bdswiss erfahrungen

The draft plan states that when reviewing the villages presently washed over by the Green Belt `National Planning Policy states that only those villages whose open character make an important contribution to the openness of the Green Belt should be included in the Green Belt'. This is contrary to NPPF with a view to maximising development. NPPF 83 and 84 are permissive allowing review of boundaries and do not prescribe requirement to do so.

The ability to change the boundary of the Green Belt to ‘safeguard’ land is disputed. The NPPF is advisory, not the law. “Exceptional circumstances” must be brought forward in order to propose adding land to or removing land from the Green Belt. Where “exceptional circumstances” might be established satisfactorily, the statement “Land is excluded from the Green Belt at Fairlands, Send Marsh, Normandy and Flexford and safeguarded to meet longer term development needs. These sites can only be considered for development through a Local Plan review” should be revised with the second sentence as follows “These sites can only be considered for development at the end of the current plan period (2031) through a Local Plan review”, preserving the land for continuing agricultural use and protecting from planning ‘blight’ while sitting in the land bank of a major house biuilder.

The Plan states that `those villages that do not make an important contribution to the openness of the Green Belt should instead be inset from the Green Belt, removing the Green Beit status'. This is a distortion of NPPF 85 which sets out five ways boundaries should be defined. There is no National Policy requirement to inset settlements from the Green Belt. Defensible boundaries are required which are likely to be permanent. The draft Plan states that `in accordance with National Policy Green Belt boundaries need to follow defensible lines that are easily recognisable and likely to be permanent. This includes woodlands and hedgerow'. Trees and hedgerows are, however, not permanent particularly with the diseases currently attacking trees in Surrey and the risk that developers will simply rip out hedgerows and ignore tree preservation orders so that the supposedly permanent boundaries disappear.

New building in villages should be confined within the existing settlement boundaries as modified only by historic changes in the built area without compromising existing density.

Tuesday the 18th - Published by Normandy Action Group, 166 Glaziers Lane, Guildford GU3 2EB - with thanks to Keith Witham, Surrey County Councillor - Hostgator Coupon Template