Mr R Todd, of Interlocks Surveys Limited, owns and occupiers St Andrews House for business purposes. Earlier versions of the draft NDP proposed to identify St Andrews House as a non-designated heritage asset under Policy RS7. In light of representations made by Mr Todd it was agreed that St Andrews House (RS7/16) should be deleted from the list in Policy RS7, and this is the case in the Regulation 16 version. Policy RS7 does not refer to St Andrews House and, furthermore it is not shown on Policy Map 7. However, the building continues to be identified as a non-designated heritage asset on Policy Map 1.

No doubt this is an oversight but Mr Todd maintains his objection to the identification of his property as a non-designated heritage asset and requests that Policy Map 1 is amended to delete such identification and to ensure it becomes consistent with the wording of Policy RS7 and Policy Map 7.

Mr R Todd, of Interlocks Surveys Limited, owns and occupiers St Andrews House for business purposes. The premises comprise a building, originally erected as a Parochial Hall, together with an extensive area for car parking and turning. In addition, the ownership includes an area of grass between the car park and the road known as Hallfields. This grassed area, which is fenced off from the car park, contains a few shrubby trees and bushes and is of no special amenity or ecological significance.

However, the Regulation 16 draft Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) proposes to include the grassed area as a protected open space to be protected under Policy RS3 of the NDP (RS3/12). RS3/12 covers two small areas of land and the justification given in Appendix 2 of the draft NDP is that the two areas provide a green ‘lung’; are of beauty; and have trees and recreational value. The comment is made that the areas add a pleasant aspect to the A425 as it narrow, and are used by children’s societies for environmental activities.

Objection is raised to the inclusion of that small area of grass between the car park of St Andrews House and Hallfields, which is in the ownership of Mr R Todd.

The justification to Policy RS3 comments “As well as the “demonstrably special” Local Green Spaces, the village also has some smaller, sometimes incidental open spaces, such as grass verges. Whilst not meriting the protection of designated local green spaces, these Smaller Open Spaces still play an important role in maintaining the village’s quality of life by providing visually attractive areas, breaks from built development and areas for people to pass the time of day. The analysis of the role and function of these spaces is set out in Appendix 2.”

Appendix 2 of the draft NDP states that “every green space, however small, within the village is (therefore) very important in helping maintain its openness, of vital importance to the population. The gradual development of the village over time has not left much open space, so that which there is, is of special significance and should be retained. This applies to all the green verges and small green spaces such as the green in front of the village shop. There is little space for provision of extra open spaces, so any future development should seek to include spaces to enhance and extend those in the old part of the village.”

Evidently however this blanket approach to the possible designation of areas of open space throughout the village fails to apply a rigorous and robust assessment which is required by national planning guidance before land is identified as warranting special protection beyond normal development management considerations. There is no evidence in the draft NDP that the particular parcel of land is ‘very’ important in helping to maintain the openness of the village, or that it is of ‘vital’ importance to the population. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the parcel of land is of ‘special significance’ to warrant additional protection. In this respect, the attributes given to the land in Appendix 2 of the draft NDP cannot be supported:
• the land does act as a green lung and is little more than a small piece of land left over following the development of Hallfields;
• it is of no special beauty or of high visual amenity;
• there are a few trees but these are not good specimens and are not of any significance in terms of visual amenity; and
• the land is in private ownership and should not be used for public recreation or considered as being otherwise accessible by the general public.

In conclusion the proposed identification of the land as a protected small open space is not justified and results in the draft NDP failing to comply with the Basic Conditions. The land to which this objection refers (RS3/12) should be omitted from Policy RS3. There should be consequential revisions to the relevant maps in the draft NDP.

These representations are made on behalf of the owners of the land referred to as Church Fields West & East in the Radford Semele Regulation 16 Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan (the draft NDP). The owners object to the proposed designation as their land as a Local Green Space in Policy RS2 of the draft NDP. The proposed designation does not meet the criteria set down in paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or the national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The owners of the land dispute the land is of particular importance to the local community and submit there is no justification for giving it special protection against development beyond normal development management considerations.

Paragraph 100 of the NPPF states Local Green Space designation should only be used where the green space is:
(a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
(b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and
(c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

There is no robust evidence in the draft NDP that the land is “demonstrably special” to the local community and holds a “particular local significance”.

Church Fields lies to the north of the settlement and comprises two parcels of land split by Church Lane. It is abutted to the south east by a ribbon of residential properties fronting Offchurch Lane, and to the south by a section of Offchurch Lane and the A425. To the north it is adjoined by St Nicholas Church and residential development. The eastern parcel, which constitutes the majority of the overall area is in active agricultural use. The western parcel is predominantly used for grazing purposes. There is streetlighting on Offchurch Lane, the A425 and Church Lane. There is a pelican crossing on the A425 just to the east of the junction with Church Lane. Development lines the southern side of the A425 opposite the land.

There are no public rights of way across the land nor other public access to it.

Although there are views over part of the land from the A425, a section of Offchurch Lane and from Church Lane, the land is of no particular beauty or landscape value. A proportion of the land may provide a setting to St Nicholas Church but this does not apply to the whole of the land which the draft NDP seeks to designate as Local Green Space. Furthermore, neither the setting of the Church, nor indeed of any other local heritage asset is a sufficient justification for designation of any part of the land as Local Green Space. The impacts of any future development on the setting and significance of the Church and other local heritage matters, as well as landscape impact, would be matters taken into account as part of normal development management considerations in order to comply with planning law and practice.

Further the land itself is of no particular historic significance and, once again any role its plays in contributing to the significance of local heritage assets above or below ground would be assessed as part of normal development management considerations.

As stated, there is no public access to the land which is in active agricultural use. Accordingly, it is of no recreational value.

The owners of the land dispute that the site is particularly tranquil or dark compared with other land around the settlement. Bearing in mind that there is no public access to the land the relative ‘tranquillity’ and ‘darkness’ of the site cannot be judged from within the land, only from surrounding public highways which have streetlighting and traffic movements (as noted elsewhere in the draft NDP). The view from private property is not a planning justification for designation as Local Green Space. In this case tranquillity and darkness do not justify designation as Local Green Space.

The land is in active agricultural use and is not of special ecological value.

The land amounts to an extensive tract of land amounting to 8.59 hectares and the proposal represents a blanket designation of land to the north of the A425 contrary to the NPPF and PPG. The reasons given for the designation in Table A1a of the draft NDP do not justify any part of the land being designated and the conclusion is drawn, having regard to the PPG that the proposal is a ‘back-door’ way to achieve what would amount to a new area of Green Belt by another name.

In summary the site known as Church Fields West & East should be deleted from Policy RS2 (RS2/1) of the draft NDP with consequential changes including to Policy Map 1, Policy Map 2, and Appendix 1.