CALA Homes supports the removal of land at Redhill Nurseries, Burton green (H24). However as will be detailed below we consider that the are to be removed should be increased. The attached plan indicates the area suggested for removal from the green belt. The extra land amounts to some measures 1.47ha, with a developable area of 1.3ha and currently comprises majority brownfield land (a rural residential curtilage and menage) and has a very defensible boundary

CALA Homes supports the increase in the number of dwellings to be delivered from the site from 60 to 90. Our objection relates to the potential of the site to deliver more units if the boundary of the allocation is adjusted to take account of previously developed land to the rear of the nursery. Part of this land is a rural garden. As established in Dartford V SSDCLG [2016] EWHC 635(Admin) a rural garden is previously developed land (the judgement is attached). Also within this area lies a ménage for horse riding - also brownfield land. The remainder of the area is land put to storage use and surfaced with hardcore and used in association with the nursery use. Whilst not technically brownfield land, it has the appearance of brownfield land and it lies between these two brownfield parcels of land.
These three elements have a logical and defensible boundary. As a site visit would confirm, the boundary is clearly defined by physical features and likely to be permanent (paragraph 85 of the Framework). The 'exceptional circumstances' case for altering the green belt boundary in many locations within Warwick District has been carefully made by the district council. As part of the evidence base the District council instructed Mike Murray to undertake a 'Critical Friend' review of the Green Belt Review (V14). This found that within parcel BG4, there is a sub-parcel related to the nursery. There is no map that exactly defines the area to which the Mike Murray sub parcel relates but the sub parcel is defined therein as having substantial areas of hardstanding and buildings. The area proposed by these representations to be added to the draft allocation fits this description. It is considered that the additional land would enable an extra 30 dwellings to be delivered - a modest improvement to the headroom in the plan's housing provision. This would take the total that could be delivered from the site to 129 dwellings.
The suggested area for the extended allocation is shown on the attached plan.
The text notes that the provision of car parking is deleted. CALA Homes (with the full support of the site owners, Mr and Mrs Watkinson) object to the deletion of the car park from the allocation. There are problems with car parking at the nearby primary school and it is considered that reference to the school parking provision should be retained within the description of the allocation.