BASE HEADER

Local Plan Preferred Options
Development Sites (Urban Fringe) No 4 Milverton Gardens and No 5 Blackdown


Three of the basic tenants of PPG2 which are still enshrined within National Planning Policy framework regarding Green Belts are:

a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas and to safeguard the surrounding countryside from further encroachment.

b) That Green Belt boundaries should be drawn so that they endure, and will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period.


c) Once the general extent of a green belt has been approved it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances'

All of these fundamental principles would be breached entirely if these proposed developments are allowed to proceed. Additionally, the Councils preferred options local plan contains absolutely no detailed 'exceptional circumstances' as to why these above sites should be removed from Green Belt protection.

At the last attempt to have this Green Belt designation removed from this land, the Central Governments planning inspector ruled as follows:



Warwick District Local Plan I996-20IIlnquiry -Inspector's Report Chapter IO


10.11.47 Looking first at the Green Belt aspect, PPG2 advises that once the general extent of a Green Belt has been approved it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances have been put forward by the objector. PPG2 makes it clear that Structure Plans should establish the general extent of Green Belts while the role of Local Plans is to define detailed boundaries. Both the Warwickshire Structure Plan and the RSS have confirmed the Green Belt status of this land. I concur with the District Council that removing 33ha from the Green Belt would be a strategic change that should properly be considered through a review of the RSS. In my view, the land in question serves a number of Green Belt purposes. It checks the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington Spa, prevents Kenilworth and Leamington Spa from merging, assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and assists in urban regeneration by encouraging the re¬cycling of previously-developed urban land. Moreover, it plays a positive role in fulfilling Green Belt objectives. It provides opportunities for public access to the open countryside, retains attractive landscapes near to where people live, and retains land in agricultural and allotment gardens use. I conclude that there is no case for removing this land from the Green Belt.
In my opinion, there is nothing in the NPFP published in March 2012 that should change this ruling.

The local planning authority is supposed to be the first line of defence to protect neighbourhoods and local communities from adverse developments. The veiled threat from the Council Planning team at a recent briefing at Trinity School that failure to approve this draft local plan will cause unrestricted building development throughout the region is in my view, abrogating their primary responsibility to protect the historic town of Leamington and its environs from such developments.

This is the third time in the last five years or so that attempts have been made to remove this land from the Green Belt protection. With the failure to cite exceptional circumstances and the complete disregard of the above Planning Inspectors ruling, which is only a few years old, I am beginning to believe that the Council are pandering to commercial interests who are purely interested in making short term profits and do not the have long term interests of the community at heart or the preservation of a the historic town of Leamington Spa for future generations.

Additionally, if the Green Belt erosion to the north of Leamington is approved, I am extremely concerned it will be seen as a precedent for developments up to the boundary of the A46.

Once it's gone, it's gone forever.