Document Reference

PS.EVR4Policy LP4 – Green Belt
November 2017

Contents
1.

Introduction and Policy Context ............................................................................................................ 12

East Cambridgeshire Context in Relation to Policy LP4 ................................................................... 1

3Local Plan Policy: Preliminary Draft ..................................................................................................... 2

4Local Plan Policy: Further Draft ............................................................................................................ 2

5

Alternative Reasonable Options ........................................................................................................... 3

6Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction and Policy Context
Introduction
1.1

East Cambridgeshire District Council is reviewing its Local Plan, which was last adopted inApril 2015. The new Local Plan, which is hoped to be adopted in early 2018, will provide aframework for development in the district until 2036 and beyond.

1.2This Evidence Report (which is one of a collection) provides background information andjustification for policy LP4 (of the Proposed Submission Local Plan, November 2017), which
relates to the Green Belt within East Cambridgeshire district.
National policy

1.3

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and theNational Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was introduced in 2014 which offers ‘live’government guidance.

1.4Paragraphs 79 to 92 of the NPPF are relevant to this policy and includes:Paragraph 83 – “Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should
establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework forGreen Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should
only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review ofthe Local Plan”.
Paragraph 87 “As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is,
by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very
special circumstances.
Paragraph 88 “When considering any planning application, local planning
authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the GreenBelt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to theGreen Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly
outweighed by other considerations.

1.5

The NPPG provides no specific substantial additional guidance on planning in relation tothe Green Belt.

1.6

The above NPPF policy guidance has been taken into account in preparing the Local Plan
as a whole, and policy LP4 in particular.

2 East Cambridgeshire Context in Relation to Policy LP4
2.1

The Cambridge Green Belt was established in 1965, and includes approximately 1,910
hectares of East Cambridgeshire around the villages of Bottisham, Lode and Swaffham
Bulbeck. The purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt are to: Preserve the unique characterof Cambridge as a compact dynamic city with a thriving historic centre; maintain andenhance the quality of Cambridge’s setting; and prevent communities in the environs ofCambridge from merging into one another and with the city.

12.2

The boundaries of the Green Belt in East Cambridgeshire were subject to minor changes inthe Core Strategy (2009) and again in the Local Plan (2015) to remove anomalies andrelease a small area of land on the edge of Bottisham. These changes were informed by
the Council’s Green Belt Assessment (2005).

3 Local Plan Policy: Preliminary Draft
3.1

The Preliminary Draft Local Plan (February 2016) contained a policy entitled “Green Belt”.
A limited number of representations were made on the policy, and in summary the key
issues raised for the policy were:

Support for the policy and the approach not to release any Green Belt land.
Policy LP4 should be amended to say that development on sites that have been
allocated out of Greenbelt land should be undertaken with conditions to ensure thathigh quality design is utilised to protect the amenity of land impacted adversely bythe development.
Comments suggesting a thorough Green Belt boundary review is needed, especiallyaround Bottisham.

3.2

The suggested rewording of the policy was not been accepted, as the policy covers all theGreen Belt, not land which has been released from it. Other policies in the plan canaddress the issues raised.

3.3

We did not take forward the suggestion to undertake a comprehensive review of the GreenBelt boundary. As discussed above, paragraph 83 of the NPPF suggests that this should
only be altered in “exception circumstances”. As sufficient land outside the Green Belt isavailable to meet the development needs of East Cambridgeshire, there is no justification toundertake a suggested review for this Local Plan.

3.4

One minor change was made to the Policy, in order to make a direct cross reference to thePolicies Map which denotes the Green Belt boundary.

4 Local Plan Policy: Further Draft
4.1

The wording of the policy and supporting text in the Further Draft version of the Local Plan
was unchanged from the Preliminary Draft, except for one minor element whereby a directcross reference was included to the Policies Map which denotes the Green Belt boundary.
The Further Draft was published for consultation in January – February 2017.

4.2

Various, but limited, number of comments were received during the Further Draft
consultation, either supporting the policy or expressing concern over certain aspects of thepolicy. In summary, the key issues raised for the policy were:

Various detailed suggestions to improve clarity of policy wording, including thepurpose of the green belt;

The policy should address a process for returning undeveloped allocations to thegreen belt;

A Green Belt Review should be undertaken; Bottisham is a good location forgrowth.

Concern that the policy is not in conformity with the NPPF, as not all reasonable
alternatives have been considered during the SA/SEA process; SA scoring isincorrect for a number of topics

Various comments broadly supporting the policy2

4.3

Some suggested amendments to the policy have been accepted. First, in the bullet points
relating to circumstances whereby development is accepted in the Green Belt, an additionalbullet point has been added to make it clear that permissions in the Green Belt that do notproceed will not mean any weight being given to alternative proposals for that site.

4.4

Second, a new paragraph has been added at the end, which gives ‘advance’ warning for
any future Local Plan review, that if any land in the Green Belt is released in such a review,
then such land will only be released for the purpose it is released for, and if that purpose
does not happen, then the land will revert back to Green Belt.

4.5

In addition, the suggested amendments to the supporting text, relating to the purpose of theGreen Belt, have been made as requested. Paragraph 3.9.2 has been amended to read:“...a compact, dynamic city...”4.6

As at the previous draft stages, we did not taken forward the suggestion to undertake acomprehensive review of the Green Belt boundary. As discussed above, paragraph 83 ofthe NPPF suggests that this should only be altered in “exceptional circumstances”. As
sufficient land outside the Green Belt is available to meet the development needs of East
Cambridgeshire, there is no justification to undertake a suggested review for this Local
Plan.

5 Alternative Reasonable Options
5.1

The following alternative options have been considered for this policy. (Option 1 is thepreferred policy approach which has been included in the Proposed Submission Local
Plan.)

5.2

Option 2: No policy, and rely on national policy for this subject area.

5.3

Both options broadly provide equal benefits. However, it is necessary to include a GreenBelt policy in the Local Plan in order to:provide the framework for the subsequent inclusion of the Green Belt on the Policies
Map (and the Policies Map can only illustrate geographically the development plan,so a lack of policy could put into question a Green Belt identified on the Policies
Map);
provide local clarity and policy on any sites or development permitted in the Green
Belt;
provide some local policy in relation to development sites adjacent to the GreenBelt, andmore generally to provide guidance for local residents who may not be familiar with
the national policy.

6 Conclusion
6.1

This Evidence Report demonstrates the rationale for the policy as contained in the
Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan (November 2017). It is hoped this helps
demonstrate how we have responded to comments received during the consultation
stages, as well as how the latest evidence and national guidance has been taken intoaccount.

3