Green Belt

Green Belt A. Alterations to the Green Belt through the SWLP The extent of the Green Belt is defined on the Policies Map. The following alterations to the Green Belt are made in order to deliver the proposals within the SWLP . This includes insetting specific villages from the Green Belt and alterations to the Green Belt boundary around specific settlements. 1. Built-up areas of villages: • Bubbenhall • Claverdon • Hatton Station • Snitterfield • Tanworth-in-Arden • Wilmcote 2. Land allocated for Development ~ New Settlements and SGLs • Hatton (proposal HAT) • Henley-in-Arden North-west (proposal HEN.1) • Kenilworth South (proposal KEN.1) • Lillington East (proposal LIL) • Leamington Spa North (proposal LEA.1) • South of Coventry (proposal COV .1) • Stratford-upon-Avon North (proposal STR.1) • Coventry Airport (proposal COV .2) 3. Land allocated for Development ~ LGLs (in accordance with Policies DS.5, DS.6 and DS.7) • Alcester • Hampton Magna • Kenilworth (employment site) • Studley • Stoneleigh (employment sites) 4. Revisions to accommodate permitted development • Cubbington 5. Other changes to Green Belt boundaries • Correction of boundary anomaly at Leek Wootton B. Alterations to the Green Belt through Neighbourhood Development Plans Neighbourhood Planning groups are empowered to make changes to Green Belt boundaries in their defined neighbourhood area through Neighbourhood Development Plans, where all of the following apply: 1. The site is adjacent to the built-up area of a settlement, which is itself excluded from the Green Belt, as defined on the policies map; 2. The site is required to accommodate a local need; 3. The need for Green Belt release is established with reference to relevant policy as set out in the NPPF; 4. The new Green Belt boundaries are established with reference to relevant policy as set out in the NPPF . 5. Any alterations are consistent with the SWLP C. Proposals on land excluded from the Green Belt Where proposals are located on land that has been removed from the Green Belt through the SWLP, or in Neighbourhood Development Plans, relevant policy as set out in the NPPF will apply. D. Proposals in the Green Belt Where proposals are located in the Green Belt, relevant policy as set out in the NPPF will apply. DS.13 ~ Development Management Considerations Where sites are released for a local need, this could be for housing as demonstrated through a recent Housing Needs Survey; for employment to support the vitality and/or growth of local businesses; or for health, education or community facilities. NPPF paragraph 156 requires that the “Golden Rules” apply to land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, where such changes to Green Belt boundaries were made after the publication of the Framework. For the avoidance of doubt, the Golden Rules do not apply to land removed from the Green Belt in the 2016 Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy or the 2017 Warwick District Local Plan, whether this land was proposed for allocation or safeguarded for potential future development. Both of those plans were adopted before the introduction of the Golden Rules to national policy. Policy Justification 2.10.2 Parts of the West Midlands Green Belt extend into South Warwickshire. A Green Belt Review has been undertaken, which assesses: • How different areas of the Green Belt perform against the 5 purposes of Green Belt set out in national policy; • Whether different areas of the Green Belt could be considered to be grey belt; • Whether evidence suggests that existing villages within the Green Belt should be excluded from the designated area; • Whether there would be cumulative harm to the wider Green Belt if combinations of sites were excluded from the designated area. 2.10.3 Exceptional circumstances exist which justify making changes to Green Belt boundaries. These boundary changes are necessary in order to deliver a sustainable spatial growth strategy, locating housing and employment growth in the most appropriate locations. The pattern of existing larger settlements and public transport infrastructure in South Warwickshire means that many of the most sustainable locations fall within the Green Belt. The Green Belt releases align with and underpin the Development Strategy (see Section 2.5 above) and are critical to its success. The SWLP needs to address the wider sub-regional context which is to the north in Green Belt locations. The Development Strategy sets out a pattern of growth that fosters sustainable development, generally seeking to meet needs closer to areas where they derive. This explains the decision for each District to meet its own needs and for the scale of Green Belt release in Warwick District. Long Marston Airfield is perhaps an exception to this, but given the scale of the development requirements and the wider benefits that a new community in this location can bring – as well as the long-term potentially for strategic fit - LMA is consistent with the Development strategy. 2.10.4 The exceptional circumstances for removing land from the Green Belt in general, and for each specific change proposed, are set out in full in Topic Paper. The role of Grey Belt has been considered but it is right that this policy assessment has not been the driving factor in the creation of the Development Strategy. The Development Strategy must come first with assessments regarding Green Belt and Grey Belt informing which sites with that overall strategy could be released. 2.10.5 NPPF paragraph 145 allows for detailed amendments to Green Belt boundaries to be made through Neighbourhood Development Plans, where a need for such changes has been established through strategic policies. The need for Green Belt boundary changes is established in this Green Belt policy, in combination with Policies DS.2, DS.5, DS.6 and DS.7. 2.10.6 The SWLP does not duplicate the NPPF in respect of the Green Belt. Proposals will be assessed against the NPPF , with reference to the evidence in the S