Agenda item

This report provides an overview of the 2025 Green Belt Review (Appendix 1) prepared to assist with the formulation of the Local Plan.

Recommendation:

That the Local Plan Sub-Committee agrees to publish the Green Belt Review on the Council’s evidence base page on the website.

The Head of Planning Policy & Conservation presented a report which provided an overview of the 2025 Green Belt review, with a recommendation that it should be agreed for publication on the Council’s evidence base page on the website.

In response to a point raised about the length of time taken to produce the review, the Head of Planning Policy & Conservation reported that an initial delay of a month had been incurred due to the methodology not having been published by government within the Planning Practice Guidance.  There had also been a need for the consultants to meet with MHCLG to clarify how the new policy, which had not previously been part of Green Belt reviews, should be interpreted.  The final report had been received in September and had been used since that time to inform other pieces of work.

The Head of Planning Policy & Conservation highlighted the key policy points arising from the review as: the expectation that housing need constitutes exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release unless this would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt; the introduction of Grey Belt; and the sequential test prioritizing development in previously developed land in the Green Belt, followed by Grey Belt, and finally undeveloped Green Belt.

The Head of Planning Policy & Conservation highlighted that the Grey Belt map identified strategic parcels with a view to assisting in the development of plan making proposals and decision making.  However, a site could still be assessed as Grey Belt in an area which was not strategically defined as Grey Belt where there were relevant site-specific circumstances.

Jon Bishop of Three Rivers Joint Residents’ Association spoke on agenda items 5, 6 and 7.

The Head of Planning Policy & Conservation responded to questions and provided clarifications.  Points raised in debate included the following:

·      The report considered only one of the factors used to define Grey Belt.  A number of other factors (such as heritage, natural landscape or Sites of Special Scientific Interest) might prevent an area being designated as Grey Belt.

·      As development occurred, some ratings may need to change.

·      A Committee Member commented that the report appeared to have used the same language and tests for the purpose of identifying Grey Belt land as had been used in the Stage 2 Green Belt Study, rather than using the new tests in the Planning Practice Guidance which had been recently tested at appeal (for example in relation to openness and physical boundaries).  It was considered that the reasons why the tests were considered to be aligned had not been fully explained.  The Member expressed the view that this was not the correct approach and would constitute a risk to the plan at examination.  Officers undertook to re-visit this with the consultants.

·      The map showing the provisional Grey Belt in assessed Green Belt parcels at section 6.2 and the parcel IDs at Appendix 2 were considered to be not particularly helpful in enabling residents to identify exactly where they were situated.  It was recommended that the locations of the parcels should be made as clear as possible when the document is published on the evidence pages.  Officers confirmed that they were in possession of the associated overlay maps and intended to produce a more user-friendly map for the website.

·      Whilst noting that there were further questions arising from the report, and clarifications were required from the consultants as outlined above, several Committee Members expressed concern with regards to any delay in publication.  An alternative approach was considered of publishing the report, with additional information and clarifications from the consultants to be published separately at a later date.  However, some Members considered that early publication offered no benefit, and recommended postponment until the information was complete.

·      A Committee Member noted that there were also some minor language and typographical errors which required correction (such as references to Chorley Wood instead of Chorleywood) and recommended that additional detail is added at A.1.5 in relation to appeal decisions (particularly the Dacorum (Leighton Buzzard Road) and Data Centre appeals) and how these would support the Council’s case in protecting the Green Belt.

·      A Committee Member recommended that the consultants be asked to review the wording used in relation to the fundamentally important area north of Abbots Langley and the protection of Kings Langley.

·      A Committee Member commented that there were a number of examples within the district where the M25 would not be considered to ‘visually separate’ parcels of land and recommended that further work was done in evidencing this within the report.

Given the points raised in debate, the Chair moved a revised recommendation that the Sub-Committee agrees to publish the Green Belt review on the Council’s evidence base page on the website following further advice and clarification from the consultants on the points raised and any necessary updates to the report.   The updated report to be circulated to Lead Members of each group prior to publication.

RESOLVED:

That the Sub-Committee agrees to publish the Green Belt review on the Council’s evidence base page on the website following further advice and clarification from the consultants on the points raised and any necessary updates to the report.   The updated report to be circulated to Lead Members of each group prior to publication.