Back

Neighbourhood Plans altering Green Belt boundaries

JO
Judith Orr, modified 1 Year ago.

Neighbourhood Plans altering Green Belt boundaries

New Member Posts: 11 Join Date: 16/03/21 Recent Posts

Do any local authorities have experience of detailed amendments being made to the Green Belt boundary in a Neighbourhood Plan under para. 136 of the NPPF? A neighbourhood forum in Runnymede BC area is proposing to do this in their Neighbourhood Plan, and has sought advice from the Council. 

Richard Crawley, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: Neighbourhood Plans altering Green Belt boundaries

Advocate Posts: 241 Join Date: 07/12/11 Recent Posts

Interesting. Is it clear what are they are wanting to do? (and, I suppose, a legitimate question is whether Runnymede as the strategic policy-making authority agree it is a "good thing"?)

JO
Judith Orr, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: Neighbourhood Plans altering Green Belt boundaries

New Member Posts: 11 Join Date: 16/03/21 Recent Posts

We have a Neighbourhood Plan in Runnymede, that went to referendum last week, that included a detailed boundary change to the Green Belt (1.76ha of land to be removed from the Green Belt to provide 40 homes which will then enable the developer to bring forward a range of other facilities on the rest of the site which will remain in the Green Belt (the uses proposed are appropriate in the Green Belt and include a country park). The forum's ideas were clear at an early stage in terms of their vision for the area. This vision was formulated following extensive community consultation which strongly showed a desire for additional facilities for the community. The Forum came up with a number of options to achieve their vision, but concluded that the only realistic option available was to take land out of the Green Belt for a small amount of housing in order to fund the community facilities that they wanted in the area. This Plan was developed alongside the Local Plan and so the Plan had the support of the Council.

Another Neighbourhood Forum, which is at a much earlier stage in the process i.e. have no Regulation 14 Plan are also wanting to remove land from the Green Belt. Not clear currently what the exceptional circumstances are for this change, how much land will be required to be removed, what the reasons are for this removal and how that will fit in with the recently adopted Local Plan for Runnymede. 

As it is the second NP that we are having to deal with that addresses this issue I was interested to hear if others have also experience in this area. (Sorry for the delay in responding, have been having IT issues and the PAS website seemed to be down on Friday).

RW
richard white, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: Neighbourhood Plans altering Green Belt boundaries

Advocate Posts: 159 Join Date: 26/11/18 Recent Posts

Hi Judith.

No experience, but skim reading the IR for Thorp NP it seems the examiner asked and answered the right questions about NPPF 136 in their para 57 - although perhaps a bit of a stretch to take a strategic policy decision to remove an existing settlement from the GB as if it was a strategic policy that establishes a need for [further] changes in addition to the LP changes. (Although one can read 5.27 of the RJ to the new LP as encouraging this...)

Re the second NP you mention, I suspect the last question you ask 'fit with the LP' is probably the only one you need to answer - unless the LP establishes a strategic need for further GB changes then NPPF 136 suggests it's a non-starter doesn't it?

JO
Judith Orr, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: Neighbourhood Plans altering Green Belt boundaries

New Member Posts: 11 Join Date: 16/03/21 Recent Posts

Hi Richard

Thank you for your thoughts on this. As far as the question relating to finding other Neighbourhood Plans which have changed the Green Belt boundaries is concerned, the only ones that I am aware of, other than Thorpe, haven't made it through the Examination stage. These include:

  • St Stephens NP in St Albans District – awaiting progress on the Local Plan;
  • Wheatley NP in South Oxfordshire – examination took place in advance of the adoption of the LP and consequently the examiner  recommended the GB boundary change policies be deleted. SODC Decision Statement supported this change to the NP; and
  • Bowers Gifford NP – is in abeyance waiting for the emerging LP (Basildon).

This seems to suggest that the NP needs to be progressed alongside the LP if it is going to make a GB boundary change, unless I have missed an example from elsewhere.