Structure Plan - Panel Report

CHAPTER 3 COUNTRYSIDE AND AREAS OF OPEN LAND

3.1 This Chapter deals with the Structure Plan provisions that relate to the way that settlement growth is attuned to the need for open space, the desirability of keeping settlements separate from each other where appropriate, and the protection of open land and the countryside from harmful development. These provisions include those relating to Green Wedges (Strategy Policies 6 and 7), the separation of settlements (Strategy Policy 8), the Countryside (Strategy Policy 9), Charnwood Forest (Strategy Policy 15) and the proposed extension to the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt (Strategy Policy 18). The Chapter also considers suggested changes to Strategy Policy 14 relating to the National Forest and to Resource Management Policy 5 (Agricultural Land).

Green Wedges

3.2 The explanatory memorandum states that Green Wedges have been an important part of the Leicestershire Structure Plan for many years. They are seen by many as contributing to the quality of life of all people living in the urban areas of the Structure Plan area. The purposes of Green Wedges are as stated in paragraph 2.50 of the explanatory memorandum: the retention of the open and undeveloped character of the land in question; the retention and creation of green networks between the Countryside and open spaces within the urban areas; and the retention and enhancement of public access, particularly for recreation. Paragraph 2.51 of the explanatory memorandum lists further objectives, including those which seek to guide the form of new urban development to prevent coalescence and maintain the physical identity of settlements, preserve and manage wildlife links and provide appropriate and accessible recreational facilities.

3.3 The Structure Plan Authorities emphasised that Green Wedges should not be regarded as a putative Green Belt. No party to the EIP expressed opposition to the principle of Green Wedges. However some felt that additions to Green Wedges made in the 1994 Structure Plan had resulted in a band of protection around some parts of the Leicester conurbation that was tantamount to a Green Belt. Whilst recognising that the issue of Green Wedges was not discussed at the EIP into the adopted Structure Plan, the Panel notes that those that have already been defined have been through local plan procedures, and now provide an established means of control for urban growth. The review of existing Green Wedge boundaries is possible through local plans. We consider that whilst the general extent of Green Wedges may not be significantly reduced by that review process, the sequential approach to new development in Strategy Policy 3A does justify a review of Green Wedge boundaries in that context. We therefore propose that Strategy Policy 7 be amended to give effect to that need.

3.4 We have some sympathy with the view expressed at the EIP that the identification of further locations for Green Wedges in Strategy Policy 7 might unreasonably constrain the growth of the urban areas and particularly the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban area (LLUA), to the extent that the sequential approach to development would be inhibited and the search for the most sustainable locations for new development prejudiced. We take the view, based on the EIP discussion, that additional Green Wedges would only be justified where it was necessary to shape the further growth of an urban area and where further urban growth would otherwise result in the loss or significant reduction of open land providing separation, recreation space and suitable wildlife habitats.

3.5 We therefore see the only justification for the further identification of locations for Green Wedges as being in the context of significant development allocations for urban extensions. This could arise, for example when significant greenfield sites are identified in local plans under the terms of Strategy Policy 4. Our assessment of proposals for further Green Wedge locations to be identified in Strategy Policy 7 is therefore influenced by this important factor, and we have also taken this approach into account in dealing with the distribution of housing in Chapter 4.

3.6 We have considered detailed points raised at the EIP in relation to Strategy Policy 6. We see no need to make reference to 'quiet' recreation in clause (b), as in our view the matter is adequately provided for in Leisure Policy 7. We agree with the view that the reference to mineral uses in Strategy Policy 6(f) should be placed in the same grouping as (g), (h) and (i), that is subject to the caveat about measures being taken to minimise severance and adverse amenity effects. If this were done, the word 'permanently' could be removed from the second paragraph of the policy, as it is intended to apply to mineral uses. We are also proposing that dedicated public transport routes may be justified in Green Wedges not only if there is no alternative route outside a Green Wedge but also, as is the case with road schemes, if they have been proposed through the development plan process. Conversely, we see no reason why both criteria should not apply also to the road schemes. We therefore propose the merging of criteria (g) and (h) in the policy.

3.7 Some concern was expressed about the reference in clause (i) to park and ride schemes. It would in our view be too restrictive to prohibit park and ride development in Green Wedges in all circumstances. The clause already requires alternative locations outside Green Wedges to have been considered first. The caveat relating to measures to minimise severance and to sustain amenity applies to this part of the policy. We see an analogy to park and ride development in Green Belts, which paragraph 3.17 of PPG2 (inserted by Annex E to PPG13) confirms is not inappropriate development, subject to a number of provisos.

3.8 We also consider that more weight would be given to the objectives of Green Wedges listed in paragraph 2.51 of the explanatory memorandum if those objectives were set out in Strategy Policy 6 itself. It would be appropriate in these circumstances for the Policy to be simply titled 'Green Wedges'. Our suggested redrafting of the policy provides a form of wording to this effect.

3.10 It may be that the area identified as a possible Green Wedge between Enderby and Leicester Forest East to the west of the M1 motorway, fulfils most of the criteria identified in paragraph 2.51 of the explanatory memorandum. We note that Blaby District Council gave its unconditional support at the EIP to this Green Wedge proposal. Nevertheless, we agree with the Structure Plan Authorities that any Green Wedge in this area might only be justified if it were associated with a planned urban extension in the area. The Structure Plan Authorities have drawn our attention to the fact that no strategic greenfield housing development is proposed in the Structure Plan within Blaby District.

3.11 However, we recommend in Chapter 4 an increase in Blaby's share of the Structure Plan housing allocation, from 4,200 in the Deposit Draft version (4,500 in the revised provision set out in the Supplementary Housing Report) to 5,400. This could mean a greater likelihood of greenfield development being required to satisfy part of Blaby's share of the Structure Plan employment and housing allocations. The LLUA's long western edge in this area is less constrained by existing Green Wedges than are other parts of the northern and western urban fringe of the LLUA.

3.12 We do not disagree that this land may come under significant pressure for further development during the lifetime of the Plan. We consider that in strategic terms Green Wedges are most applicable to the consideration of the possible expansion of the LLUA, particularly in view of the Structure Plan's focus on the CLPA. However, we favour the Structure Plan taking on an enabling role for the limited designation of Green Wedges in local plans in conjunction with planned urban extensions, rather than as has been the approach in the past naming any new Green Wedges outside the express context of urban extensions.

3.13 We therefore recommend a redrafting of Strategy Policy 6 along these lines. The policy can be taken as implicitly sanctioning the principle of a Green Wedge in the Enderby/Braunstone/Leicester Forest area, if an urban extension is planned in that area in a review of the Blaby Local Plan. If such a development were not proposed in the local plan, then there would be no case in Structure Plan terms for the Green Wedge.

3.15 The Panel has some doubts as to whether the land in question can truly be said to possess the attributes that would clearly qualify it for consideration as a Green Wedge according to the objectives set out in paragraphs 2.50 and 2.51 of the explanatory memorandum. It is open land on the edge of an urban area. The extent to which it would serve to 'retain and create green networks between the Countryside and open spaces within the urban area' of Burbage is not clear, given the disposition of recreational space within the Burbage urban area shown on the Local Plan inset map.

3.16 Whatever the merits or demerits of any urban extension on the south side of Burbage, such an extension would not lead to the coalescence of Burbage with any other settlement. We accept that there is no requirement for Green Wedges to satisfy all the criteria in the explanatory memorandum paragraphs mentioned, but take the view that the functions of separation and of linking urban space with the open countryside are important attributes in the justification for their designation. The separate identity of Hinckley, Barwell and Earl Shilton is already safeguarded by the existing Green Wedge referred to in Strategy Policy 7(q) and defined in the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

3.17 The land that is the subject of the current proposal appears to be outside the defined settlement boundary of Burbage and designated in the Local Plan as Open Countryside. The protective provisions of Strategy Policy 9 of the Structure Plan (and, we note, Policy NE4 of the Local Plan) would apply in relation to any development proposal put forward. The Structure Plan Authorities' Supplementary Housing Report increases Hinckley and Bosworth's share of the Structure Plan housing allocation, to 6550 from the Deposit Draft figure of 6200. The Panel is recommending a housing allocation of 6900 for Hinckley and Bosworth Borough. However, the additional increment is allocated entirely to that part of the district falling within the CLPA. Moreover, a substantial contribution is likely to be made by completions, urban capacity and local plan allocations to the attainment of this figure, a matter we comment on in Chapter 4 of this report.

3.18 As for employment development, the Borough Council should in due course review any unimplemented local plan employment allocations when they review the local plan, following the guidance in paragraph 42 of PPG3. However, the local plan was adopted only in February 2001. We therefore have no reason to suppose that part of the existing allocation will be proposed for other uses in the near future. A significant portion of the Structure Plan employment allocation for that part of Hinckley and Bosworth outside the CLPA (103 hectares) can be met on land developed or allocated for such purposes in the local plan.

3.19 We accept however that some new employment land will have to be found in Hinckley and Bosworth Borough outside the CLPA. We recognise that land to the south of Burbage might prove attractive for employment development, owing to its proximity to Junction 1 on the M69 and location in an area which is or could be made accessible by public transport. We accept that if there were a case in principle for a greenfield urban extension to be identified in the local plan south of Burbage this might justify consideration of a complementary Green Wedge. The Borough Council would need to consider such a matter under the terms of the revised Strategy Policy 6 we are recommending. Any decision as to whether or not to allocate land for development to the south of Burbage would be taken as part of a future local plan review process, based fundamentally upon the sequential approach to the location of new development.

3.21 Notwithstanding such circumstances, the Panel considers Strategy Policy 8 to be a legitimate strategic tool to prevent the merging of settlements, but for no other purpose. However, we feel that the status of land so designated, outside built-up areas and yet described as land ‘which can not be properly designated as Countryside’, is lacking in clarity. In our view, all land that properly falls outside the settlement boundaries defined in local plans should be part of a Countryside designation unless it is part of a Green Wedge, irrespective of whether it is also designated as an Area of Separation. We see no conflict in development proposals having to be considered under both Strategy Policies 8 and 9. We suggest a rewording of Strategy Policy 8 and consequent amendments to Strategy Policy 9.

3.22 The revised Strategy Policy 9 as published in the pre-EIP changes provides for the designation as Countryside of land beyond the existing and planned limits of the built up areas of settlements, excluding land comprising a Green Wedge or an Area of Separation. We have already recommended in the preceding paragraph that Areas of Separation should be included in the areas designated as Countryside. Strategy Policy 9 also provides for the designation of Areas of Local Landscape Value and Local Landscape Improvement Areas. The policy also seeks to protect the Countryside for its own sake and identifies categories of development that may be appropriate.

3.23 The 1997 version of PPG7 introduced a 'whole countryside' approach to the safeguarding of the countryside for its own sake and to the protection of non-renewable and natural resources within the countryside. This approach benefited from work done by national agencies, and conveys the clear message that the character of different areas should be identified without a judgement being made about their relative worth. This character approach and its relevance to the preparation of development plans is described in paragraphs 2.14 and 2.15 of PPG7. That approach is commended to local authorities when they review their local countryside designations. Paragraph 4.16 of PPG7 advises that local planning authorities should only maintain or extend local countryside designations where there is good reason to believe that normal planning policies cannot provide the necessary protection.

3.24 In these circumstances the Panel has concluded that it is inappropriate for the Structure Plan to provide strategic sanction in Strategy Policy 9 for local planning authorities to designate or retain what the explanatory memorandum refers to as 'Countryside of local importance' such as Areas of Local Landscape Value (ALLVs) and Local Landscape Improvement Areas (LLIAs). At a time when difficulties in agriculture and other rural enterprises have taken their toll on rural life we consider that the emphasis should be on promoting a holistic approach to the protection and enhancement of the countryside.

3.25 We recognise that some local plans have maintained the role of local designations whilst other have not. These remain to our mind matters for local determination. In particular, we accept that there may be good reasons for seeking to improve the landscape quality of discrete areas, such as those where the landscape has been degraded by a particular activity or set of circumstances. In our view however, such provisions are unlikely to be of strategic significance. We therefore propose that reference to such local designations be deleted from Strategy Policy 9, and recommend that the policy make reference to Countryside Design Summaries and Village Design Statements.

3.26 There was no disagreement at the EIP about the general need to restrict development outside the planned limits of built-up areas, to protect the appearance of the Countryside and the character of its landscape. However, we support the Countryside Agency's view that Strategy Policy 9 should make provision for affordable housing to satisfy local needs, to cater for what was referred to as 'housing needs in the deepest countryside'. We consider that such provision should be tightly constrained to avoid abuse. We therefore propose that the circumstances in which such housing might be permitted should follow the guidance in PPG3 paragraph 18 and Annex B, by means of 'rural exception' policies set out in local plans. Strategy Policy 9 should be amended to refer to this approach, with a cross reference to Housing Policy 4 which we are recommending should also make reference to rural exceptions policies.

3.27 We are otherwise generally satisfied that the revised Strategy Policy 9 put forward by the Structure Plan Authorities provides an appropriate and effective means of protection for the Countryside through the control of development. We recommend a number of other small changes to the policy. We suggest making the requirement that new development 'safeguard and/or enhance' clearer, by the removal of the word 'and'. In response to a suggestion made at the EIP we prefer ‘where appropriate’ rather than ‘where possible’ in referring to the re-use of existing buildings. We also consider that the demonstration of an overriding need for development in principle goes beyond current Government policy (except where provided for elsewhere in the Plan in relation to specific types of development such as retail). Demonstration that a Countryside location is necessary is in our view sufficient. Further down the policy we favour the use of 'may be accommodated' rather than 'could'.

3.28 We accept that notwithstanding our general view about local landscape designations, Charnwood Forest and Rutland Water are areas so distinct and unique in their form, character or ecological value that they justify protection by bespoke Structure Plan Policies. We deal with Rutland Water (Strategy Policy 16) in Chapter 6, as the emphasis is on the status of that area as a Special Protection Area.

3.29 As for Charnwood Forest, it was pointed out that Strategy Policy 15 provides a stricter policy regime for the control of development there than applies to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) through PPG7, particularly as regards the priority given to the natural beauty of the landscape over all other planning considerations and matters of overriding proven national interest. We propose amendments to Strategy Policy 15 that we consider overcome these difficulties. Any development which is permitted because it serves an overriding national interest and for which there is no alternative site would be required to be dealt with as an exception to the revised policy.

3.30 Strategy Policy 18 proposes an extension to the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt at the extreme northern end of the Structure Plan area, to include land to the south of the River Trent. The explanatory memorandum refers to the existing Green Belt to the south west of Long Eaton as particularly narrow. Paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 states that where practicable, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, to ensure an appreciable open zone all round the built-up area concerned.

3.31 Paragraph 2.6 of PPG2 states that once the general extent of a Green Belt has been approved, it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to Draft RPG states that the existing Nottingham-Derby Green Belt has a vital role in preventing the coalescence of the two cities and the towns in the Erewash Valley. The general extension to the Green Belt proposed in Strategy Policy 8 would not in our view affect the existing relationship between Nottingham and Derby nor the towns between them, either in a beneficial or harmful way.

3.32 Policy 7 of the Draft RPG requires the next review of development plans to critically review the boundaries of the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt and to remove land that provides, on balance, the most sustainable solution for development needs up to 2021. It is inevitable that such a review would require consideration to be given to inner Green Belt boundaries, including those adjoining Long Eaton. In the Panel's view a general enlargement of the Green Belt south of Long Eaton that confers no clear benefits in respect of the key purpose stated in the previous paragraph is not justified in terms of 'exceptional circumstances'. It would also to our mind prejudice the review required by Policy 7 of Draft RPG. We therefore recommend that Strategy Policy 18 be deleted from the Structure Plan.

3.33 The Structure Plan Authorities agreed that Strategy Policy 14 should include a reference to noisy sports. We see no objection to this, providing that it is related to objectives (a) to (e) of the National Forest Strategy referred to in the Policy. An amendment to objective (b) to refer to non-intrusive uses may be sufficient to cover the point. An express reference to noisy sports could be made in the supporting part of the explanatory memorandum.

Agricultural Land

3.34 The Structure Plan Authorities acknowledge that Resource Management Policy 5 does not fully reflect the changes made to government policy in respect of agricultural land which were introduced by amendments to paragraphs 2.17 and 2.18 of PPG7 in the Ministerial Parliamentary Written Answer of 21 March 2001. We support the amendment to the policy put forward by the Government Office for the East Midlands to ensure conformity with this revised guidance.

Panel Recommendations

3.35 That Strategy Policy 6 be redrafted to read as follows:

STRATEGY POLICY 6: GREEN WEDGES

Green Wedges may be designated in local plans in association with planned urban extensions proposed in such plans. The purposes of Green Wedges are:

a) protecting structurally important areas of open land which influence the form and direction of urban development;

b) ensuring that open land extends outwards between the existing and planned development limits of the urban areas;

c) preserving landscape and wildlife links between the Countryside and urban open spaces;

d) preventing the coalescence and maintaining the physical identity of settlements adjoining the main urban areas;

e) providing appropriate recreational facilities within easy reach of urban residents; and

f) promoting the positive management of land to ensure that the Green Wedges remain or are enhanced as attractive contributions to the quality of life of nearby urban residents.

The following land uses will be acceptable in Green Wedges, provided the operational development associated with such uses is compatible with the above objectives:

a) agriculture, including allotments and horticulture not accompanied by retail development;

b) outdoor recreation;

c) forestry;

d) footpaths, bridleways and cycleways;

e) burial grounds.

The following development will only be acceptable if appropriate measures are taken to minimise severance and adverse effects on the amenity of the Green Wedge:

f) mineral extraction;

g) road proposals or dedicated public transport routes referred to in the development plan, or where there is no alternative route available outside a Green Wedge;

h) park and ride facilities, if no suitable site outside a Green Wedge is available.

Provision will be made in Green Wedges for the retention or creation of green links between urban open spaces and the Countryside, and for the retention and enhancement of public access facilities, particularly for recreation.

3.36 That Strategy Policy 7 be amended to read as follows:

STRATEGY POLICY 7: REVIEW OF GREEN WEDGES

The defined boundaries of Green Wedges in the following general locations will be reviewed as part of local plan reviews, and such reviews shall have regard to the sequential approach to new development in Strategy Policy 3A and to the criteria in Strategy Policy 3B:

(a) to (q)

3.37 That the case for new Green Wedges at Enderby/Braunstone and south of Burbage should be considered in the context of any greenfield urban extensions in these vicinities which may be proposed in local plans, having regard to the criteria in Strategy Policy 6 above.

3.38 That Strategy Policy 8 be amended to read as follows:

STRATEGY POLICY 8: SEPARATION OF SETTLEMENTS

'Predominantly open land between the defined development boundaries of neighbouring settlements which is not part of a Green Wedge but performs an essential function in keeping the built-up areas of those settlements separate may be defined in local plans as Areas of Separation. Within such areas, development will be permitted only where it would not result in a material reduction in the degree of separation between the neighbouring built-up areas'.

3.39 That Strategy Policy 9 be amended to read as follows:

STRATEGY POLICY 9: DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE

Land beyond the existing and planned limits to the built-up areas of settlements which is not land comprising a Green Wedge will be designated as Countryside.

All development proposals in the Countryside will be considered against landscape character assessments featured in local plans and providing a context for Countryside Design Summaries and Village Design Statements. Existing local countryside designations will be reviewed in the light of such assessments.

The Countryside will be protected for its own sake. Development in the Countryside will only be acceptable if the general appearance and character of the landscape and the countryside is safeguarded or enhanced. Built development should be well integrated in relation to existing development and designed sympathetically to fit into the local surroundings. Existing buildings should be re-used where appropriate. Development will be limited to the following purposes:

3.40 That Strategy Policy 14, clause (b) be amended to read 'providing for appropriate and non-intrusive sporting activities within a wooded setting….’, and that the explanatory memorandum be amended to refer to the general inappropriateness of noisy sports within the National Forest area.

3.41 That Strategy Policy 15 be amended to read as follows:

STRATEGY POLICY 15: CHARNWOOD FOREST

In areas designated as Countryside within the boundaries of the Charnwood Forest Landscape Character Area, special attention will be given to the need to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and character of the landscape.

Within areas so designated, only development which is small in scale and essential for the economic or social wellbeing of Charnwood Forest will be permitted.

3.42 That Resource Management Policy 5 be amended to read as follows:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICY 5: AGRICULTURAL LAND

Development affecting agricultural land which is irreversible will only be acceptable where it would not result in the loss of the best and most versatile land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a), except where there is an overriding need for the development and where greater weight should be given to sustainability considerations in respect of alternative sites on poorer quality land.