6.69 It is considered that this part of Green Belt continues, in strategic terms as part of

the wider designated area, relating to Alcester, Redditch and Stratford upon Avon

and the south west of Birmingham, to meet a purpose of PPG2, specifically:


6.70 The land is generally open and meets the criteria for Green Belt designation. The

settlements of New End and Cookhill are small settlements and are „washed over‟

by the Green Belt designation in accordance with guidance set out in paragraph

2.11 of PPG2. It considered that the Green Belt and its boundaries meet the

purposes and definitions of PPG2 in this location and area.

6.71 The recent small scale development at Knowle Fields, noted above in paragraph

6.68 was undertaken in accordance with approved planning consents and is within

the remit of acceptable development as set out in PPG2..


existing Green Belt

6.72 In terms of whether any such land would meet purposes of PPG2, the land to the

west of the existing Green Belt boundary, if designated, would extend the

assistance of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. However it is

considered that such a Green Belt extension in this area would not add materially to

the effectiveness of the purposes of the wider existing Green Belt in this locality.

Furthermore it is considered, as noted in PPG2 paragraph 2.14 other current

planning and development control policies are adequate and that no other major

changes in circumstance have occurred.


land is open with development limited to scattered farms and detached properties.


long term boundary the A422, west of the existing designation, and other minor

roads, to the west and south of the existing Green Belt, offer opportunities for a new

outer edge. However there is no demonstrable need for such an extension and it is

considered there is no merit in extending the designation in this location.



5. Area between Droitwich Spa and Worcester

Description

6.75 This area, as stated above is a discrete area of Green Belt designated as such in

1975. It generally comprises open land between Droitwich Spa to the north and

Worcester to the south, bounded by the M5 to the east and for the most part the

railway line to the west. It includes the settlements of Martin Hussingtree, Hindlip

and Claines, with occasional farmhouses and other properties. All these small areas

of settlement and buildings are „washed over‟ by Green Belt as per PPG2 paragraph

2.11. The settlement of Fernhill Heath is located outside the Green Belt which

adjoins the settlement to the east, south and west.

6.76 West Mercia Police „headquarters‟ is located at Hindlip Hall within the Green Belt,

and Worcester Rugby Club has its ground and associated facilities at Sixways, off

Pershore Lane. These respective employment and recreational facilities relate to

long standing and permanent activities on these sites.

6.77 The northern Green Belt boundary is aligned from the west, along Copcut Lane

between the railway line and the A38 and is aligned along Pulley Lane, Newland

Road and a short section of woodland edge to the M5 to the east.

6.78 The western Green Belt boundary is formed by the railway line between Copcut

Lane and the edge of Fernhill Heath, before generally following the urban edge/ built

from of this settlement on its eastern (except for the omission of a field to the north

eastern edge of Fernhill Heath), southern and western edges before aligning along

Danes Green (road) until it meets the A449 (dual carriageway). The Green Belt

boundary turns west along the A449 before turning south to align with Ombersley

Road (A449) to meet the existing northern urban edge of Worcester (north east of

Green Lane).

6.79 The southern Green Belt Boundary is tightly drawn to the existing (northern) urban

edge of Worcester between Ombersley Road and the A38 Droitwich Road, although

11no detached properties along Cornmeadow Lane are included within the Green

Belt. East of the A38 the Green Belt boundary follows the edges of the park and ride

and a small office park (Craigmoor House and Kirkham House) before crossing an

area of public open space at Perdiswell Leisure Centre to meet the Worcester and

Birmingham Canal.

6.80 The canal forms the boundary north eastwards before skirting around the western,

northern and eastern edges of the Blackpole Trading Estate and returning to follow

the canal to the A449, which the boundary follows until it meets the M5.



6.81 The eastern Green Belt boundary follows the line of the M5 between junction 6 and

the south eastern edge of Droitwich Spa in the vicinity of Newland Road.

6.82 Land at the southern edge of Droitwich Spa/ north of Copcut Lane was formally

Green Belt but was excluded through the previous Wychavon District Local Plan

process. It is designated as an Area of Development (Policy SR9) in the current

Local Plan.

Changes

6.83 Changes within the Green Belt have been limited to those in relation to the police

headquarters at Hindlip and the Worcester RFC facilities at Sixways.

6.84 Development at the police headquarters has related to minor redevelopment and

updating of existing/ previous facilities. These approved changes have been

undertaken within the remit of PPG2 policy.

6.85 Development at the Worcester RFC at Sixways has comprised new spectator and

associated facilities, at the existing ground. Unimplemented planning consent also

exists at this location for additional recreational (tennis) facilities abutting the new

East stand. As stated in the planning report relating to the application for the East

Stand, the principle of such recreational use and development has been long

established.

6.86 No other major physical changes, including any substantial new development, within

the existing Green Belt since its designation has been identified in this area.

6.87 A relatively minor change has occurred on land immediately adjacent to the Green

Belt at the office park on John Comyn Drive, at the northern edge of Worcester.

Appraisal

6.88 It is considered that, despite the above changes, this part of Green Belt successfully

continues to meet all the stated purposes of PPG2:

It checks unrestricted urban sprawl at the northern and southern edge of

Worcester and Droitwich Spa respectively. It also checks the unrestricted

sprawl of eastern and southern edges of Fernhill Heath

It prevents the merging of Droitwich Spa and Worcester, and also prevents

the merging of Worcester and Fernhill Heath.

It assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.



It preserves in part the historic settings of settlements, principally

Droitwich Spa, and Worcester.

It assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and

other urban land.

6.89 The Area of Development Restraint (ADR) to the south of Droitwich Spa provides for

the future residential development requirements, with the Green Belt boundary to

the south along Copcut Lane, to the west of the A38, providing a robust and

enduring boundary as required by PPG2.

6.90 To the east of the A38, Pulley Lane and Newland Road, to the south of

Droitwich Spa, also provide robust and enduring boundaries with the land to the

south, toward Martin Hussingtree and Brownheath Common, open in nature.

6.91 It is considered appropriate, that in accordance with PPG2, the small settlements of

Martin Hussingtree and Hindlip, together with other hamlets, are „washed over‟ by

Green Belt as per PPG2 paragraph 2.11.

6.92 The recent development at Worcester Rugby Club represents a continuation of the

existing recreational activities in the Green Belt at the northern edge of Worcester,

and is recognised as an appropriate use in accordance with PPG2. The

development, as approved, was based upon the accepted principle of development

in this location, within a context of existing similar and related recreational facilities.

It is also in line with PPG2 policy with regard to paragraph 3.13 whereby such

development “….contributes to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land

in Green Belts…” , namely providing opportunities for outdoor sport near an urban

area. The retention of Green Belt policy in this location is considered appropriate to

maintain control of any future development proposals.

6.93 To the north of Worcester the Green Belt boundary is for the most part considered

robust and enduring. There is however two minor inconsistencies at the northern

edge of Worcester with regard to the boundary alignment and associated land either

inside or outside the Green Belt designation. These are as follows:

1. Ombersley Road, Worcester – there is a line of 11 no. properties on

Cornmeadow Lane which lie within the Green Belt. These adjoin the existing

urban edge of Worcester and do not form a separate settlement where a

Green Belt „wash‟ over is used elsewhere. However this development is not

recent, as it is at Impney Green and the Green Belt boundary is clearly

defined.



2. Perdiswell Leisure Centre – in this location the Green Belt boundary does not

follow an existing defined boundary and consideration could be made to

extending the Green Belt up to the B4482 Bilford Road. However as stated

above in paragraphs 5.17 to 5.20 this issue has been reviewed by a previous

Local Plan inspector, with the conclusion that the current situation is

acceptable, albeit the Green Belt boundary is recommended to relate to

defined boundary eg. Proposed cycleway, to provide a defined feature on the

ground. Future consideration of the land in this location for sports/

recreational use is ongoing.

6.94 The land within the Green Belt north of Worcester and west of the railway line, is

generally “open” (as defined in PPG2 terms) and is important in preventing

Worcester and Fernhill Heath merging. The hamlet of Claines and occasional

detached properties are unchanged elements in the area since the designation of

the Green Belt in 1975. It is noted that the Green Belt between Worcester and

Fernhill Heath is in places approximately 500m wide and generally no more than

1500m wide, and that the A449 is a major feature. It is considered that the land

designated as Green Belt in this location meets the defined purposes in accordance

with PPG2 and that the size of area designated and the presence of the A449 does

not diminish the same. The fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban

sprawl by keeping land permanently open. In order to achieve this objective within

the Green Belt north of Worcester it is important that the permanence of the Green

Belt must be protected unless exceptional circumstances justify an alteration to the

boundaries.

6.95 East of the railway, land north of Worcester, toward Hindlip and the eastern edge of

Fernhill Heath is likewise “open” and functions in checking development extending

northwards as was envisaged when the designation was made in 1975. The

„washing over‟ of Hindlip by Green Belt is considered to be appropriate and allows

control of development in this location (paragraph 2.11 PPG2).


existing Green Belt


could be extended, variously to:

Check unrestricted sprawl of Droitwich Spa, Worcester and/ or Fernhill Heath.

Prevent merging of neighbouring settlements (that is between Droitwich Spa

and Fernhill Heath and/ or between Worcester and Great Malvern).



Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.


land is open with development limited to very small settlements, scattered farms and

detached properties.


long term boundary the following features provide such opportunities;

The Droitwich Barge Canals or the River Salwarpe located to the north of

Fernhill Heath and west of the railway line.

The railway line to the east of the M5 as a new north/ south boundary in

combination with minor roads.

The River Severn to the east/ north east of Worcester, in the vicinity of

Bevere.

6.99 In considering such areas and new boundaries this review is mindful of previous

Inspector‟s comments that Green Belt should only be changed in exceptional

circumstances.

6.100 The M5 provides a strong and durable eastern boundary to the Green Belt, as does

the railway line to the west and the minor road at the northern edge.

6.101 In the vicinity of Bevere, at the north west of Worcester, additional land designated

as Green Belt would not prevent the coalescence of towns but would prevent

encroachment into the countryside of urban sprawl. However, enduring and robust

Green Belt boundaries are considered problematic to define. In addition such

designation would be at a local scale, would not be of a strategic nature and such

countryside protection and restraint is provided by the development plan.



7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 A thorough review has been undertaken of the existing Green Belt designation and

boundaries within the SWJCS Study Area and is reported above in Section 6. This

has established that the designation of land as Green Belt has been successful in

meeting the purposes of PPG2. Where development has been permitted and

undertaken it has proceeded, except for one minor exception, within the remits of

the policy framework as set out in PPG2.

7.2 The wider strategic Green Belt is long established. Its role has been to fulfil the

purposes of PPG2 in respect of the urban areas of the West Midlands conurbation,

which includes the urban settlements to the north of Worcester.

7.3 The existing Green Belt is considered to fulfil the purposes of PPG2. In this respect

the designated areas are robust. Therefore, except for one minor boundary

realignment, it is not considered that the existing Green Belt should be modified in

any other way either by its extension or conversely by its reduction.

7.4 The only minor modification is at the northern edge of Droitwich Spa at

Impney Green where a small area of residential development has been

implemented within the existing Green Belt and where the Green Belt boundary

would be more robust if it were now to define the edge of and exclude this

residential development area from the Green Belt.

7.5 The Green Belt boundaries are, in almost all areas, appropriate, enduring and

clearly defined, using readily recognisable features. The only exceptions relates to:

1. A minor and small area on the north eastern edge of Droitwich Spa, at

Impney Green, where residential development has occurred in the Green

Belt.

2. The Green Belt boundary at Perdiswell, northern edge of Worcester, which

lacks clear definition.

7.6 The boundaries to the Green Belt are, except for Perdiswell, are enduring and relate

to clearly defined features as set out in PPG2 paragraph 2.9. It is recommended

that a clearly defined boundary, such as a cycleway link as previously proposed, is

identified on an appropriate Proposals Map.

7.7 With regard to land adjoining existing Green Belt, PPG2 paragraph 2.6 states that a

boundary should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. PPG2 paragraph



2.14 states that, for new Green Belts, such a situation may arise where it is

considered that normal planning and development control policies would not be

adequate and where there may be other major changes in circumstances which

have occurred requiring adoption of this exceptional measure. This review

considers existing development control policies beyond the Green Belt have been

successful, and the strategic purposes of the Green Belt are fulfilled by the current

extent of its designation. Therefore it is not considered that such exceptional

circumstances exist with respect to land adjacent to the Green Belt and so no

additional areas of Green Belt are considered necessary.. The fundamental aim of

the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. In

order to achieve this objective it is important that the permanence of the Green Belt

must be protected unless exceptional circumstances justify an alteration to the

boundaries.

7.8 With regard to land to the south and west of Worcester and north and north east of

Malvern, it is recommended that this land is not designated as Green Belt. This

approach is consistent with PPG2 paragraph 2.8 and the need to establish Green

Belt boundaries that will endure.

7.9 Recent developments in the Green Belt have related to long term established uses

which are considered acceptable by the local planning authority. It is not necessary

to exclude such uses and related site areas from the Green Belt.

7.10 Local exclusions (insets) are considered to be appropriate and no changes to

existing boundaries are necessary.

7.11 There will continue to be pressure for development within the Green Belt as long as

the land remains designated as such. It is considered important that the integrity of

the Green Belt is upheld through the continued application of development control

policies and Government policy in development management decision making.

There is clear policy advice on what constitutes acceptable development in the

Green Belt and that exceptional circumstances must be satisfactorily

demonstrated where a proposed development would otherwise be contrary to

policy. This is consistent with the approach of section 38(6) of the Act when making

development management decisions starting with the development plan and having

regard to all other material considerations.

7.12 If development management decisions taken within the Green Belt are adjudged to

be contrary to Development Plan and/or provisions of PPG2, and there are not

sufficiently justified material grounds to support a very special circumstance, then

this will be harmful to the Green Belt. The extent to which this harm will extend

will be a matter of judgement based upon the circumstances material to the



decision. It would nevertheless cause harm to the Green Belt and be detrimental to

the purpose of designating land in the first place. This is considered to be an

important principle for the whole of the Green Belt in the SWJCS Study Area.

7.13 Further to this there exists development in the Green Belt which has been

consented since its establishment and there are proposals for development within

the existing Green Belt. It is therefore reiterated that any future development,

unless it is demonstrated to fulfil the requirements of very special circumstances as

required in PPG2, would result in change that would be detrimental to the existing

Green Belt and its policy objectives.

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS BY STUDY AREA

7.14 The report recommends with regard to the „areas‟ of Green Belt reviewed the

following;

Area 1 - Area between Stourport-on-Severn and A449 (includes Hartlebury)

General

7.15 The Green Belt continues to fulfil one or more of the purposes set out in PPG2, and

the existing Green Belt boundaries are clearly defined and enduring. No changes

are recommended.

Hartlebury

7.16 Whilst consideration could be given to locally amending the Green Belt boundary at

Hartlebury, there is no exceptional need envisaged post 2011 to include additional

(such as the existing ADR) land within the Green Belt. Such an addition and/ or local

exclusion of Green Belt land would not offer any material advantages to the

purposes of the designation as set out in PPG2.

7.17 It is considered that the existing Green Belt designation at Hartlebury continues to

fulfil one or more purposes as set out in PPG2 and therefore should be maintained.

Potential for Green Belt extension

7.18 There is no identified need or exceptional circumstance for extending the Green Belt

in this area and no material benefit gained from such an extension. Countryside

protection policies are considered sufficient and appropriate. No change is

recommended.



Area 2 - Area between A449 and M5 (includes Cutnall Green)

General



are recommended, except in relation to land at Impney Green as stated below..

Impney Green, Droitwich Spa

7.20 Residential development has been implemented in the Green Belt in this location. It

is recommended that the Green Belt boundary should be redrawn to the outer edge

of the residential area, to follow garden/ property boundaries so as to exclude it from

the Green Belt and provide an enduring and clearly defined boundary.

Cutnall Green

7.21 The Green Belt boundary at Cutnell Green is established and there is no

exceptional circumstance for it to be amended. No change is recommended.





recommended.

Area 3 - Area between M5 and Littleworth; at the boundary of the SWJCS jurisdiction

General



are recommended.

Wychbold

7.24 Whilst consideration could be given to amending the Green Belt boundary at

Wychbold, such amendments would be very local small scale interventions and

would not affect the wider strategic purposes of the Green Belt. Further to this, it is

considered unnecessary to keep land currently undesignated as Green Belt

permanently open, with appropriate planning control maintained through other

policies. The recommendation is to maintain the alignment of the Green Belt

boundary in this location.



Webbs of Wychbold

7.25 There is no identified need or exceptional circumstance for amending the Green Belt

designation at this location and no material benefit gained from such a change, No

change is recommended. The Webbs site should not be designated as a major

developed site in the context of PPG2, Annex C.

Hanbury

7.26 The omission of land, as an „inset‟ from the Green Belt at Hanbury, was made for a

valid reason, and including land within the Green Belt would not beneficially add to

the purposes of the Green Belt. On this basis, it is recommended that the Green

Belt boundary in this location is maintained.


7.27 It is considered that an extension to the Green Belt to the east of Droitwich Spa and

south of the B4090 Salt Way would not add materially to the effectiveness of the

purposes of the wider existing Green Belt in this locality. Further to this the M5 is a

robust and durable edge to the urban area and the B4090 is a similarly enduring

outer boundary to the Green Belt. Countryside protection policies are considered

sufficient and appropriate, and no change is recommended.

Area 4 - Area at north-western edge of SWJCS study area in the vicinity of New End

and Cookhill

General



are recommended.





recommended.



Area 5 - Area between Droitwich Spa and Worcester

General



are recommended.

7.31 It is considered and reiterated that in terms of appraising the Green Belt, the size or

area covered, together with for example, sensitivity to change, specific landscape

character is immaterial to the ability of the Green Belt to continue to function and

successfully meet its purposes.

Worcester Rugby Club

7.32 Worcester Rugby Club facilities at Sixways, Pershore Lane comprise an established

and long term recreational land use in the Green Belt. The recent development was

permitted and, it is understood, constructed with consideration of Green Belt

policies. It is considered that the Green Belt designation in this area continues to be

an appropriate means of controlling. No change is recommended.

Cornmeadow Lane

7.33 Whilst 11no. properties at the edge of Worcester have been „washed over‟ with

Green Belt it is considered that this provides a consistent alignment at the edge of

the urban area and does not conflict with the purposes of PPG2. No change is

recommended.

Perdiswell

7.34 Whilst a previous Local Plan Inspector concluded that the existing Green Belt

alignment boundary was acceptable, it is recommended that the long term proposal

to establish a cyclepath is maintained. As such, it is recommended that suitable

notation is included on the relevant proposals plan, so that when implemented a

suitably well defined and enduring boundary is provided. No change is

recommended to the Green Belt or its boundary.

Land north of Worcester

7.35 The Green Belt land to the north of Worcester, including that in the vicinity of

Claines, Hindlip and to the south and east of Fernhill Heath, is considered to fulfil

the purposes of PPG2 and no change is recommended.



7.36 Again it is considered and reiterated that in terms of appraising the Green Belt, the

size or area covered, together with for example, sensitivity to change, specific

landscape character is immaterial to the ability of the Green Belt to continue to

function and successfully meet its purposes.





recommended.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

the

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y’s

map

with

the

perm

issi

on o

f the

Con

trolle

r of T

he S

tatio

nery

Offi

ce, (

C) C

row

n C

opyr

ight

. Li

cenc

e N

o. 1

0001

8702

N

EXISTING GREEN BELT REVIEW

Figure 1Study area

May 2010 10420

2km0 10.5

Areas of Existing Green Belt within SWJCS area

dnsplanning+design

Source: SWJCS

N

M5

Impn

ey G

reen

Swan Drive

Hamburg RoadEXISTING GREEN BELT REVIEW

Figure 2 Aerial photograph showing residen-tial development in the Green Belt at Impney Green, Droitwich SpaMay 2010 10420

Area of existing Green BeltArea recommended to be removed from Green Belt

Sources: • Wychavon District Local

Plan Adopted June 2006• Getmapping

dnsplanning+design

© G

etm

appi

ng p

lc

Rep

rodu

ced

from

the

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y’s

map

with

the

perm

issi

on o

f the

Con

trolle

r of T

he S

tatio

nery

Offi

ce, (

C) C

row

n C

opyr

ight

. Li

cenc

e N

o. 1

0001

8702

N

EXISTING GREEN BELT REVIEW

Figure Plan 3Plan showing Green Belt boundary at Perdiswell, Worcester May 2010 10420

Recommended alignment of future cyclewaySection of undefi ned Green Belt boundary

Area of existing Green Belt

0 100m 200m 500m0 100m

Source: City of Worcester Local Plan 1996 – 2011 Adopted Proposals Map

dnsplanning+design



APPENDIX 1

GREEN BELT REVIEW METHODOLOGY

Methodology

1. The methodology for the Green Belt review was undertaken in three stages:

i. Assessment of the Green Belt Area

ii. Analysis of the Sub Areas / Review

iii. Conclusions

Approach to Methodology

2. When expanded the approach to the methodology can be depicted as follows:

Background to Green Belt (desk based)

History / Background

Policy / Guidance

Planning Considerations

Assessment of Green Belt (on site)

Site Visit / Field Survey

Boundaries

Analysis

GB Purpose / Criteria

Appraisal

Review

Evaluation of Initial Findings / Groupings

Analysis of findings and assessment against brief

Conclusions

Presentation to JAP

Conclusions on the Assessment, Analysis and Review

Assessment of the Green Belt Area

3. Desk Based Assessment – The initial desk based assessment reviewed the context to the

South Worcestershire Green Belt and provided a chronology of its evolution. This

provided a base position from which to conduct the site visits and subsequent analysis of

the sub areas.



4. Site Visits - The starting point for identifying the detailed study areas for the review was

undertaken through extensive sites visit across the whole of the Green Belt area. It was

decided that in order to make an assessment of the total area the Green Belt should be

considered in five distinct sub areas.

5. It was decided that no areas of Green Belt should be excluded from the review on the

basis that all the designated land should all be equally assessed.

6. A detailed review of all of the Green Belt boundaries was undertaken as part of the

review. The established boundaries play a significant role in defining the Green Belt

extent and particular attention was paid to assessing their strength and level of

robustness.

Analysis of the Sub Areas / Review

7. Previous Green Belt reviews for other authorities have adopted a range of different

criterion for assessment. Some of these have been based around qualitative and

quantitative judgements, with others being based upon numerical scoring systems that

are weighted to reflect the particular requirements of the study, this being undertaken

especially where such studies were required to identify locations for developments on

land that was, at the time of the related study, designated as Green Belt.

8. The Review of Green Belt within the SWJCS Study Area has been undertaken principally

to appraise whether the existing designated Green Belt is meeting the purposes of PPG2.

Therefore it was considered that the use of numerical scoring and weighting systems,

better served to those reviews where there was a specific need to identify land to be

removed from the Green Belt, would not be appropriate.

9. It was therefore considered that the appraisal of the SWJCS Green Belt should be

conducted using a qualitative judgement using a set assessment criteria. This was to

ensure that the review provided a balanced overall assessment of the whole Green Belt

and was most appropriate in deciding the extent to which it was fulfilling the purposes of

including land in the Green Belt. It was considered that a detailed site by site analysis of

each individual pocket or land parcel within the Green Belt would risk becoming side

tracked in the site specific details of the particular site and not have full regard to the

wider Green Belt context. It was further considered that if site specific development

proposals were being promoted through the LDF process then they could be addressed

on their respective site specific merits having regard to the wider findings of the Green

Belt review.

10. The criteria for analysis were predicated upon the five Green Belt purposes as stated in

PPG2. The analysis also had regard to relevant planning policy guidance and existing



Green Belt policy evolution. This provided a basis for the appraisal of the sub-areas

identified within the Green Belt in the initial assessment. The five purposes for including

land are:

1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

2. to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;

3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other

urban land.

11. The appraisal considers the extent to which the Green Belt sub-areas were fulfilling the

five purposes and had regard to the following criterion:

Purpose 1 – checking unrestricted sprawl: Considered the extent to which the Green

Belt prevented ribbon development and provided an established boundary to

settlements within or adjoining the designated area. Consideration was given to the

extent to which the prevention of urban development was contributing to the purpose

of the Green Belt.

Purpose 2 – preventing neighbouring towns from merging: Considered how the sub

areas achieve the purpose of separating settlements having regard to the distances

from the outer boundaries to settlements.

Purpose 3 – safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: The approach

adopted was to consider this purpose alongside purpose 1 and to examine the

boundaries between the urban area and the countryside. Consideration was given to

pressure for development from existing settlements into the countryside and also to

the potential for non-urban commercial development within the Green Belt that was

not associated with a particular settlement.

Purpose 4 – preserving historic towns: Considered the extent to which the Green

Belt contributes to preserving the setting of Droitwich Spa and Worcester including

conservation areas within them.

Purpose 5 – assist in urban regeneration: Considered the extent to which the land

within the Green Belt fulfilled this purpose by having regard to the opportunities

presented within the defined area. It was considered that not all areas of the

Green Belt were equal in this respect and whilst they might generically all contribute



towards focussing development to the urban areas there were nevertheless

regeneration site within the Green Belt to be considered.

12. Boundaries - The assessment considers whether the existing Green Belt boundary is

clearly defined using recognisable features and is robust. The boundaries of the south

Worcestershire Green Belt are well established and fulfil a critical role in defining its

extent. The analysis of the sub areas considered whether the existing boundaries were

satisfactory and if they were clearly defined.

13. The boundary review also considered the settlement and ADR boundaries in the study

area and examined whether there were any existing anomalies, including drafting

anomalies; and whether there were any areas that could be excluded from, or added into

the Green Belt on land immediately adjoining the boundary.

Conclusions

14. The Review makes independent recommendations about the future of the Green Belt to

the SWJCS team based on an evaluation of the findings and whether the land continues

to fulfil its purpose as Green Belt within the study area.

15. The evaluation of the Green Belt assessment was analysed by sub area against the

defined criteria and the brief. Matrices were not used as it was considered that qualitative

judgments can not be given a quantitative weighting or score for comparative purposes.

The final synthesis of this information has been presented in written form in the report.

References

Calderdale Council; Green Belt Review Methodology Consultation, November 2008

Calderdale Council; Green Belt Review Methodology Comments and Feedback, March 2009

Cheltenham Borough Council; Green Belt Review, AERC Ltd, March 2007

Coventry Green Belt Review; DLS Planning, December 2007

East Cambridgeshire District Council; Green Belt Review, September 2005

EMRA, Nottingham - Derby Green Belt Review, April 2006

Hereford & Worcester County Council Green Belt Local Plan, November 1982

Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green belts, 1995



Purbeck District Council; Green Belt Review, June 2006

Redditch Borough Council; A Study of Green Belt Land & ADRs, October 2008

Town and Country Planning in the UK; Cullingworth & Nadin, 14th Ed 2006

West Midlands Regional Assembly; Green Belt Annual Monitoring Report 2007, April 2008

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase Two Revision – Report of the Panel:

Volume 1 – Report, September 2009

Worcester City Council, City of Worcester Local Plan 1996 – 2011, December 2007

Worcester City Council, Green Belt Local Plan Written Statement, April 1992

Worcestershire Structure Plan, September 1975

Worcestershire County Structure Plan 1996-2011, 2001

Wychavon District Council, Wychavon District Local Plan Inspectors Report, September 1994

Wychavon District Council, Proposed Modifications to the Wychavon District Local Plan

Deposit Version, November 1995

Wychavon District Council, Wychavon District Local Plan, January 1998

Wychavon District Council, Wychavon District Local Plan Review Inspectors Report,

October 2005

Wychavon District Council, Wychavon District Local Plan Review Proposed Modifications

Report, January 2006

Wychavon District Council, Wychavon District Local Plan, June 2006



APPENDIX 2

PPG2 – GREEN BELTS

Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green belts

Contents

Foreword.........................................................................................................................2

1. Introduction................................................................................................................3

2. Designation Of Green Belts .......................................................................................5

3. Control Over Development .......................................................................................8

4. Cancellation Of Advice ............................................................................................12

Annex A.........................................................................................................................13

Annex B.........................................................................................................................14

Annex C.........................................................................................................................15

Annex D.........................................................................................................................18

Annex E.........................................................................................................................20

Foreword "Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) set out the Government's policies on different aspects of planning. Local planning authorities must take their content into account in preparing their development plans. The guidance may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals.

This PPG replaces the 1988 version of PPG2, and advice in Circulars. It:

• states the general intentions of Green Belt policy, including its contribution to sustainable development objectives;

• reaffirms the specific purposes of including land in Green Belts, with slight modifications;

• gives policy a more positive thrust by specifying for the first time objectives for the use of land in Green Belts;

• confirms that Green Belts must be protected as far as can be seen ahead, advises on defining boundaries and on safeguarding land for longer-term development needs; and

• maintains the presumption against inappropriate development within Green Belts and refines the categories of appropriate development, including making provision for the future of major existing developed sites and revising policy on the re-use of buildings."

1. Introduction

1.1 The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, which have been an essential element of planning policy for some four decades. The purposes of Green Belt policy and the related development control policies set out in 1955 remain valid today with remarkably little alteration.

History

1.2 The first official proposal "to provide a reserve supply of public open spaces and of recreational areas and to establish a green belt or girdle of open space" was made by the Greater London Regional Planning Committee in 1935. New provisions for compensation in the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act allowed local authorities to incorporate green belt proposals in their first development plans. The codification of Green Belt policy and its extension to areas other than London came in 1955 with an historic circular inviting local planning authorities to consider the establishment of Green Belts.

Extent

1.3 The Green Belts approved through structure plans now cover approximately 1,556,000 hectares, about 12 per cent of England. There are 14 separate Green Belts, varying in size from 486,000 hectares around London to just 700 hectares at Burton-on-Trent. "The general extent and location of the designated areas are given in the table and map opposite."

Intentions of policy

1.4 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Green Belts can shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale, and help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in development plans. They help to protect the countryside, be it in agricultural, forestry or other use. They can assist in moving towards more sustainable patterns of urban development (see paragraph 2.10).

Purposes of including land in Green Belts

1.5 There are five purposes of including land in Green Belts:

- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

- to prevent neighbouring towns from 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.

The use of land in Green Belts

1.6 Once Green Belts have been defined, the use of land in them has a positive role to play in fulfilling the following objectives:

- to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population;

- to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas;

- to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people live;

- to improve damaged and derelict land around towns;

- to secure nature conservation interest; and

- to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.

1.7 The extent to which the use of land fulfils these objectives is however not itself a material factor in the inclusion of land within a Green Belt, or in its continued protection. For example, although Green Belts often contain areas of attractive landscape, the quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within a Green Belt or to its continued protection. The purposes of including land in Green Belts are of paramount importance to their continued protection, and should take precedence over the land use objectives.

2. Designation Of Green Belts 2.1 The essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead.

Regional guidance and development plans

2.2 Regional and strategic planning guidance set the framework for Green Belt policy and settlement policy, including the direction of long-term development. Regional guidance focuses on issues which are of regional importance or which need to be considered on a wider geographical basis than that of individual structure plans. Strategic guidance performs a similar role in metropolitan areas.

2.3 Green Belts are established through development plans. Structure plans provide the strategic policy context for planning at local level. The general extent of Green Belts has been fixed through the approval of structure plans.

2.4 Many detailed Green Belt boundaries have been set in local plans and in old development plans, but in some areas detailed boundaries have not yet been defined. Up-to-date approved boundaries are essential, to provide certainty as to where Green Belt policies do and do not apply and to enable the proper consideration of future development options. The mandatory requirement for district-wide local plans, introduced by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, will ensure that the definition of detailed boundaries is completed.

2.5 In metropolitan areas, unitary development plans (UDPs) perform the functions of structure and local plans.

Defining boundaries

2.6 Once the general extent of a Green Belt has been approved it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. If such an alteration is proposed the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied that the authority has considered opportunities for development within the urban areas contained by and beyond the Green Belt. Similarly, detailed Green Belt boundaries defined in adopted local plans or earlier approved development plans should be altered only exceptionally. Detailed boundaries should not be altered or development allowed merely because the land has become derelict.

2.7 Where existing local plans are being revised and updated, existing Green Belt boundaries should not be changed unless alterations to the structure plan have been approved, or other exceptional circumstances exist, which necessitate such revision.

2.8 Where detailed Green Belt boundaries have not yet been defined, it is necessary to establish boundaries that will endure. They should be carefully drawn so as not to include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open. Otherwise there is a risk that encroachment on the Green Belt may have to be allowed in order to accommodate future development. If boundaries are drawn excessively tightly around existing built-up areas it may not be possible to maintain the degree of permanence that Green Belts should have. This would devalue the concept of the Green Belt and reduce the value of local plans in making proper provision for necessary development in the future.

2.9 Wherever practicable a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable open zone all round the built-up area concerned. Boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where

possible. Well-defined long-term Green Belt boundaries help to ensure the future agricultural, recreational and amenity value of Green Belt land, whereas less secure boundaries would make it more difficult for farmers and other landowners to maintain and improve their land. Further advice on land management is in Annex A.

2.10 When drawing Green Belt boundaries in development plans local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development (for example in terms of the effects on car travel) of channelling development towards urban areas inside the inner Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt, or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.

2.11 Guidance on the treatment of existing villages in Green Belts is given in the box below. The advice on affordable housing in paragraph 3.4 is also relevant.

Existing Villages

Development plans should treat existing villages in Green Belt areas in one of the following ways.

If it is proposed to allow no new building beyond the categories in the first three indents of paragraph 3.4, the village should be included within the Green Belt. The Green Belt notation should be carried across ("washed over") it.

If infilling only is proposed, the village should either be "washed over" and listed in the development plan or should be inset (that is, excluded from the Green Belt). The local plan should include policies to ensure that any infill does not have an adverse effect on the character of the village concerned. If the village is washed over, the local plan may need to define infill boundaries to avoid dispute over whether particular sites are covered by infill policies.

If limited development (more than infilling) or limited expansion is proposed, the village should be inset. Development control policies for such settlements should be included in the local plan.

Safeguarded land

2.12 When local planning authorities prepare new or revised structure and local plans, any proposals affecting Green Belts should be related to a time-scale which is longer than that normally adopted for other aspects of the plan. They should satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. In order to ensure protection of Green Belts within this longer timescale, this will in some cases mean safeguarding land between the urban area and the Green Belt which may be required to meet longer-term development needs. Regional/strategic guidance should provide a strategic framework for considering this issue. In preparing and reviewing their development plans authorities should address the possible need to provide safeguarded land. They should consider the broad location of anticipated development beyond the plan period, its effects on urban areas contained by the Green Belt and on areas beyond it, and its implications for sustainable development. In non-metropolitan areas these questions should in the first instance be addressed in the structure plan, which should where necessary indicate a general area where local plans should identify safeguarded land.

2.13 Annex B gives further advice on safeguarded land, which is sometimes known as "white land".

New Green Belts

2.14 Proposals for new Green Belts should be considered through the Regional/Strategic Guidance or Structure Plan process in the first instance. If a local planning authority proposes to establish a new Green Belt, it should demonstrate why normal planning and development control policies would not be adequate, and whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary. It should also show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development.

3. Control Over Development

Presumption against inappropriate development

3.1 The general policies controlling development in the countryside apply with equal force in Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. Such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. See paragraphs 3.4, 3.8, 3.11 and 3.12 below as to development which is inappropriate.

3.2 Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In view of the presumption against inappropriate development, the Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt when considering any planning application or appeal concerning such development.

3.3 Green Belt policies in development plans should ensure that any planning applications for inappropriate development would not be in accord with the plan. These exceptional cases would thus be treated as departures from the development plan, to be referred to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) Directions 1992 (see DOE Circular 19/92).

New buildings

3.4 The construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for the following purposes:

- agriculture and forestry (unless permitted development rights have been withdrawn - see paragraph D2 of Annex D);

- essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries, and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it (see paragraph 3.5 below);

- limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings (subject to paragraph 3.6 below);

- limited infilling in existing villages (under the circumstances described in the box following paragraph 2.11), and limited affordable housing for local community needs under development plan policies according with PPG3 (see Annex E, and the box following paragraph 2.11); or

- limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in adopted local plans, which meets the criteria in paragraph C3 or C4 of Annex C1.

3.5 Essential facilities (see second indent of paragraph 3.4) should be genuinely required for uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. Possible examples of such facilities include small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation for outdoor sport, or small stables for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation.

3.6 Provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts. The 1 See also the transitional provision of paragraph C14 regarding redundant hospital sites and paragraph C17 regarding higher and further education establishments not identified in adopted local plans.

replacement of existing dwellings need not be inappropriate, providing the new dwelling is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces. Development plans should make clear the approach local planning authorities will take, including the circumstances (if any) under which replacement dwellings are acceptable.

Re-use of buildings

3.7 With suitable safeguards, the re-use of buildings should not prejudice the openness of Green Belts, since the buildings are already there. It can help to secure the continuing stewardship of land, especially by assisting farmers in diversifying their enterprises, and may contribute to the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts. The alternative to re-use may be a building that is left vacant and prone to vandalism and dereliction.

3.8 The re-use of buildings inside a Green Belt is not inappropriate development providing:

(a) it does not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it;

(b) strict control is exercised over the extension of re-used buildings, and over any associated uses of land surrounding the building which might conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it (e.g. because they involve extensive external storage, or extensive hardstanding, car parking, boundary walling or fencing);

(c) the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction, and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction; and

(d) the form, bulk and general design of the buildings are in keeping with their surroundings2. (Conversion proposals may be more acceptable if they respect local building styles and materials, though the use of equivalent natural materials that are not local should not be ruled out).

3.9 If a proposal for the re-use of a building in the Green Belt does not meet the criteria in paragraph 3.8, or there are other specific and convincing planning reasons for refusal (for example on environmental or traffic grounds), the local planning authority should not reject the proposal without considering whether, by imposing reasonable conditions, any objections could be overcome. It should not normally be necessary to consider whether the building is no longer needed for its present agricultural or other purposes3. Evidence that the building is not redundant in its present use is not by itself sufficient grounds for refusing permission for a proposed new use.

3.10 Local planning authorities should include in their development plans policies for the re-use of buildings in Green Belts, having regard to the advice above and in Annex D of this PPG.

Mining operations, and other development

3.11 Minerals can be worked only where they are found. Their extraction is a temporary activity. Mineral extraction need not be inappropriate development: it need not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belts, provided that high environmental standards are maintained and that the site is well restored. Mineral and local planning authorities should include appropriate policies in their development plans. Mineral planning authorities should ensure that planning conditions for

2 If a planning application is submitted for the re-use of a building which the local planning authority considers has a significant adverse effect on the landscape in terms of visual amenity, it may be appropriate in connection with any proposed structural changes to impose conditions to secure an improvement in the external appearance of the building. 3 In the case of a tenanted agricultural building, the value in planning terms of the existing use should however be taken into consideration.

mineral working sites within Green Belts achieve suitable environmental standards and restoration. Relevant advice is in MPG2 and MPG7. Paragraph 3.13 below is also relevant to mineral extraction.

3.12 The statutory definition of development includes engineering and other operations, and the making of any material change in the use of land. The carrying out of such operations and the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. (Advice on material changes in the use of buildings is given in paragraph 3.8 above).

Land use objectives

3.13 When any large-scale development or redevelopment of land occurs in the Green Belt (including mineral extraction, the tipping of waste, and road and other infrastructure developments or improvements), it should, so far as possible contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts (see paragraph 1.6). This approach applies to large-scale developments irrespective of whether they are appropriate development4, or inappropriate development which is justified by very special circumstances. Development plans should make clear the local planning authority's intended approach.

3.14 Planning obligations may be used to offset the loss of or impact on any amenity present on a site prior to development (see DoE Circular 16/91). In the case where amenity on a site adjacent to the Green Belt is lost as a result of development on that site, it may be reasonable for obligations to provide for offsetting benefits on land in the Green Belt, as long as there is a direct relationship between the two sites.

Visual amenity

3.15 The visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design.

Community Forests

3.16 Community Forests offer valuable opportunities for improving the environment around towns, by upgrading the landscape and providing for recreation and wildlife. An approved Community Forest plan may be a material consideration in preparing development plans and in deciding planning applications. Any development proposals within Community Forests in the Green Belt should be subject to the normal policies controlling development in Green Belts, and should respect the woodland setting.

This PPG was amended with effect from 27 March 2001 by Annex E of PPG13(Transport)which inserted new paragraphs 3.17-3.20 as below:

Park and ride

3.17 The countryside immediately around urban areas will often be the preferred location for park and ride schemes. In many instances, such land may be designated as Green Belt. The Governments commitment to maintaining the openness of the Green Belt means that when seeking to locate park

4 But see paragraph C4 of Annex C regarding the redevelopment of major developed sites.

and ride development, non-Green Belt alternatives should be investigated first. However, there may be cases where a Green Belt location is the most sustainable of the available options. Park and ride development is not inappropriate in Green Belts, provided that:

(a) a thorough and comprehensive assessment of potential sites has been carried out, including both non-Green Belt and, if appropriate, other Green Belt locations, having regard to sustainable development objectives, and the need to be flexible about size and layout;

(b) the assessment establishes that the proposed green belt site is the most sustainable option taking account of all relevant factors including travel impacts;

(c) the scheme will not seriously compromise the purposes of including land in Green Belts, as set out in paragraph 1.5;

(d) the proposal is contained within the local transport plan (or in Greater London the Local Implementation Plan) and based on a thorough assessment of travel impacts; and

(e) new or re-used buildings are included within the development proposal only for essential facilities associated with the operation of the park and ride scheme.

3.18 For larger-scale schemes local planning authorities must give particular attention to sub-paragraph (c) above. All the criteria in paragraph 3.17 should also be applied when considering proposals for expansion of existing sites. Approval of park and ride development in a particular location does not create any presumption in favour of future expansion of that site. All proposals must be considered on their merits.

3.19 In all cases, the layout, design and landscaping of the scheme must preserve, so far as possible, the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. Particular care will be needed on matters, such as floodlighting, which are essential to the safe operation of park and ride schemes but which may be visually intrusive unless carefully designed. Local authorities should make full use of planning conditions or obligations see paragraph 3.14 and Circulars 11/95 and 1/97.

3.20 Park and ride development which does not satisfy the criteria in paragraph 3.17 should be not be approved except in very special circumstances see paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3, and Circular 7/99.

4. Cancellation Of Advice 4.1 The following advice is hereby cancelled:

PPG2 (January 1988);

paragraphs 1-3 of Annex D to PPG12 (February 1992);

paragraph 34 of PPG17 (September 1991), except the first sentence;

DOE Circular 12/91;

DOE Circular 14/84, including the Annex reproducing MHLG Circulars 42/55 and 50/57.

Annex A

Land Management

A1 Local authorities can assist landowners in maintaining and improving their land by working together with them, with voluntary organisations including Groundwork Trusts, and with statutory bodies such as the Countryside Commission, the Forestry Commission, and (where significant areas of derelict or vacant land are involved) English Partnerships. The aim should be to enhance the countryside, and especially those areas of land within the Green Belt or adjacent to it, which are suffering from disuse or neglect.

A2 This is particularly important in areas that are close to existing urban development, or within conurbations, and which can be especially vulnerable to neglect or damage. They may come under intense pressure for development, and if so need to be protected and maintained. But in considering whether to include such areas of land within the Green Belt, where detailed boundaries have not yet been established, authorities should also consider carefully whether the land should be better reserved for future development and thus ease the pressure on other land that should have the long-term protection of the Green Belt. The overall aim should be to develop and maintain a positive approach to land management which both makes adequate provision for necessary development and ensures that the Green Belt serves its proper purpose.

Annex B

Safeguarded Land

B1 This guidance supplements that in paragraph 2.12, and should be read in conjunction with it.

Identifying safeguarded land

B2 Safeguarded land comprises areas and sites which may be required to serve development needs in the longer term, i.e. well beyond the plan period. It should be genuinely capable of development when needed.

B3 Safeguarded land should be located where future development would be an efficient use of land, well integrated with existing development, and well related to public transport and other existing and planned infrastructure, so promoting sustainable development.

B4 In identifying safeguarded land local planning authorities should take account of the advice on housing in PPG3 and on transport in PPG13. They should also have regard to environmental and landscape quality (so far as is consistent with paragraph 1.7 of this PPG); to the contribution which future redevelopment might make to remedying urban fringe problems, producing attractive, well-landscaped urban edges; and to the advice in PPG7 on protecting the best agricultural land.

Development control policies

B5 Development plans should state clearly the policies applying to safeguarded land over the period covered by the plan. They should make clear that the land is not allocated for development at the present time, and keep it free to fulfil its purpose of meeting possible longer-term development needs. No development which would prejudice later comprehensive development should be permitted (though temporary developments may assist in ensuring that the land is properly looked after). Valuable landscape and wildlife features and existing access for recreation should be protected.

B6 Development plan policies should provide that planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a local plan or UDP review which proposes the development of particular areas of safeguarded land. Making safeguarded land available for permanent development in other circumstances would thus be a departure from the plan.

Annex C

Future Of Major Developed Sites In The Green Belt

C1 Green Belts contain some major developed sites such as factories, collieries, power stations, water and sewage treatment works, military establishments, civil airfields, hospitals, and research and education establishments. These substantial sites may be in continuing use or be redundant. They often pre-date the town and country planning system and the Green Belt designation.

C2 These sites remain subject to development control policies for Green Belts, and the Green Belt notation should be carried across them. If a major developed site is specifically identified for the purposes of this Annex in an adopted local plan or UDP, infilling or redevelopment which meets the criteria in paragraph C3 or C4 is not inappropriate development. In this context, infilling means the filling of small gaps between built development.

Infilling

C3 Limited infilling at major developed sites in continuing use may help to secure jobs and prosperity without further prejudicing the Green Belt. Where this is so, local planning authorities may in their development plans identify the site, defining the boundary of the present extent of development and setting out a policy for limited infilling for the continuing use within this boundary. Such infilling should:

(a) have no greater impact on the purposes of including land in the Green Belt (paragraph 1.5) than the existing development;

(b) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and

(c) not lead to a major increase in the developed proportion of the site.

Redevelopment

C4 Whether they are redundant or in continuing use, the complete or partial redevelopment of major developed sites may offer the opportunity for environmental improvement without adding to their impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. Where this is the case, local planning authorities may in their development plans identify the site, setting out a policy for its future redevelopment. They should consider preparing a site brief. Redevelopment should :

(a) have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less;

(b) contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts (paragraph 1.6 - see also paragraph 3.13);

(c) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and

(d) not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).

C5 The relevant area for the purposes of (d) is the aggregate ground floor area of the existing buildings (the "footprint"), excluding temporary buildings, open spaces with direct external access between wings of a building, and areas of hardstanding.

C6 The character and dispersal of proposed redevelopment will need to be considered as well as its footprint. For example many houses may together have a much smaller footprint than a few large buildings, but may be unacceptable because their dispersal over a large part of the site and enclosed gardens may have an adverse impact on the character of the Green Belt compared with the current development. The location of the new buildings should be decided having regard to the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts, the main features of the landscape, and the need to integrate the new development with its surroundings. For instance it may be more appropriate to site new development closer to existing buildings.

C7 The site should be considered as a whole, whether or not all the buildings are to be redeveloped. The test of area in paragraph C5 relates to the redevelopment of the entire site; any proposals for partial redevelopment should be put forward in the context of comprehensive, long-term plans for the site as a whole.

C8 Proposals should be considered in the light of all material considerations, including for example visual amenity (see paragraph 3.15 of this PPG) and the traffic and travel implications of redevelopment (see PPG13).

C9 Where buildings are demolished rather than being left in a semi-derelict state pending decisions about their redevelopment, it will be necessary to keep suitable records for the purposes of paragraph C5. These should be agreed between the local planning authority and the landowner.

C10 In granting any planning permission local authorities may wish to consider whether to impose conditions to ensure that buildings which are not to be retained permanently are demolished as new buildings are erected, thus keeping the total developed area under control.

Architectural and historic interest

C11 Suitable re-use is to be preferred to redevelopment where the buildings are of architectural or historic interest. Any proposals for altering or demolishing listed buildings or which affect their settings should be considered in the light of the advice in PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment.

C12 Local planning authorities should have regard to the desirability of preserving gardens and grounds of special historic interest. The English Heritage register of historic gardens lists sites of particular importance (see PPG15).

Public expenditure

C13 Redevelopment should not normally require additional expenditure by the public sector on the provision of infrastructure, nor should it overload local facilities such as schools and health care facilities. Local planning authorities should take account of any additional infrastructure requirements (eg roads) which may have significant adverse effects on the Green Belt. Adequate financial provision should where necessary be made for the future maintenance of landscaped areas (taking account of advice in DoE Circular 16/91, Planning Obligations).

Redundant hospitals

C14 The special position of redundant hospitals in Green Belts was recognised in DoE Circular 12/91 and earlier advice. That Circular is cancelled by this PPG; hospitals are covered by this Annex. As a transitional measure, pending the next local plan or UDP review, the redevelopment of redundant hospital sites which are not identified in development plans but meet the criteria in paragraph C4 above is not inappropriate development.

Higher and further education establishments

C15 Previous policy allowed "institutions standing in extensive grounds" to undertake new development, because such institutions pre-dated Green Belt policy. It was unclear how much new development was permitted. More recently this provision has been used to press for wholly new development on a scale that is inappropriate in the Green Belt. This revision of PPG2 makes it clear that development by institutions is subject to the same controls as other development in the Green Belt.

C16 It is however Government policy to encourage more people to undertake higher and further education (HFE). There has been a large increase in student numbers and further increases can be expected. The lack of a reasonable alternative site outside the Green Belt (whether within the urban area or elsewhere) for the proposed expansion of an HFE establishment located in or adjacent to the Green Belt should be taken into account in preparing or reviewing a development plan. Green Belt boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances, after consideration of development opportunities within urban areas. Local planning authorities will wish to take an early opportunity to consult HFE establishments in or adjacent to the Green Belt about their development intentions. Plan preparation procedures provide opportunities for full public consultation on proposals to alter boundaries. Guidance on the timing of plan reviews is given in PPG12.

C17 Meanwhile, pending the next local plan or UDP review, the infilling or (partial or complete) redevelopment of HFE establishments on major sites in the Green Belt, which are not identified in development plans but otherwise meet the criteria in paragraph C3 or C4 of this Annex, is not inappropriate development. HFE establishments means: universities, colleges, schools and institutes of higher education; and establishments funded by the Further Education Funding Council for England, including colleges of further education, VI form colleges, and agricultural and horticultural colleges.

Annex D

Re-Use Of Buildings - Additional Advice

Agricultural buildings

D1 It is important to discourage abuse of permitted development rights. Local planning authorities should examine particularly carefully applications for re-use made within four years of the substantial completion of agricultural buildings erected under the General Development Order. This should alert them to the possibility that, when it was substantially completed, the building was in breach of planning control because there was no genuine agricultural justification.

D2 When granting permission for the use of agricultural buildings for non-agricultural purposes, local planning authorities should consider whether proliferation of farm buildings constructed under permitted development rights could have a seriously detrimental effect on the openness of the Green Belt. If so, they should consider whether it would be reasonable to attach a condition withdrawing these rights for new farm buildings in respect of that particular agricultural unit or holding. Such a condition should be used with great care, and must fairly and reasonably relate to the proposed development. While a restriction on additions to a particular group of farm buildings without specific permission might be reasonable, a restriction which sought to cover the whole of a large holding in connection with the re-use of a single building might well be unreasonable. Authorities should, where appropriate, include in their local plans a policy indicating the factors that they would take into account. If permitted development rights have been withdrawn, very special circumstances would need to be established for a new agricultural building to be permitted.

Residential conversions

D3 The following advice from PPG7, The Countryside and the Rural Economy (January 1992), is relevant to the re-use of buildings in Green Belts for residential purposes.

"In some villages, the pressure to convert existing buildings to dwellings is great, and applications for a change of use may, if granted, lead to adverse effects on the local rural economy. The need to accommodate local commerce and industry may well be a material consideration in deciding such applications." (Paragraph 2.13)

"Local planning authorities should examine applications for changes to residential use with particular care. The advice in paragraph D4 of PPG7, is often particularly relevant to such proposals. New housing in the open countryside is subject to strict control (paragraph 2.18 of PPG7); it may be appropriate to apply similar principles to proposals for the conversion of existing rural buildings to dwellings, especially where such buildings are unsuitable for conversion without extensive alteration, rebuilding and/or extension. Residential conversions can often have detrimental effects on the fabric and character of historic farm buildings. While new uses can frequently be the key to the preservation of historic buildings, it is important to ensure that the new use is sympathetic to the rural character. In addition, the creation of a residential curtilage around a newly converted building can sometimes have a harmful effect on the character of the countryside, especially in areas of high quality landscape, including National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty." (Paragraph D5)

"Residential conversions have a minimal impact on the rural economy. However conversions for holiday use can contribute more, and may reduce pressure to use other houses in the area for holiday use. Separate considerations apply to agricultural dwellings (see Annex E of PPG7)". (Paragraph D6).

Listed buildings

D4 If a building is listed, listed building consent may be needed for its conversion as well as planning permission (see PPG15).

Annex E

Further Guidance From Other PPGs And Circulars

Other PPGs and Circulars provide further guidance on Green Belt aspects of some specific types of development. Relevant passages are reproduced below.

Affordable Housing (from Annex A of PPG3, March 1992)

"11 This guidance does not alter the general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belts. Green Belt policy remains as set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 2.

"12 Most Green Belt areas are by their nature close to the main conurbations, and conditions are not typical of the generality of rural areas to which this policy is addressed. Special considerations may, however, arise in some of the more extensive areas of Green Belt away from the urban fringe, particularly in areas where there are many small settlements and it may not be practicable or appropriate to define Green Belt boundaries around each one.

"13 In some of these areas local planning policies already recognise that very limited development within existing settlements may be acceptable and consistent with the function of the Green Belt. It is for local planning authorities to judge whether low cost housing development for local community needs would fall within the scope of such policies.

"14 The release, exceptionally, for small-scale, low cost housing schemes of other sites within existing settlements, which would not normally be considered for development under such policies, would again be a matter for the judgement of the planning authority, having regard to all material considerations, including the objectives of Green Belt policy and the evidence of local need."

Motorway Service Areas (from Annex A of PPG13, March 1994)

"13 In Green Belts, there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. In line with PPG2, approval should not be given for an MSA within a Green Belt except in very special circumstances. One of the material considerations which could justify such an exception could be the lack of any signed MSAs. The greater the interval between the proposed site and any existing facility the more weight should be placed on the needs of motorway users. Developers should bear in mind the sensitive nature of Green Belt sites and avoid them where possible. Where no alternatives are readily available, developers will be expected to take great care to mitigate the likely impact of the development."

All-seater Football League Stadia (from PPG17, September 1991)

"50 Because of the size of the structures involved, major football stadia cannot be regarded as appropriate development within an approved Green Belt. As PPG2 makes clear, very special circumstances would be needed to justify setting aside the general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belts. It would be most unusual for a stadium proposal to meet those very special circumstances unless all other practicable options for location had been exhausted and other considerations had been fully addressed. A site for development as large as a major football stadium should normally be identified in a local plan. It could be considered alongside any proposal for the adjustment of Green Belt boundaries. Such boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances, after consideration of development opportunities within urban areas. The procedures for making and reviewing local plans provide opportunities for full public consultation on proposals to alter boundaries."

Gypsy Sites (from paragraph 3 of DOE Circular 1/94)

"As a rule it will not be appropriate to make provision for gypsy sites in areas of open land where development is severely restricted, for example, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and other protected areas. Gypsy sites are not regarded as being among those uses of land which are normally appropriate in Green Belts. Green Belt land should not therefore be allocated for gypsy sites in development plans."

Published: 2 July 2001



APPENDIX 3

LAND TO THE SOUTH AND WEST OF WORCESTER

Potential for additional areas of Green Belt designated land to the west and east of

Worcester, and between Worcester and Great Malvern.

Introduction

The potential for, and possibility of, larger and/ or additional areas of Green Belt designated

land adjacent to or encircling Worcester have been variously proposed since the introduction

of Green Belt policy in 1955.

The reasons for this include:

1. Local pressure to protect land from development

2. As a means of „compensating‟ for either removal of Green Belt designation elsewhere

(actual or proposed)

3. As means of compensating for the loss of green field sites to development.

Constraints to assessment work

The Review of the existing Green Belt considered the possibility/ potential for undertaking

assessment and appraisal of large areas encircling Worcester in order to determine whether

Green Belt designation could and/ or should be made. However it was considered that such

assessment was not necessary or appropriate for the following reasons:

a. The Panel to the RSS specifically advises in paragraph 8.102 that the encirclement of

Worcester by Green Belt would be inappropriate as it would constrain the potential for

sustainable future urban development.

b. The methodology of the Review is to appraise existing Green Belt and is not considered

appropriate to apply the same approach for areas of undesignated Green Belt land.

c. The proposal of additional Green Belt designated land would require clarity on future

boundaries. Given the uncertainty over future urban extensions such appraisal work

would be subject to review when proposed or actual new urban boundaries had been

established.

Within the emerging South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy, as part of planned growth,

there are preferred land areas identified for the creation of one or more sustainable urban



extensions to Worcester. These are located, in countryside, to the south and west, adjacent

to and beyond the city limits and within Malvern Hills and Wychavon administrative areas.

In order for a study to assess whether other areas beyond the existing urban boundary of

Worcester (eg. to the east, south and west), or other settlements, meet the purposes of Green

Belt, in accordance with PPG2, and if so whether such land should be considered for potential

designation as Green Belt it will therefore be necessary either to:

c. Assess the area beyond the existing urban edge as if no such urban extension is

proposed, or;

d. Define a clear urban boundary, or boundaries, for such an extension beyond which the

land can then be tested against the purposes of PPG2.

This study will not take into account these potential major areas of planned growth into the

countryside, which are currently indicative only, because there is no certainty of this change,

and therefore no long term and enduring urban boundary from which to assess any Green

Belt definition.



APPENDIX 4

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Worcestershire Structure Plan – Saved Green Belt Polices

Policy D.12 - Housing in the Green Belt

Housing in the Green Belt will only be allowed in those circumstances detailed in national

planning guidance, currently PPG2. Where housing proposals are such that in the terms of

PPG2 they constitute inappropriate development this will only be allowed where very special

circumstances can be demonstrated which outweigh their inappropriateness. Housing

permitted under this policy will be for local needs only in accordance with the development

strategy of the Structure Plan. Proposals for housing development on major developed sites

in the Green Belt are acceptable where they accord with this policy and PPG2, Annex C.

Policy D.38 - General Extent and Purposes of the Green Belt

A Green Belt will be maintained in the north-east of Worcestershire, with the purposes being

to:

(i) check the unrestricted sprawl of the West Midlands conurbation;

(ii) prevent neighbouring towns and villages from merging into one another;

(iii) assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

(iv) preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

(v) assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

The general extent of the Green Belt (shown on the Key Diagram) will cover the area to the

south-west of the West Midlands Conurbation between the County boundary with

Warwickshire to the east and the River Severn to the west, extended to the south of Redditch

and including land between Droitwich Spa and Worcester.

Policy D.39 - Control of Development in the Green Belt

There will be a presumption against allowing inappropriate development in the Green Belt as

described in national planning guidance currently PPG2. Where proposals constitute

inappropriate development in the terms of this guidance they will only be allowed where very

special circumstances exist which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. PPG2 gives details

of exceptions to the general prevention of inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It will

be for the applicant to show why permission should be granted.

Development permitted in the Green Belt must also satisfy other relevant policies in the

Development Plan.



Policy D.40 - Green Belt Boundary Definition

Where Green Belt boundaries have still to be defined in Local Plans that definition will be

completed. In defining boundaries District Councils should have regard to the purposes of the

Green Belt set out in Policy D.38 and the need to safeguard land for longer term development

needs.

Worcester City Local Plan – Saved Green Belt Policies

The City Council will apply the following policies in respect of the Green Belt:

Policy NE12 - Green Belt Area

Green Belt policies NE13 - NE18 will be applied within the area shown as Green Belt on the

proposals map.

Advisory Note

Policies NE13 – 18 of the Worcester City Local Plan were not saved as they reiterated policy

advice in PPG2. Policy NE12 was saved as it defined the area of Green Belt within the

Local Plan area.

Wychavon Local Plan – Saved Green Belt Polices

Policy SR7 - Development in the Green Belt

Within the Green Belt, proposals will only be permitted for development where they:

a) would not detract from the open character of the Green Belt; or

b) would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; and

c) (in both instances) are for one or more of the following purposes:

i) land uses for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, outdoor sports and recreation,

horse riding, cemeteries and other uses suitable to the rural area and which preserve

the openness of land;

ii) new buildings that meet a proven agricultural need or that are essential for uses

outlined under i) above;

iii) small-scale social housing schemes to meet proven local needs that accord with

Policy COM3 (Rural Exceptions Policy);

iv) limited infilling within defined development boundaries;

v) limited extension or replacement of existing buildings in accordance with

Policy SUR1, Policy SUR6 and Policy RES9 (Design, Extensions, and Replacement

Buildings);



vi) re-use of buildings in accordance with Policy RES7 and Policy RES8 (Conversion of

Existing Buildings); and

vii) the limited infilling of the identified employment sites in accordance with the

provisions of PPG2 Annexe C.

Policy SR8 - Major Developed Site in the Green Belt – Hartlebury Trading Estate

The protection of the Green Belt is an overriding planning consideration and there is a

presumption against inappropriate development within it. The Policy outlines the types of

development considered by national planning guidance (PPG2) to be appropriate within

Green Belts. Appropriate land uses are those which for the most part would retain the

openness of the Green Belt. Development that is necessary to the functioning of such land

uses is also an appropriate type of development in the Green Belt.

However, it is still important that the scale, location or design of buildings or structures does

not impair the open character of the Green Belt. The Major Developed Site (MDS) in the

Green Belt, identified on the Proposals Map at Hartlebury Trading Estate is regarded as being

suitable for redevelopment and environmental improvement under the provisions of PPG2

Annexe C. Proposals involving the redevelopment of this site should:

a) have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt

and the purposes of including land within it, and where possible have less;

b) contribute to the achievement of the objectives for use of land in Green Belts, set out in

Policy SR7(Development in Green Belt) and have regard for the provisions of

Policy ECON1 (Employment Land);

c) not exceed the height of existing buildings; and

d) not occupy an area larger than the footprint of existing buildings, unless this would

achieve a reduction in height, which would benefit visual amenity.

Policy SR9 - Areas of Development Restraint

Areas of Development Restraint (ADR) are shown on the Proposals Map. Land identified as

an ADR will be safeguarded and will not be released unless and until it is required for

development in a future review of the Local Plan.



APPENDIX 5

LETTER TO PLANNING AUTHORITIES FROM SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL

GOVERNMENT, DATED 6 JULY 2010

Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

The Chief Planning Officer Local Planning Authorities in England

6 July 2010

Chief Planning Officer Letter: REVOCATION OF REGIONAL STRATEGIES Today the Secretary of State announced the revocation of Regional Strategies with immediate effect. I have attached some ‘questions and answer’ advice on immediate issues that may arise from this announcement. It will be important for local planning authorities to carry on delivering local development frameworks and making decisions on applications and the attached document focuses on how to continue taking these forward. Please address any queries to Eamon Mythen at CLG in the first instance ([email protected]).

STEVE QUARTERMAIN Chief Planner

mailto:[email protected]

Guidance for Local Planning Authorities following the revocation of Regional Strategies The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government confirmed today that Regional Strategies will be revoked (see the attached copy of the Parliamentary Written Statement). In the longer term the legal basis for Regional Strategies will be abolished through the “Localism Bill” that we are introducing in the current Parliamentary session. New ways for local authorities to address strategic planning and infrastructure issues based on cooperation will be introduced. This guidance provides some clarification on the impact of the revocation; how local planning authorities can continue to bring forward their Local Development Frameworks (LDFs); and make planning decisions in the transitional period. 1. Under what powers are Regional Strategies being revoked? Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This guidance covers the period between revocation of Regional Strategies and legislation to abolish them altogether. 2. Do Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) remain in force? Yes. The Policy Statement on Regional Strategies (February 2010) is cancelled, and references to Regional Strategies in other Policy Statements are no longer valid. But all other PPSs will continue to apply until they are replaced by the National Planning Framework. 3. Will this affect the London Plan? The London Plan will continue to provide the planning framework for London boroughs. As part of a wider process of decentralisation in London, we are reviewing how powers and discretion can be shifted downwards from central government to the Mayor and Assembly, to London Boroughs and to local neighbourhoods. This will include reviewing the scope for devolving power from the Greater London Authority down to the Boroughs and below. The following sections provide advice on some of the issues likely to arise following revocation of Regional Strategies, until the “Localism Bill” and the new National Planning Framework are in place. This guidance should be regarded as a material consideration by local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate in their decisions. 4. How will this affect planning applications? In determining planning applications local planning authorities must continue to have regard to the development plan. This will now consist only of:

• Adopted DPDs; • Saved policies; and

• Any old style plans that have not lapsed. Local planning authorities should also have regard to other material considerations, including national policy. Evidence that informed the preparation of the revoked Regional Strategies may also be a material consideration, depending on the facts of the case. Where local planning authorities have not yet issued decisions on planning applications in the pipeline, they may wish to review those decisions in light of the new freedoms following the revocation of Regional Strategies. The revocation of the Regional Strategy may also be a material consideration. 5. Should we continue preparing LDF documents? Yes – the revocation of Regional Strategies is not a signal for local authorities to stop making plans for their area. Local planning authorities should continue to develop LDF core strategies and other DPDs, reflecting local people’s aspirations and decisions on important issues such as climate change, housing and economic development. These local plans will guide development in their areas and provide certainty for investors and communities. Local authorities may wish to review their plans following the revocation of Regional Strategies. We recommend reviews should be undertaken as quickly as possible. 6. How does this affect adopted local plans / LDFs? Adopted DPDs and saved policies will continue to provide the statutory planning framework. Local authorities may decide to review these now that Regional Strategies have been revoked. There is no need to review the whole LDF, only those issues or policies which local authorities wish to revisit. When undertaking consultation and sustainability appraisal on their draft policies, authorities should take an approach that considers the stage reached, the extent of work already undertaken and the scope of the policy changes they are making. 7. What if my LDF document is still being prepared? Where local planning authorities are currently bringing forward development plan documents they should continue to do so. Authorities may decide to review and/or revise their emerging policies in the light of the revocation of Regional Strategies. Where authorities decide to do this they will need to ensure they meet the requirements for soundness under the current legislation. When undertaking consultation and sustainability appraisal on their draft policies, authorities should take an approach that considers the stage reached, the extent of work already undertaken and the scope of the policy changes they are making.

8. Will Examinations in Public continue for DPDs? Yes – where local planning authorities are bringing forward new development plan documents or reviewing adopted plans they should present evidence to support their plans. The examination process will continue to assess the soundness of plans, and Inspectors will test evidence put forward by local authorities and others who make representations. 9. Will data and research currently held by Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards still be available? Yes. The regional planning function of Regional LA Leaders’ Boards – the previous Regional Assemblies – is being wound up and their central government funding will end after September this year. The planning data and research they currently hold will still be available to local authorities for the preparation of their local plans whilst they put their own alternative arrangements in place for the collection and analysis of evidence. Notwithstanding, the new Government regards the Regional Leaders’ Boards as an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy. Clarification on policy issues There are a number of areas where Regional Strategies supplemented the national policy framework. Further clarification on these areas is set out below. 10. Who will determine housing numbers in the absence of Regional Strategy targets? Local planning authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area, and identifying a long term supply of housing land without the burden of regional housing targets. Some authorities may decide to retain their existing housing targets that were set out in the revoked Regional Strategies. Others may decide to review their housing targets. We would expect that those authorities should quickly signal their intention to undertake an early review so that communities and land owners know where they stand. 11. Will we still need to justify the housing numbers in our plans? Yes – it is important for the planning process to be transparent, and for people to be able to understand why decisions have been taken. Local authorities should continue to collect and use reliable information to justify their housing supply policies and defend them during the LDF examination process. They should do this in line with current policy in PPS3. 12. Can I replace Regional Strategy targets with “option 1 numbers”? Yes, if that is the right thing to do for your area. Authorities may base revised housing targets on the level of provision submitted to the original Regional Spatial Strategy examination (Option 1 targets), supplemented by more recent information as appropriate. These figures are based on assessments undertaken by local authorities. However, any target selected may be tested during the examination process especially if challenged and authorities will need to be ready to defend them.

13. Do we still have to provide a 5 year land supply? Yes. Although the overall ambition for housing growth may change, authorities should continue to identify enough viable land in their DPDs to meet that growth. Strategic Housing Market Assessments and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments can help with this. Local planning authorities should continue to use their plans to identify sufficient sites and broad areas for development to deliver their housing ambitions for at least 15 years from the date the plan is adopted. Authorities should also have a five year land supply of deliverable sites. This too will need to reflect any changes to the overall local housing ambition. 14. How do we determine the level of provision for travellers’ sites? Local councils are best placed to assess the needs of travellers. The abolition of Regional Strategies means that local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of site provision, reflecting local need and historic demand, and for bringing forward land in DPDs. They should continue to do this in line with current policy. Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs) have been undertaken by all local authorities and if local authorities decide to review the levels of provision these assessments will form a good starting point. However, local authorities are not bound by them. We will review relevant regulations and guidance on this matter in due course. 15. How do we establish the need for minerals and aggregates supply without Regional Strategy targets? Minerals planning authorities will have responsibility for continuing to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals to support economic growth. They should do this within the longstanding arrangements for minerals planning. Technical advice provided by the Aggregate Working Parties, including their current work in sub-apportioning the CLG guidelines for 2005-2020 to planning authority level will assist with this. Planning authorities in the South East should work from the apportionment set out in the "Proposed Changes" to the revision of Policy M3, published on 19 March 2010. Planning authorities can choose to use alternative figures for their planning purposes if they have new or different information and a robust evidence base. We will work with the minerals industry and local government to agree how minerals planning arrangements should operate in the longer term. 16. How do we establish the need for waste management without Regional Strategy targets? Planning Authorities should continue to press ahead with their waste plans, and provide enough land for waste management facilities to support the sustainable management of waste (including the move away from disposal of waste by landfill). Data and information prepared by partners will continue to assist in this process. For the transitional period this will continue to be the data and information which has been collated by the local authority and industry and other public bodies who

currently form the Regional Waste Technical Advisory Bodies. We intend for this function to be transferred to local authorities in due course. 17. Does the abolition of the hierarchy of strategic centres mean the end of policies on town centres? No. Local authorities must continue to have regard to PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth in preparing LDFs and, where relevant, take it into account in determining planning applications for retail, leisure and other main town centre uses. In assessing any planning applications proposing unplanned growth in out of town shopping centres, particularly those over 50,000 sqm gross retail floor area, local authorities should take account of the potential impacts of the development on centres in the catchment area of the proposal. 18. What about regional policies on the natural environment? Local authorities should continue to work together, and with communities, on conservation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment – including biodiversity, geo-diversity and landscape interests. Authorities should continue to draw on available information, including data from partners, to address cross boundary issues such as the provision of green infrastructure and wildlife corridors. 19. What about regional policies on Flooding and Coastal Change? Local authorities should continue to work together across administrative boundaries to plan development that addresses flooding and coastal change. For flooding matters local authorities already have a duty to co-operate under the Floods and Water Management Act. The Environment Agency will continue to work with local authorities individually and/or jointly to provide technical support on these matters. The Coalition agreement is clear that we should prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk. 20. What about regional policies on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy? Through their local plans, authorities should contribute to the move to a low carbon economy, cut greenhouse gas emissions, help secure more renewable and low carbon energy to meet national targets, and to adapt to the impacts arising from climate change. In doing so, planning authorities may find it useful to draw on data that was collected by the Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards (which will be made available) and more recent work, including assessments of the potential for renewable and low carbon energy. 21. What about regional policies on Transport? Local authorities should continue to ensure their land use and local transport plans are mutually consistent, and deliver the most effective and sustainable development for their area. Local authorities should work with each other and with businesses and communities to consider strategic transport priorities and cross boundary issues.

22. Does the end of Regional Strategies mean changes to Green Belt? No. The Government is committed to the protection of the Green Belt and the revocation of Regional Strategies will prevent top-down pressure to reduce the Green Belt protection. Local planning authorities should continue to apply policies in PPG2. As part of their preparation or revision of DPDs, planning authorities should consider the desirability of new Green Belt or adjustment of an existing Green Belt boundary, working with other local planning authorities as appropriate.

Parliamentary Statement Revoking Regional Strategies Today I am making the first step to deliver our commitment in the coalition agreement to “rapidly abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and return decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils”, by revoking Regional Strategies. Regional Strategies added unnecessary bureaucracy to the planning system. They were a failure. They were expensive and time-consuming. They alienated people, pitting them against development instead of encouraging people to build in their local area. The revocation of Regional Strategies will make local spatial plans, drawn up in conformity with national policy, the basis for local planning decisions. The new planning system will be clear, efficient and will put greater power in the hands of local people, rather than regional bodies. Imposed central targets will be replaced with powerful incentives so that people see the benefits of building. The coalition agreement makes a clear commitment to providing local authorities with real incentives to build new homes. I can confirm that this will ensure that those local authorities which take action now to consent and support the construction of new homes will receive direct and substantial benefit from their actions. Because we are committed to housing growth, introducing these incentives will be a priority and we aim to do so early in the spending review period. We will consult on the detail of this later this year. These incentives will encourage local authorities and communities to increase their aspirations for housing and economic growth, and to deliver sustainable development in a way that allows them to control the way in which their villages, towns and cities change. Our revisions to the planning system will also support renewable energy and a low carbon economy. The abolition of Regional Strategies will provide a clear signal of the importance attached to the development and application of local spatial plans, in the form of Local Development Framework Core Strategies and other Development Plan Documents. Future reform in this area will make it easier for local councils, working with their communities, to agree and amend local plans in a way that maximises the involvement of neighbourhoods. The abolition of Regional Strategies will require legislation in the “Localism Bill” which we are introducing this session. However, given the clear coalition commitment, it is important to avoid a period of uncertainty over planning policy, until the legislation is enacted. So I am revoking Regional Strategies today in order to give clarity to builders, developers and planners. Regional Strategies are being revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and will thus no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Revoking, and then abolishing, Regional Strategies will mean that the planning system is simpler, more efficient and easier for people to understand. It will be firmly

rooted in the local community. And it will encourage the investment, economic growth and housing that Britain needs. We will be providing advice for local planning authorities today and a copy has been placed in the house library.

f7l HEAD oFFrcE:

f__l nvERroN oFFrcE:

30 BROCK STREET

I ST PAUL STREET

BATH

TIVERTON

BAI 2LN

EXI6 sHT

TEL:

TEL:

0 | 22s 445548

0 | 884 243037

FAX: 01225 312387

FAX: 01884 243038

Document Title: SWICS Green Belt ReviewJotFzo(J

FzIJJEf()

oo

Project No: | 0420

This documenc Original Revision

Signature

RevLetter: E

Name Position Date

Prepared by: Simon Kale Associate Director 29.7.20t0

Checked by:

Approved by: Nicholas Pearson 29.7.20t0

REVISION RECORD

This report hos been prepored in good foith, with oll reosonoble skill, care and diligence, bosed oninformotion provided or ovoiloble ot the time of its preporotion qnd within the scope of work ogneement with the client.

We discloim ony responsibitity to the client ond otllens in respect of any matten outside the scope of the obove.The report is provided for the sole use of the nomed client ond is confidentiol to them ond their professionol odvisors.

No rcsponsibitl,tV is occqted to others.

cBA

29.7.2010t6.7.20 r029.6.20t0

SKSKSK

NPNPNP

Revisions associated with minor commentsRevisions associated with RSS revocationMinor comments included

KevLetter

DatePrepared

Preparedby

Checker/Approver

Description of changes