Borough Local Plan
Edge of Settlement
Part 1
Green Belt Purpose Assessment
July 2016
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Contents
1 Introduction
6
Purpose of the study
6
Edge of Settlement: Part 2 Constraints, Opportunities and Delivery Assessment
7
Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment
7
History of the Metropolitan Green Belt
7
2 Policy context and best practice
11
National Planning Policy Framework
11
National Planning Practice Guidance
12
Ministerial statements
12
Planning Advisory Service guidance
13
Other local planning authority experience
14
Borough Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation (January 2014)
16
Summary: policy context and best practice
16
3 Methodology
18
Stage 1: Identification of parcels and approach to assessment
19
Stage 2: The five purposes of Green Belt
23
1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
23
2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
25
3. To assist safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
27
4. To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
28
5. To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other
urban land
29
4 Conclusions
30
Stage 3: Presenting the assessment and recommendations
30
Appendicies
A Glossary
39
B Maps of constraints
42
C Consultation statement
47
D Parcel Assessments
66
Ascot group
66
A1 - Land north east of Winkfield Road, North Ascot
67
A2 - Ascot Racecourse, High Street, Ascot
71
A3 - Heatherwood Hospital, London Road, Ascot
75
A4 - Land south of Police station, including stables, High Street, Ascot
79
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Contents
A5 - Land south of High Street, west of Station Hill, Ascot
83
A6 - Land including Ascot railway station car park, Station Hill, Ascot
87
A7 - Land south of Hermitage Parade, High Street, Ascot
91
A8 - Land west of St George's Lane, including Shorts Recycling, Ascot
95
A9 - Land east of Cheapside Road, Ascot
99
A10 - Land south of London Road, including Victory Field, Sunninghill
103
A11 - Land around Church Lane including Ashurst Park, Sunninghill
107
A12 - Land south of London Road, north of Larch Avenue, Sunningdale
111
A13 - Land enclosed by London Road, Whitmore Lane and Silwood Road, including
Tittenhurst
115
A14 - Land south of Rise Road, including Lynwood, Sunningdale
119
A16 - Wardour Lodge, Dry Arch Road, Sunningdale
123
A17 - Land north of Cedar Drive, Sunningdale
127
A18 - Land enclosed by London Road, Broomhall Lane, Church Road & Bedford Lane,
Sunningdale
131
A19 - Land north of Bedford Lane, Sunningdale
135
A20 - Sacred Heart Church, London Road, Sunningdale
139
A21 - Land east of Bagshot Road including Broadlands Farm, Ascot
143
Cookham group
147
C1 - Land east of Grange Road, Cookham Rise
148
C2 - Land west of Grange Road including Grange Farm, Cookham Rise
152
C3 - Land north of Dean Lane, Cookham, Rise
156
C4 - Land west of Whyteladyes Lane comprising Cookham Dean Cricket Club & paddocks
160
C7 - Land west of Whyteladyes Lane, south of Kennel Lane track, Cookham Rise
164
C9 - Land between Southwood Road and Lower Mount Farm, Long Lane, Cookham
Rise
169
C10 - Land between Long Lane Cookham & Kingshorn Park M'head including Cannon
Court Farm
173
C11 - Land between Long Lane, Cookham and Hungerford Drive, Maidenhead
177
C12 - Land east of Strande Park Caravan Park, Cookham Rise
181
C13 - Land south of School Lane, Cookham
185
C14 - Sutton Road Allotments, Sutton Road, Cookham
189
C15 - Land south of Mill Lane, Cookham
193
Datchet group
D1 - Datchet Road Allotments, Datchet Road, Datchet
197
198
D2 - Land north of Eton Rd & south of Slough Rd, west of St Augustines Church, Datchet
202
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Contents
D3 - Land north of Eton Road, adjacent to St Augustine's Church, Datchet
206
D4 - Land between Slough Road and the M4, south east of allotments, Datchet
210
D5 - Land north and east of Churchmede Secondary School, Priory Road, Datchet
214
D6 - Land enclosed by London Rd, the M4 and Riding Court Road, Datchet
218
D7 - Land south of Austin Way, Langley
222
Eton group
226
E1 - Land north of Common Road including Bell Farm, Eton
227
E2 - Land south of Haywards Mead comprising Eton Wick Recreation Ground, Eton
231
E3 - Land north of Eton Wick Road including Crown Farm, Eton
235
E4 - Land south of Eton Wick Road, comprising Eton College sports ground, Eton
239
Horton group
243
H1 - Land south of Moorland Avenue and Pope Close, Colnbrook
244
H2 - Land west of Crown Meadow, Brands Hill
248
Maidenhead group
252
M1 - Land north of Furze Platt Road, Maidenhead
253
M2 - Land known as Spencer's Farm, north of Lutman Lane, Maidenhead
257
M3 - Land west of Maidenhead Court Park, Maidenhead
261
M4 - Land east of Lower Cookham Road, north of Whitebrook Park, Maidenhead
265
M5 - Land east of Whitebrook Park, Lower Cookham Road, north of Islet Park Drive,
Maidenhead
269
M6 - Land west of Sheephouse Road, Maidenhead
273
M7 - Maidenhead Sailing Club, Summerleaze Road, Maidenhead
277
M8 - Summerleaze Office and Workshop, Summerleaze Road, Maidenhead
281
M9 - Land including North Town Moor, Maidenhead
285
M10 - Land west of Cannon Lane, Maidenhead
289
M11 - Land north of Breadcroft Lane, north of the railway line, Maidenhead
293
M12 - Land north of Breadcroft Lane and south of the railway line, Maidenhead
297
M13 - White Waltham Airfield, Waltham Road, Maidenhead
301
M14 - Land south of Woodlands Park Village Cetntre and Woodlands Park Primary
School
306
M15 - Land east of Woodlands Business Park, Woodlands Park Avenue, Maidenhead
310
M16 - Land east of Woodlands Park Avenue and north of Woodlands Business Park,
Maidenhead
314
M17 - Land south of Woodlands Park Road comprisng the Lillibrooke Manor, Maidenhead
318
M18 - Land south of Ockwells Road, between Lillibrooke Manor and Ockwells Manor,
Maidenhead
322
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Contents
M19 - Land south of Ockwells Road and west of A404(M), Maidenhead
326
M20 - Land south of Manor Lane including Shopenhangers Manor and Manor House,
Maidenhead
330
M21 - Land enclosed by Kimbers Lane, Harvest Hill Road, A308(M) and A404(M),
Maidenhead
334
M22 - Triangle enclosed by M4, A308(M) and Ascot Road, Maidenhead
338
M23 - Maidenhead Golf Course, Shoppenhangers Road, Maidenhead
342
M24 - Braywick Park extending to Hibbert Road, Maidenhead
346
M25 - Land south of Stafferton Way, Maidenhead
350
M28 - Land north of Hibbert Road, Maidenhead
354
M29 - Land south of Hibbert Road and west of Jesus Hospital High Street, Bray
358
M30 - Land between The Binghams and Upper Bray Road, Maidenhead
362
M31 - Land between Upper Bray Road, Bray, and the M4
366
M34 - Land between Ascot Road and Holyport Road, south west of Aysgarth Park,
Holyport
370
M35 - Land between Windsor Road and Bray Lake, south of Maidenhead
375
M36 - Land south of Windsor Road and west of Fifiled Road, including Stroud Farm
379
M38 - Land west of Monkey Island Lane, including water treatment works, Maidenhead
383
M39 - Land east of Monkey Island Lane, north of Windsor Road, Water Oakley
Old Windsor group
387
391
OW1 - Land east of Datchet Road, north of Old Windsor
392
OW2 - Land north of Church Road Allotments, Church Road, Old Windsor
396
OW4 - Land west of William Ellis Close and Tyle Place, Old Windsor
400
OW5 - Land north of Crimp Hill, west of Hartley Copse and St Andrews Close,Old
Windsor
404
OW6 - Land south of Crimp Hill, south west of Burfield Road, Old Windsor
408
OW7 - Beaumont House, Burfield Road, Old Windsor
412
Windsor group
416
W1 - Land north of A308, south of Maidenhead Road, Windsor
417
W2 - Land south of A308, north of Dedworth Road, Windsor
422
W3 - Land south of Dedworth Road, west of Broom Farm, Windsor
426
W4 - Land west of Windsor including Lower Farm and St Leonard's Farm
430
W5 - Land south of Dower Park, Fairview Park, Gratton Drive & Chestnut Drive, Windsor
434
Wraysbury group
438
WR1 - Land south of The Drive, Wraysbury
439
WR2 - Land south of Old Ferry Drive, Wraysbury
443
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Contents
WR3 - Land south and west of St Andrew's Church, Wraysbury
447
WR4 - Land south of The Grange, Windsor Road, Wraysbury
451
WR5 - Land including Tithe Farm, Title Lane, Wraysbury
455
6
1
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is preparing a new Borough Local Plan. This will set
out the vision and framework for future development, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing,
the economy, community facilities and infrastructure – as well as a basis for safeguarding the environment,
adapting to climate change and securing good design.
1.2 It is important that the Borough Local Plan is based on a good understanding of future development
needs and opportunities. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says that:
1.
2.
Plans should positively seek opportunities to meet development needs, and
Plans should meet objectively assessed needs unless:
- the impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against
the NPPF as a whole, or
(1)
- specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.
1.3 Accordingly the Council is taking the detailed step of reviewing existing planning designations (for example
employment land, retail need and Green Belt). It should be understood that the act of reviewing a designation
does not in itself indicate that the designation will change, that is a review can find the existing designation
remains valid.
Purpose of the study
1.4 This assessment is the first half of a two stage process which considers the suitability of land on the edge
of settlements which are themselves excluded from the Green Belt for development. This process superseded
(2)
that undertaken in 2014.
1.5 The purpose of this Part 1 assessment is to specifically consider how land currently designated Green
(3)
Belt performs against the purposes of Green Belt as defined in the NPPF.
In doing this the assessment
builds upon the previous strategic level Green Belt Purpose Analysis (November 2013) which comprehensively
considered all land designated Green Belt within the Royal Borough.
1.6 With reference to the strategic level study, the options of establishing a new settlement and the significant
expansion of an existing settlement that would alter the existing settlement hierarchy were both rejected by the
Council through the sustainability appraisal process as unreasonable. This assessment thus provides an in
depth analysis of how land performs in the locations considered to be reasonable and comparatively sustainable
compared to other Green Belt options.
1.7
In broad terms this Part 1 assessment will:
Assess how individual parcels of land performs against the purposes of including land in the Green Belt;
and
Identify those parcels which perform least well against the purpose of including land in the Green Belt.
1.8 It is very important to note that this Part 1 assessment does not allocate land for development nor does
it imply that land is suitable for development. The Framework makes it clear that in order to make changes to
(4)
the Green Belt boundary there have to be "exceptional circumstances."
Such a consideration must be
informed by a number of other documents and reports including those on future housing and economic
development needs, other environmental constraints, decisions on spatial strategy and public consultation, in
addition to this assessment.
1
2
3
4
NPPF, paragraph 14.
Edge of Settlement Analysis January 2014.
NPPF, paragraph 80.
NPPF, paragraph 83.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
7
Introduction
Study purpose at a glance
What it will do
What it wont do
Analyse how parcels of land perform against the
defined purposes of including land in the Green
Belt
Set future development requirements
Identify those parcels of land which perform least
well against the purposes of including land in
the Green Belt
Indicate whether exceptional circumstances exist
which support the alteration to the boundary of
the Green Belt
Amend the boundary of the Green Belt
Indicate whether land is suitable for development
Allocate land for development
Edge of Settlement: Part 2 Constraints, Opportunities and Delivery Assessment
1.9 Having identified those parcels of land which perform least well against the purpose of the Green Belt,
the process will continue to consider further indicators of their suitability. This second part of the process is
detailed in the Edge of Settlement: Part 2 Constraints, Opportunities and Delivery Assessment. The outcome
of the second part will identify those areas which are more or less suitable for development.
Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment
1.10 The outcome of the Edge of Settlement: Part 1 and Part 2 studies will feed into the Council's Housing
and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). The HELAA is a technical study of all potential housing,
economic and retail sites. It performs the following functions:
identifies potential sites for housing, employment and retail from a variety of different sources;
gives an indication of the potential overall scale of land that may be available for development;
looks at their suitability for housing, employment and retail use, with likely timescales for deliverability;
and
does not make policy decisions or allocate sites but informs plan making.
1.11 The requirement for a HELAA is set out in paragraph 159 of the NPPF and in the Department for
Community and Local Government (DCLG) Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) under the section ‘Housing and
Economic Land Availability Assessment’, which provides detailed guidance on how to carry out a HELAA. The
HELAA presents a strategic picture of the availability and suitability of land for development, providing a key
component of the evidence base to inform the preparation of the new Local Plan. It attempts to establish
realistic assumptions about the number of homes, employment and retail floorspace that this land could yield
and the timeframe within which this might come forward.
History of the Metropolitan Green Belt
1.12 The Green Belt in the Royal Borough forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The reasons for
designating a Green Belt were first set out by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1955, when
they were stated to be:
To check the further growth of a large built up area;
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; or
To preserve the special character of a town.
1.13 The Metropolitan Green Belt was the first to be established in the 1950s and the 1960s to cover an area
extending as far west as Wokingham. At this time almost all of the Green Belt in Berkshire was not “Approved
Green Belt” – Green Belt which had been formally approved in development plans by the Minister of Housing
and Local Government, but “Proposed Green Belt” which was treated (with the agreement of the government)
as if it had been approved pending a final decision by the Minister.
1
8
1
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Introduction
1.14 The area of Proposed Green Belt in east Berkshire, including the land in the Royal Borough, received
(5)
the formal approval of the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1974, along with areas in Buckinghamshire
and Surrey.
1.15 The area of Proposed Green Belt in central Berkshire remained so on an interim basis pending
consideration by the Secretary of State. In 1980, the Secretary of State chose not to confirm a newly promoted
Green Belt extension to Reading and not to give formal approval to those areas in central Berkshire which had
(6)
been treated as Proposed Green Belt.
1.16 Within Berkshire, detailed boundaries to the Green Belt were confirmed in the Green Belt Local Plan
for Berkshire (1985). The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan (1999) made a small number
of minor adjustments to provide more rational and defensible boundaries. In addition, at Sunningdale the
boundary was rationalised following the transfer of land from the neighbouring Surrey Heath Borough Council
and Runnymede Borough Council to the Royal Borough.
5
6
Berkshire County Development Plan, 1974.
Central Berkshire Structure Plan, 1980.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
9
Introduction
Map 1 Green Belt - sub-regional context
1
10
1
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Introduction
Map 2 Green Belt - local area context
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
11
Policy context and best practice
POLICY CONTEXT AND BEST PRACTICE
National Planning Policy Framework
2.1 In England, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s policy on planning
including the context in which Local Plans must be prepared. Being consistent with national policy is one of the
tests against which Local Plans are examined.
2.2 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which for plan making
means that local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of
their area. Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid
change, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,
when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate
(7)
development should be restricted. Examples of specific policies in the NPPF which restrict development
(8)
include land designated Green Belt.
2.3 The NPPF outlines 12 core planning principles. Amongst these principles is that planning should take
account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas,
protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and
(9)
supporting thriving rural communities within it.
2.4 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open;
(10)
the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
Green Belt is identified
to serve five purposes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
(11)
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
2.5 Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the
beneficial use of the Green Belt, for example looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities
for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to
(12)
improve damaged and derelict land.
2.6 The NPPF sets out that once Green Belt boundaries have been established they should only be altered
in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.
2.7 Importantly the NPPF acknowledges the permanence of Green Belt boundaries and the need for them
(13)
to endure beyond the plan period.
The need to promote sustainable patterns of development is also
(14)
acknowledged.
2.8
When defining boundaries, local planning authorities should:
ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable
development;
not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open;
satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development
plan period; and
define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be
(15)
permanent.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NPPF, paragraph 14.
NPPF, footnote 9.
NPPF, paragraph 17.
NPPF, paragraph 79.
NPPF, paragraph 80.
NPPF, paragraph 81.
NPPF, paragraph 83.
NPPF, paragraph 84.
NPPF, paragraph 85.
2
12
2
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Policy context and best practice
2.9 Local planning authorities may also identify areas of “safeguarded land” in order to meet longer-term
development needs beyond the plan period.
National Planning Practice Guidance
2.10 The government has published National Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) to expand and
clarify policy within the Framework. The Guidance is an online resource and subject to being updated. The
following boxes contain paragraphs from the guidance note “Housing and economic land availability assessment”
which are considered to be relevant; however the Guidance does not provide any specific advice on how to
undertake Green Belt analysis.
Do housing and economic needs override constraints on the use of land, such as Green Belt?
The National Planning Policy Framework should be read as a whole: need alone is not the only factor to be
considered when drawing up a Local Plan.
The NPPF is clear that local planning authorities should, through their Local Plans, meet objectively assessed
needs unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,
when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or specific policies in the NPPF indicate
development should be restricted. Such policies include those relating to sites protected under the Birds and
Habitats Directives, and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt,
Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park or the
Broads; designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.
The NPPF makes clear that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional
circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.
ID 3-044-20141006
Do local planning authorities have to meet in full housing needs identified in needs assessments?
Local authorities should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs.
However, assessing need is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan. Once need has been assessed,
the local planning authority should prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to establish
realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the
identified need for housing over the plan period, and in so doing take account of any constraints such as
Green Belt, which indicate that development should be restricted and which may restrain the ability of an
authority to meet its need.
ID 3-045-20141006
Ministerial statements
2.11 Letters from the Department for Communities and Local Government to the Planning Inspectorate or
general statements from ministers have clarified or reaffirmed aspects of national Green Belt policy.
2.12 Nick Boles MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Planning), in a letter to the Planning Inspectorate
in March 2014 reaffirmed the government’s commitment to maintaining key protections for the countryside and,
in particular, for the Green Belt. The letter draws attention to the NPPF being clear that a Green Belt boundary
may be moved only in exceptional circumstances and reiterates the importance and permanence of the Green
Belt, that the special role of Green Belt is recognised in the framing of the presumption in favour of sustainable
development, and that a local planning authority could adjust the Green Belt boundary through a review of the
Local Plan.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
13
Policy context and best practice
2.13 Brandon Lewis MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, in a letter to the Planning Inspectorate
in December 2014 reinforced the importance of Green Belt in setting housing targets by indicating that councils
will need to consider Strategic Housing Market Assessment evidence carefully and take adequate time to
consider whether there are environmental and policy constraints, such as Green Belt, which will impact on their
overall final housing requirement.
Planning Advisory Service guidance
2.14 The Planning Advisory Service published guidance “Planning on the Doorstep: The Big Issues – Green
Belt” in January 2014, updated February 2015. The guidance highlights that any analysis of Green Belt should
involve an assessment of how the land still contributes to the five Green Belt purposes. It also acknowledges
that there are planning objectives that are not addressed in the five Green Belt purposes, for example landscape
value, accessibility and environmental assets.
2.15 The guidance sets out a number of considerations which should be taken into account when undertaking
any analysis. These are set out in the following boxes.
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas
The terminology of ‘sprawl’ comes from the 1930s when Green Belt was conceived. Has this term changed
in meaning since then? For example, is development that is planned positively through a local plan, and well
designed with good masterplanning, sprawl?
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
Green Belt is frequently said to maintain the separation of small settlements near to towns, but this is not
strictly what the purpose says. This will be different for each case. A ‘scale rule’ approach should be avoided.
The identity of a settlement is not really determined just by the distance to another settlement; the character
of the place and of the land in between must be taken into account. Landscape character assessment is a
useful analytical tool for use in undertaking this type of assessment.
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Presumably all Green Belt does this, making the purpose difficult to use to distinguish the contribution of
different areas. The most useful approach is to look at the difference between urban fringe – land under the
influence of the urban area - and open countryside, and to favour the latter in determining which land to try
and keep open, taking into account the types of edges and boundaries that can be achieved.
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
This purpose is generally accepted as relating to very few settlements in practice. In most towns there already
are more recent development between the historic core and the countryside between the edge of the town.
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
With this one, it must be the case that the amount of land within urban areas that could be developed will
already have been factored in before identifying Green Belt land. If Green Belt achieves this purpose, all
Green Belt does to the same extent and hence the value of various land parcels is unlikely to be distinguished
by the application of this purpose.
2
14
2
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Policy context and best practice
2.16 In summary the guidance suggests that the type of areas that might be seen to make a relatively limited
contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the
Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
It would effectively be 'infill,' with the land partially enclosed by development.
The development would be well contained by the landscape, e.g. With rising land.
There would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements
in reality.
A strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country.'
2.17 In addition to the above, the guidance reinforces that Green Belt is a strategic policy and hence a
strategic issue in terms of the Duty to Cooperate and that in order to make a change to the Green Belt boundary
(16)
in the Local Plan there have to be “exceptional circumstances.”
It further draws attention to the level of
housing which a Local Plan needs to plan for is determined, in part, by whether there is an unmet requirement
(17)
from a neighbouring authority.
Other local planning authority experience
2.18 This assessment only considers land within the Royal Borough, but, as noted in the Planning Advisory
guidance, Green Belt is a strategic policy. It is important therefore to understand how nearby local planning
authorities are approaching Green Belt issues, and the methodologies employed in any analytical work.
2.19 The boxes below provide a summary of completed or emerging studies undertaken since the release
of the NPPF in 2012 for the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Dacorum Borough Council, St Albans City and District Council and Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
Green Belt Review Purposes Assessment (November 2013) (Sinclair Knight Merz)
Assessed strategic parcels against the first four Green Belt purposes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
The fifth purpose of assisting urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban
land was not assessed.
The strategic parcels were defined using physical features.
A series of questions were defined and used to assess the contribution of parcel to each Green Belt purpose
and local Green Belt objectives. The level of contribution is summarised as significant, partial and limited/no
contribution. Each Green Belt purpose was considered equally significant.
The assessment was undertaken in two stages: a desk-top review and on-site inspections. The consideration
of contribution focuses on urban form, landscape characteristics and urbanising influences.
Parcels contributing least to the Green Belt are identified and recommended for further analysis including
wider issues such as infrastructure capacity, sustainability and landscape.
Runnymede Borough Council
Green Belt Review: Methodology and Assessment (December 2014) (Arup)
Phase 1 assessed general parcels against the first four Green Belt purposes:
16
17
NPPF, paragraph 83.
NPPF, paragraph 182.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
15
Policy context and best practice
Runnymede Borough Council
1.
2.
3.
4.
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
The fifth purpose of assisting urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban
land was not assessed.
The general parcels will be defined across all land designated Green Belt using physical features.
A series of criteria were defined and used to assess the contribution of each parcel to each Green Belt
purpose. The level of contribution is scores from 1 (weak or very weak) to 5 (strong or very strong). Each
Green Belt purpose was considered equally significant.
The consideration of contribution focuses on urban form, the nature of boundaries, landscape characteristics
including the level of built-form and urbanising influences.
Phase 2 considered absolute constraints to development (constraints that are likely to be a significant impact
on the potential for development), and non-absolute constraints (constraints that are likely to limit or influence
the type, form or location of development).
Following consideration of constraints the strategic parcels were redefined.
Parcels contributing least to the Green Belt and not unreasonably affected by constraints are identified.
Aylesbury Vale District Council, Chiltern District Council, South Bucks District Council, Wycombe
District Council and Buckinghamshire County Council
Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment (Arup)
The following description is based on a methodology paper published in August 2015. The full study has
not been published at the time of writing.
Phase 1 assessed general parcels against the first four Green Belt purposes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
The fifth purpose of assisting urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban
land was reviewed with no land in the Green Belt considered to inhibit planned urban regeneration schemes.
The general parcels will be defined across all land designated Green Belt using physical features.
A series of criteria were defined and used to assess the contribution of each parcel to each Green Belt
purpose. The level of contribution is scores from 1 (weak or very weak) to 5 (strong or very strong). Each
Green Belt purpose was considered equally significant.
As a "rule of thumb" parcels which performed strongly against one of the assessment criteria will be judged
as unsuitable for further consideration.
2
16
2
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Policy context and best practice
Borough Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation (January 2014)
2.20 The Council undertook the Borough Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation from January to March
2014. Consultees were not specially asked to comment on the methodology used to assess the suitability of
areas in the Green Belt for housing. The consultation nonetheless provided an opportunity for interested parties
to submit comments. A summary of comments is provided below:
greater clarity is needed on the methodology
a common methodology should be used across all local authorities
the assessment of Green Belt should consider all land in the borough not just land on the edge of excluded
settlements
the methodology should consider how land contributes to creating sustainable patterns of development
the release of land on the edge of some settlements (e.g. Maidenhead) should be favoured over others
land owned by the Crown Estate should not be considered a strategic constraint; Crown land should be
considered like other ownerships
support for heritage assets being a strategic constraint
more work is required to assess potential impacts on heritage assets
land in the function floodplain should be rejected
all land that floods should be rejected
locations within Flood Zone 3a and 2 should not be excluded from further consideration and should be
considered through the application of the sequential and exceptions tests
the assessment of Green Belt is not comprehensive of all purposes of including land in the Green Belt
the assessment of gaps should take into account the visibility and function of the gap, not just its size
the assessment of gaps should consider those between all settlements and not just excluded settlements
the application of constraints appears inconsistent
the assessment should consider access to services and facilities.
2.21 Comments regarding the treatment of the Crown Estate and the assessment of how land contributes
to the purposes of the Green Belt are addressed in this assessment. The remaining comments addressed in
the Edge of Settlement Analysis: Part 2 Constraints, Opportunities and Delivery Assessment.
2.22
In response to comments the Council has amended the methodology, notably:
clarity and transparency of the methodology has been improved.
ownership by the Crown Estate is no longer viewed as a constraint to the delivery of development.
the first four purposes of including land in the Green Belt are now assessed.
the separation of all settlements is considered, noting whether they are excluded or within (washed over
by) the Green Belt.
the separation of settlements considers qualitative measures.
Summary: policy context and best practice
2.23 The NPPF emphasises the importance and permanence of Green Belt. Five purposes of Green Belt
are clearly defined with the Local Plan process confirmed as the only opportunity for boundaries to be reviewed.
Neither the NPPF nor the Guidance detail how a review process should be conducted. Each local authority is
thereby required to establish a methodology which is appropriate to the local context.
2.24 The Planning Advisory Service published guidance is helpful in setting out key parameters to consider
in any methodology. The key points to note are:
the assessment should consider each of the purposes of Green Belt.
the assessment should utilise clear definitions.
the assessment should use qualitative measures.
few settlements are likely to meet the definition of historic towns.
the purpose of the Green Belt to assist urban regeneration is unlikely to distinguish between land parcels.
there are planning objectives that are not addressed by Green Belt policy.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
17
Policy context and best practice
2.25 As Green Belt is a strategic issue it should be considered collaboratively with other local authorities.
Whilst the alignment of plan programmes means some authorities might not be looking to undertake such work,
engagement under the Duty to Cooperate will enable studies undertaken at different times to be broadly
consistent.
2
18
3
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Methodology
METHODOLOGY
3.1 An overview of the overall methodology used to assess the suitability of land for development is set out
in the figure below. The following section sets out the approach used in Stages 1 to 3.
3.2 The methodology used in Stages 4 and 5 can be found within the Edge of Settlement: Part 2 Constraints,
Opportunities and Deliverability Assessment.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
19
Methodology
Stage 1: Identification of parcels and approach to assessment
Identification of parcels
3.3 The scope of the assessment was to consider all land on the edge of those settlements which are
(18)
themselves excluded from the Green Belt.
To ensure a comprehensive assessment all areas of land were
considered regardless of whether it has been promoted by the landowner as being available for development.
3.4 The starting point for the assessment was to identify parcels of land. Green Belt policy states that when
defining boundaries local planning authorities should define these using physical features which are readily
(19)
recognisable and likely to be permanent.
On this basis parcels were identified through a desk-based exercise
using the following criteria:
1.
2.
Boundaries should be aligned to physical features.
Boundaries should not split woodland or other significant areas of trees, or existing settlements or other
areas of housing.
3.5 To improve efficiency, parcels were not identified within areas where national policy or legislation indicates
development would be unsuitable in principle, or where the nature of the land indicates development would not
be feasible or deliverable. A list of these exclusion criteria or "hard constraints" which are relevant to the Royal
Borough is set out in Table 1 below. A map showing their extent (excluding existing developed areas and
education facilities) and the identified parcels can be found below. Maps showing the extent of individual
constraints can be found in Appendix B.
3.6 Parcels were originally identified via a desk based exercise. Refinements to the definition of parcels were
(20)
subsequently made following on-site inspections. In total, 95 individual parcels were identified.
Table 1
Hard constraints
Constraint
Reasoning
Special Area of
Conservation
(SAC)
The Conservation of Habitat
and Species Regulations 2010.
National Planning Policy
Framework paragraph 118.
Special Protection
Area (SPA)
The Conservation of Habitat
and Species Regulations 2010.
National Planning Policy
Framework paragraph 118.
Land within 400m
of the Thames
Basin Heaths
Special Protection
Area
18
19
20
National Planning Policy
Framework paragraph 118.
Application
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of the SAC have not been defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the SAC are
defined with its presence noted in subsequent
analysis.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of the SPA have not been defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the SPA are
defined with its presence noted in subsequent
analysis.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of the 400m buffer around the TBH
SPA have not been defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the extent of the
400m buffer around the TBH SPA are defined
with its presence noted in subsequent analysis.
Alternative theoretical approaches such as the establishment of a new settlement or proposing development that would alter the
existing settlement hierarchy were rejected as being unreasonable alternatives through the sustainability appraisal process.
NPPF, paragraph 85.
It should be noted that the refinement of parcels has resulted in reference numbers not being fully consecutive which is due to
amalgamation or deletions.
3
20
3
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Methodology
Table 1
Hard constraints
Sites of Special
Scientific Interest
(SSSI)
Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981.
National Planning Policy
Framework paragraph 118.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of the SSSI have not been defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the SSSI are
defined with its presence noted in subsequent
analysis.
Wetlands of
International
Importance
(Ramsar sites)
National Planning Policy
Framework paragraph 118.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of the Ramsar site have not been
defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the Ramsar site
are defined with its presence noted in subsequent
analysis.
Flood Zone 3B
(functional
floodplain)
Technical Guidance for the
National Planning Policy
Framework, Table 1.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of the functional floodplain have not
been defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the functional
floodplain are defined with its presence noted in
subsequent analysis.
Airport public
safety zones
Development is unlikely to be
suitable due to safety
concerns.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of the safety zone have not been
defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the safety zone
are defined with its presence noted in subsequent
analysis.
Strategic priority
transport projects
Development is unlikely to be
deliverable.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of a strategic priority transport project
have not been defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the extent of a
strategic priority transport project are defined with
its presence noted in subsequent analysis.
Common Land
The Commons Act 2006.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of common land have not been
identified.
Parcels which extend partly into areas of common
land are defined with its presence noted in
subsequent analysis.
Historic Parks and
Garden
National Planning Policy
Framework paragraphs 126
and 132.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of the Historic Park and Garden have
not been defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the Historic Park
and Garden are defined with its presence noted
in subsequent analysis.
Scheduled
Monument
National Planning Policy
Framework paragraphs 126
and 132.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of the Scheduled Monument ave not
been defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the Scheduled
Monument are defined with its presence noted
in subsequent analysis.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
21
Methodology
Table 1
Hard constraints
Conservation Area
Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Area) Act 1990.
Development is unlikely to be
suitable.
National Trust
ownership or
covenant interest
Development is unlikely to be
Woodland
Development is unlikely to be
feasible.
(21)
deliverable.
National Planning Policy
Framework paragraph 118
(ancient woodland).
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
the extent of the Conservation Area have not
been defined.
Parcels which extend partly into the Conservation
Area are defined with its presence noted in
subsequent analysis.
Potential parcels which would be wholly within
areas owned by the National Trust or where the
organisation holds a convenient restricting
development have not been defined.
Parcels which extend partly into these areas are
defined with its presence noted in subsequent
analysis.
Woodland and other significant treed areas have
been excluded from potential parcels.
Its edge would be considered for the boundary
for adjoining parcels.
UK Biodiversity Action Plan
(BAP) priority habitats includes:
broadleaved, mixed and yew
woodland and coniferous
woodland.
Waterbody
Development is unlikely to be
feasible.
Water bodies have been excluded from potential
parcels.
Its edge would be considered for the boundary
for adjoining parcels.
Developed area
Development is unlikely to be
deliverable.
Existing developed areas which do not afford a
realistic opportunity for planned further
development have been excluded from potential
parcels.
Its edge would be considered for the boundary
for adjoining parcels.
Education facility
Development is unlikely to be
deliverable.
Parcels which contain education facilities with no
plans for their relocation or do not form part of a
recognised wider redevelopment opportunity have
not been defined.
Its edge would be considered for the boundary
of adjoining parcels.
21
The National Trust has the benefit of restrictive covenants on land at Ockwells Manor, Ockwells Road, Maidenhead. The covenant
prevent development without their consent. The National Trust actively defend the covenant.
3
22
3
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Methodology
Combined extent of hard constraints (excluding water bodies, developed areas and education facilities) and identified
parcels
Approach to assessment
3.7 Building upon the Planning Advisory Service guidance and other local planning authority experience, the
Council has sought to establish a draft methodology which is appropriate to the local context. For each purpose
criteria were developed against which each parcel could be considered.
3.8 The Council published the draft methodology in October 2015. Responses were received from sixteen
organisations were received, seven from local planning authorities and nine from the development industry.
A summary of the key issues raised is provided in Appendix C.
3.9
The following sections set out the final assessment methodology.
3.10 Each parcel was assessed against four of the five Green Belt purposes via a combination of a desk
based review and on-site inspections. Observations were recorded relating to regeneration initiatives which
links to the fifth Green Belt purpose.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
23
Methodology
3.11
The results of the assessment for each Green Belt purpose has been categorised as:
none or limited contribution
lower contribution
moderate contribution
strong contribution
very strong contribution
3.12 It should be noted that each of the Green Belt purposes is considered of equal weight and that aggregation
is not appropriate, that is, parcels which are assessed as performing a role in fewer of the Green Belt purposes
are not automatically less important than those which perform a role in greater number. In general, parcels
which are assessed as performing a stronger role against any of the Green Belt purposes are deemed unsuitable
for further consideration through the Edge of Settlement: Part 2 Constraints, Opportunities and Delivery
Assessment.
Stage 2: The five purposes of Green Belt
1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
3.13 The first Green Belt purpose seeks to protect against the uncontrolled expansion of large built up areas.
What constitutes a large built up area is not defined.
3.14 The Green Belt in the Royal Borough forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt which surrounds London.
There is no doubt that London constitutes a large built up area. Avoiding the outward sprawl of London is
achieved not simply by constraining the growth of London at its margins but equally by constraining settlements
in the Green Belt themselves growing so that they progressively erode the countryside around London (and
possibly join up with London).
3.15 The assessment considered large built up areas to comprise all settlements which are excluded from
the Green Belt and similar settlements located beyond the outer boundary of the Green Belt. This reflects both
the extent of the Green Belt as approved and the built characteristics of settlements which was taken into
account in designation. A list of relevant settlements within the Royal Borough and those in surrounding
authorities is provided in Table 2. Settlements are only listed where they are within 5km of a defined parcel.
Table 2
Large Built up areas
RBWM
Ascot / North Ascot / South
Ascot
Cookham
Coookham Rise
Datchet
Eton
Eton Wick
Maidenhead / Cox Green /
Braywick
Old Windsor
Sunningdale
Sunninghill
Windsor
Wraysbury
Neighbouring Local Authorities
Bagshot (Surrey Heath BC)
Bourne End / Cores End / Well End / Wooburn (Wycombe DC)
Bracknell (Bracknell Forest BC)
Brands Hill (Slough BC)
Chavey Down (Bracknell Forest BC)
Egham / Englefield Green (Runnymede BC)
Flackwell Heath (Wycombe DC)
Langley (Slough BC)
Lightwater (Surrey Heath BC)
Martins Heron (Bracknell Forest BC)
Marlow (Wycombe DC)
Newell Green/Hayley Green (Bracknell Forest BC)
Stanwell (Spelthorne BC)
Stanwell Moor (Spelthorne BC)
Slough / Burnham (Slough BC and South Bucks DC)
Staines-upon-Thames (Runnymede BC and Spelthorne BC)
Trumps Green (Runnymede DC)
Virginia Water (Runnymede BC)
3
24
3
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Methodology
Table 2
Large Built up areas
Windlesham (Surrey Heath BC)
Wooburn Green / High Wycombe (Wycombe DC)
3.16 The assessment has adopted the definition of sprawl to be “spread out over a large area in an untidy
or irregular way.” The assessment of this purpose considers two matters:
1.
2.
The parcels relationship with the adjoining settlement and any others in proximity
The extent to which the parcel serves as a barrier to development
3.17 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently
(22)
open.
However the extent to which land contributes to this aim is dependant on its relationship with the wider
settlement:
1.
2.
A parcel which protrudes into the open Green Belt, or extends an existing protrusion, makes a strong
contribution to preventing sprawl by preventing the untidy and inefficient spread of the built up area.
A parcel which is largely enclosed by the existing settlement so that it has a limited connection to the
wider Green Belt would make a lesser contribution to preventing sprawl as development could retain a
compact and efficient form of settlement.
3.18 In addition to the parcel's relationship to the wider settlement, Green Belt policy states that when defining
boundaries local planning authorities should define these using physical features which are readily recognisable
(23)
and likely to be permanent.
A strong boundary makes a strong contribution to preventing sprawl compared
to weaker boundary. Readily recognisable boundaries which are likely to be permanent include built features
such as roads, railway lines and property enclosures, and landform features such as rivers and streams,
woodland. Softer boundaries which lack durability might include field boundaries and tree lines. Boundary
features such as tree belts or private roads generally lack durability but not to the same extent.
3.19
Notwithstanding the issue of permanence, boundary features can influence the visual impact of
development. Features which restrict views from the wider countryside act to reduce the impact of development.
The impact of development is not reduced where boundary features afford unrestricted or largely unrestricted
views.
Table 3
Assessment criteria at a glance
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas
Consideration
Comment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread
of the built up area
A parcel which is important to the separation of settlements or developed
areas, or is poorly related to the wider settlement is assessed as making a
very strong contribution to this Green Belt purpose.
A parcel which is well related to the wider settlement but which retains a
strong connection to the wider countryside and Green Belt is assessed as
making a strong or moderate contribution to this Green Belt purpose.
A parcel which is well related and visually contained, or is enclosed by the
settlement is assessed as making a lower or none / limited contribution to
this Green Belt purpose.
In making the assessment consideration has been given to the relationship
with the countryside and other land in the Green Belt, the relationship to the
adjoining settlement (and any nearby where relevant), the presence of built
22
23
NPPF, paragraph 79.
NPPF, paragraph 85.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
25
Methodology
Table 3
Assessment criteria at a glance
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas
development (including sporadic and ribbon development) within and beyond
the parcel, and the visibility of the parcel from within the countryside (and
any relevant roads).
The strength of the existing
boundary and that which could
be achieved should the
boundary be amended
A parcel which provides a clearly defined boundary is assessed as making
a strong contribution to this Green Belt purpose.
A parcel which provides a weak boundary is assessed as making a limited
contribution to this Green Belt purpose.
In making this assessment consideration has been given to the durability or
permanence of the feature defining the existing boundary and that which
might be achieved.
2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
3.20 The second Green Belt purpose is to protect the identity of places through the prevention of coalescence.
Green Belt policy does not define what is meant by towns or whether the gap between smaller settlements
should equally be considered.
3.21 The Royal Borough is characterised by a number of separate and distinct settlements, each with their
own identity and character but related by an attractive countryside setting which includes royal parkland, forests
and woodlands, the Thames river valley and farmland. There has been a degree of coalescence between
settlements particularly along major transport routes.
3.22 The assessment of this purpose considered the separation of all settlements, thereby reflecting the
extent of the Green Belt as approved. The assessment notes whether the separation relates to:
1.
2.
3.
Settlements which are excluded from the Green Belt (Excluded Settlements);
Settlements which are beyond the outer edge of the Green Belt; or
Settlements which are washed over by the Green Belt (Green Belt Settlements).
3.23 The extent to which land contributes to separation has been assessed. All land between settlements
makes some contribution to preventing towns from merging, with parcels which are clearly visible making the
most significant contribution. It should be noted that the presence of built form within a gap may increase the
contribution of the parcel, as further development would act against separation. Parcels which are enclosed
by the existing settlement would make a lesser contribution to separation.
3.24 A list of excluded settlements and Green Belt settlements within the Royal Borough and those referenced
in surrounding authorities is provided in Table 4 and 5. Settlements are only listed where they are within 5km
of a defined parcel.
Table 4
Excluded Settlements and Settlements Beyond the Green Belt
RBWM
Ascot / North Ascot / South
Ascot
Cookham
Cookham Rise
Datchet
Eton
Neighbouring Local Authorities
Bagshot (Surrey Heath BC)
Bourne End/Cores End/Well End/Wooburn (Wycombe DC)
Bracknell (Bracknell Forest BC)
Brands Hill (Slough BC)
Chavey Down (Bracknell Forest BC)
Colnbrook (Slough BC)
3
26
3
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Methodology
Table 4
Excluded Settlements and Settlements Beyond the Green Belt
Eton Wick
Maidenhead / Cox Green /
Braywick
Old Windsor
Sunningdale
Sunninghill
Windsor
Wraysbury
Egham/Englefield Green (Runnymede BC)
Flackwell Heath (Wycombe DC)
Langley (Slough BC)
Lightwater (Surrey Heath BC)
Martins Heron (Bracknell Forest BC)
Marlow (Wycombe DC)
Myrke (Slough BC)
Newell Green/Hayley Green (Bracknell Forest BC)
Poyle (Slough BC)
Stanwell (Spelthorne BC)
Stanwell Moor (Spelthorne BC)
Slough/Burnham (Slough BC and South Bucks DC)
Staines-upon-Thames (Runnymede BC and Spelthorne BC)
Trumps Green Runnymede DC)
Virginia Water (Runnymede BC)
Windlesham (Surrey Heath BC)
Wooburn Green /High Wycombe(Wycombe DC)
Table 5
Green Belt Settlements (washed over by Green Belt)
RBWM
Neighbouring Local Authorities
Bisham
Bray
Burchett’s Green
Cheapside
Cookham Dean
Fifield
Holyport
Horton
Hurley
Hythe End
Knowl Hill
Littlewick Green
Shurlock Row
Waltham St Lawrence
Warren Row
White Waltham
Bishopsgate (Runnymede DC)
Cranbourne (Lovel Road) (Bracknell Forest BC)
Dorney (South Bucks DC)
Hare Hatch (Wokingham BC)
Richings Park (Slough BC)
Taplow (South Bucks DC)
Woodside (Woodside Road) (Bracknell Forest BC)
Table 6
Assessment criteria at a glance
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
Consideration
Comment
The degree to which the land
prevents the coalescence of
settlements, including
A parcel which is important to the separation of settlements, where
development would lead the merging of settlements or would significantly
reduce the perceived or actual distance between settlements, is assessed
as making a very strong contribution
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
27
Methodology
Table 6
Assessment criteria at a glance
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
consideration of ribbon and
sporadic development
A parcel which is important to the separation of settlements, where
development would reduce the perceived or actual distance between
settlements, is assessed as making a strong or moderate contribution to
this Green Belt purpose.
A parcel which does not contribute to the separation of settlements or where
development is likely to be possible without a rick of settlements merging,
is assessed as making lower or none/limited contribution to this Green Belt
purpose.
In making this assessment consideration has been had to the physical
distance between the settlements, the visual perception to which the land
contributes to the separation of settlements (including the visibility of the
land), and the character of the land and the level of openness (including the
presence of built form).
3. To assist safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
3.25 The third Green Belt purpose considers the impact on the countryside. What constitutes countryside is
not defined.
3.26 The note issued by the Planning Advisory Service suggests all land in the Green Belt contributes to this
purpose. They advise the most useful approach is to look at the difference between urban fringe (land under
the influence of the urban area) and open countryside, taking into account the type of edges and boundaries
that can be achieved.
3.27 On this basis the assessment considered the openness of the Green Belt and the extent to which land
has resisted encroachment from past development. Openness refers to the extent to which land can be
considered open from the absence of built development and urbanising influences rather than from a landscape
character perspective where openness might be defined through topography and the presence/absence of
woodland, hedgerows and built development.
1.
2.
A parcel which displays a strong or largely rural character makes a significant contribution to preventing
safeguarding the countryside by preventing encroachment.
A parcel which displays an urban character or urban fringe character makes a more comparatively lower
contribution to safeguarding the countryside.
3.28 In addition to the parcel's character, Green Belt policy states that when defining boundaries local planning
authorities should define these using physical features which are readily recognisable and likely to be
(24)
permanent.
A strong boundary makes a strong contribution to preventing encroachment compared to weaker
boundary. The approach to boundaries is set out under the first Green Belt purpose of presenting the unrestricted
sprawl of large built-up areas.
Table 7
Assessment criteria at a glance
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Consideration
Comment
The strength of the existing
countryside character, including
consideration of sporadic
A parcel which displays a strong rural character is assessed as making
a very strong contribution to this Green Belt purpose.
24
NPPF, paragraph 85.
3
28
3
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Methodology
Table 7
Assessment criteria at a glance
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
development and other urbanising
influences
A parcel which displays a largely rural character in spite of the influence
of some urbanising features is assessed as making a strong or moderate
contribution to this purpose.
A parcel which displays an urban or urban fringe character is assessed
as making a none / limited or lower contribution to this Green Belt
purpose.
In making the assessment consideration has been given to the strength
of character and urban influences (including the presence/ absence of
built development, the visual connection between the parcel and the
countryside beyond, and the type of uses found within and adjoining
the parcel).
The strength of the existing
boundary and that which could be
achieved should the boundary be
amended
A parcel which provides a clearly defined boundary is assessed as
making a strong contribution to this Green Belt purpose.
A parcel which provides a weak boundary is assessed as making a
limited contribution to this Green Belt purpose.
In making this assessment consideration has been given to the durability
or permanence of the feature defining the existing boundary and that
which might be achieved.
4. To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
3.29 The fourth Green Belt purpose seeks to protect the setting of historic settlements by retaining the
surrounding undeveloped land or the landscape context. Green Belt policy does not define what is meant by
towns or whether the smaller historic places should equally be considered.
3.30 As advised in the note issued by the Planning Advisory Service, this purpose is relevant to few places
in practice as in many instances more recent development is likely to have occurred between the historic core
area and the Green Belt.
3.31 Within the Royal Borough there are a number of historic places where land in the Green Belt makes a
strong contribution to their setting. This most notably includes the towns of Windsor and Eton.
3.32 The assessment of this purpose considered the setting of all historic settlements as defined by
conservation area designation, noting whether the setting relates to settlements which are excluded from the
Green Belt (Excluded Settlements) or settlements which are washed over by the Green Belt (Green Belt
Settlements). Whether a conservation area represents a historic settlement is informed by whether it relates
to the core area. Conservation areas relating to a non-core area are not considered relevant to the assessment.
The extent to which land contributes to setting has been assessed with regard to both the immediate context
and longer distance views.
3.33 A list of historic places within Royal Borough and those referenced in surrounding authorities is provided
in Table 8 and Table 9. Places are only listed where they are within 2km of a defined parcel.
3.34 For the avoidance of doubt, the assessment of this purpose has not considered the setting of individual
listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and historic parks and gardens. The impact of development on
these features is considered under detailed constraints, alongside impacts on conservation areas which do not
relate to the core area of a settlement.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
29
Methodology
Table 8
Historic Places: Excluded Settlements
RBWM
Neighbouring Local Authorities
Cookham
Datchet
Eton
Windsor
Englefield Green (Runnymede BC)
Marlow (Wycombe DC)
Table 9
Historic Places: Green Belt Settlements
RBWM
Neighbouring Local Authorities
Bray
Burchetts Green
Cookham Dean
Holyport
Littlewick Green
Waltham St Lawrence
White Waltham
Dorney (South Bucks DC)
Little Marlow (Wycombe DC)
Taplow (South Bucks DC)
Table 10
Assessment criteria at a glance
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Consideration
Comment
The degree to which land
contributes to the setting of a
historic place
A parcel which has a clearly demonstrable connection to the historic
settlement or its setting is assessed as making a strong contribution to
this Green Belt purpose.
A parcel which has no demonstrable connection to a historic settlement
or its setting is assessed as making no contribution to this Green Belt
purpose.
In making the assessment consideration has been given to views from
and to the settlement (including whether they are unspoilt or
unobstructed), the character of the land and the level of openness.
5. To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other
urban land
3.35 The fifth Green Belt purpose is to assist in urban regeneration by restricting the availability of land in
other areas. The note issued by the Planning Advisory Service suggests that land in the Green Belt will achieve
this purpose to the same extent. Any assessment will not therefore enable a distinction between different land
parcels. On this basis no assessment has been made of parcels with regard to this purpose.
3.36 Notwithstanding the above, for reason of transparency the study highlights parcels which are relevant
to regeneration initiatives supported in existing development plan policy, namely those at Maidenhead town
centre and Ascot High Street. The relevance of these initiatives to whether land is suitable for development is
considered in the Edge of Settlement Analysis: Part 2 Constraints, Opportunities and Delivery Assessment.
3
30
4
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS
Stage 3: Presenting the assessment and recommendations
4.1 Sixty years after the original designation of the Metropolitan Green Belt, it continues to perform an important
role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, preventing neighbouring settlements from
merging, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and preserving the setting and special character of
historic places. It also assists urban regeneration.
4.2 Green Belt covers the majority of land within the Royal Borough (83%) and thus has a significant influence
on the areas character and development potential. Although there are a number of smaller settlements within
(25)
the Green Belt
the majority of land exhibits openness and a low level of built form which are considered key
characteristics of Green Belt.
4.3 This study specifically considers how land currently designated Green Belt performs against the purposes
of Green Belt as defined in the Framework. The focus on the performance of land on the edge of settlements
which are themselves excluded from the Green Belt. In doing this the study builds upon the previous Green
Belt Purpose Analysis (November 2013) which comprehensively considered all land designated Green Belt
within the Royal Borough. The focus on the edge of settlements has enabled this study to be undertaken at a
finer grain than studies undertaken. A finer scale approach better reveals the variation in how land performs
against the purposes of the Green Belt and as such is more likely to reveal opportunities that might reasonably
be considered further compared to assessments undertaken at a strategic scale.
4.4 The study found that all land on the edge of settlements performs a role towards achieving at least one
(26)
of the four purposes of the Green Belt which were assessed.
The level of performance of individual parcels
to each of the specific purposes of the Green Belt varied, as did the number of purposes an individual parcel
might contribute towards.
4.5 Table 11 found at the end of this Chapter presents a summary of the assessments against the purposes
of Green Belt for each parcel. Colour coding has been used as a visual aid:
Red = performances assessed as being very strong or strong
Amber = performances assessed as being moderate
No shading = performance assessed as none / limited or lower
Green = indicates where a parcel is identified as relevant to regeneration initiatives
4.6 The parcels assessed as performing least well against the purposes of Green Belt are set out below. It
is recommended that these fifteen parcels proceed to further consider indicators of their suitability under the
Edge of Settlement Analysis: Part 2 Constraints, Opportunities and Delivery Assessment.
A3 - Heatherwood Hospital, London Road, Ascot
A20 - Sacred Heart Church, London Road, Sunningdale
C12 - Land east of Strande Park Caravan Park, Cookham Rise
D3 - Land north of Eton Road, adjacent to St. Augustine's Church, Datchet
D4 - Land between Slough Road and the M4, south east of allotments, Datchet
D7 - Land south of Austin Way, Langley
H2 - Land west of Crown Meadow, Brands Hill
M5 - Land east of Whitebrook Park, Lower Cookham Road, north of Islet Park Drive, Maidenhead
M7 - Maidenhead Sailing Club, Summerleaze Road, Maidenhead
M8 - Summerleaze office and workshop, Summerleaze Road, Maidenhead
M12 - Land north of Breadcroft Lane and south of the railway line, Maidenhead
M20 - Land south of Manor Lane including Shoppenhangers Manor and Manor House, Maidenhead
M23 - Maidenhead Golf Course, Shoppenhangers Road, Maidenhead
M25 - Land south of Stafferton Way, Maidenhead
WR5 - Land including Tithe Farm, Tithe Lane, Wraysbury
25
26
See Table 5.
The fifth Green Belt purpose of assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land as not
assessed. For further information see paragraphs 3.33 to 3.34.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
31
Conclusions
4.7 Whilst being assessed as performing an important role, it is recommended that those land parcels which
provide opportunities to support existing regeneration initiatives or community initiatives in adopted development
plan policy also proceed for further consideration. This will allow the opportunities to be fully explored.
(27)
Accordingly the following three additional parcels are also recommended to proceed.
A6 - Land including Ascot Railway Station car park, Station Hill, Ascot
A7 - Land south of Hermitage Parade, High Street, Ascot
A8 - Land west of St George's Lane, including Shorts Recycling, Ascot
4.8 Depending on the assessment of housing and employment need and land supply, in line with a sustainable
development approach it may be appropriate to consider land which make a moderate performance to one or
more purposes of Green Belt. Development within these parcel would have a comparatively greater impact
on the purposes of Green Belt and thereby its integrity. This is particularly true for those parcels which made
a moderate contribution to more than one purpose. The following fifteen parcels were assessed as making a
moderate performance to one or more purposes of Green Belt.
Moderate performance for one purpose of the Green Belt:
E4 - Land south of Eton Wick Road, comprising Eton College sports ground, Eton
M2 - Land known as Spencer's Farm, north of Lutman Lane, Maidenhead
M16 - Land east of Woodlands Park Avenue and north of Woodlands Business Park, Maidenhead
M24 - Braywick Park extending to Hibbert Road, Maidenhead
M35 - Land between Windsor Road and Bray Lake, Maidenhead
M38 - Land west of Monkey Island Lane, including water treatment works, Maidenhead
WR1 - Land south of The Drive, Wraysbury
Moderate performance for two purposes of the Green Belt:
D5 - Land north and east of Churchmede Secondary School, Priory Road, Datchet
D6 - Land enclosed by London Road, the M4 and Riding Court Road, Datchet
M21 - Land enclosed by Kimbers Lane, Harvest Hill Road, A308(M) and A404(M)
M22 - Triangle enclosed by M4, A308(M) and Ascot Road
WR2 - Land south of Old Ferry Drive, Wraysbury
Moderate performance for three purposes of the Green Belt:
C9 - Land between Southwood Road and Lower Mount Farm, Long Lane, Cookham Rise
W1 - Land north of A308, south of Maidenhead Road, Windsor
W2 - Land south of A308, north of Dedworth Road, Windsor
4.9 All remaining parcels have been assessed as very strongly or strongly contributing to the purposes of
the Green Belt. It is vital that these areas and their functions are protected and maintained.
4.10 It is important to note that the recommendations reached in this study do not automatically result in the
release of this land from the Green Belt. All parcels have been assessed as performing a role towards the
purposes of the Green Belt. Performing less well is not in itself a reason to release land from the Green Belt.
In accordance with the Framework the boundary of the Green Belt should only be amended in exceptional
circumstances. This must rightly have regard to the wider suitability of land for development and the future
development strategy for the Royal Borough.
27
Parcel M23 and M25 would also be recommended to proceed under this basis but is already recommended to proceed as a lower
performing parcel.
4
32
4
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Conclusions
Table 11 Assessment Summary
Parcel
Sprawl
Merging
Encroachment
Historic
Regeneration
A1
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
A2
Very strong
Very strong
Strong
None / limited
-
A3
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
None / limited
-
A4
Very strong
Strong
Lower
None / limited
-
A5
Very strong
Very strong
Lower
None / limited
-
A6
Strong
Strong
None / limited
None / limited
Yes
A7
Moderate
Strong
Lower
None / limited
Yes
A8
Moderate
Strong
Lower
None / limited
Yes
A9
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
A10
Very strong
Very strong
Lower
None / limited
-
A11
Very strong
Moderate
Strong
None / limited
-
A12
Very strong
Lower
Moderate
None / limited
-
A13
Very strong
Lower
Strong
None / limited
-
A14
Very strong
Very strong
Lower
None / limited
-
A16
Very strong
Strong
Moderate
None / limited
-
A17
Very strong
Strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
A18
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
Strong
-
A19
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
Moderate
-
A20
Lower
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
-
A21
Very strong
Strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
C1
Moderate
Strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
C2
Very strong
Strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
C3
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
-
C4
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
-
C7
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
-
C9
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
None / limited
-
C10
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
C11
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
C12
Lower
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
-
C13
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
-
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
33
Conclusions
Table 11 Assessment Summary
Parcel
Sprawl
Merging
Encroachment
Historic
Regeneration
C14
Strong
Very strong
Strong
None / limited
-
C15
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
Strong
-
D1
Very strong
Very strong
Lower
None / limited
-
D2
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
D3
Lower
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
-
D4
None / limited
Lower
Lower
None / limited
-
D5
Moderate
Lower
Moderate
Lower
-
D6
Moderate
Lower
Moderate
None / limited
-
D7
Lower
Lower
Lower
None / limited
-
E1
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Lower
-
E2
Strong
Lower
Strong
Strong
-
E3
Very strong
Very strong
Lower
Lower
-
E4
Lower
Lower
Lower
Moderate
-
H1
Very strong
Very strong
Strong
None / limited
-
H2
Lower
Lower
Lower
None / limited
-
M1
Strong
Very strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
M2
Lower
Lower
Moderate
None / limited
-
M3
Very strong
Strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
M4
Very strong
Strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
M5
Lower
Lower
Lower
None / limited
-
M6
Moderate
None / limited
Strong
None / limited
-
M7
Lower
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
-
M8
Lower
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
-
M9
Strong
None / limited
Strong
None / limited
-
M10
Strong
Moderate
Very strong
None / limited
-
M11
Very strong
Strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
M12
None / limited
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
-
M13
Very strong
Very strong
Lower
Lower
-
M14
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
Lower
-
M15
Very strong
None / limited
Moderate
None / limited
-
4
34
4
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Conclusions
Table 11 Assessment Summary
Parcel
Sprawl
Merging
Encroachment
Historic
Regeneration
M16
Lower
None / limited
Moderate
None / limited
-
M17
Strong
None / limited
Strong
None / limited
-
M18
Very strong
None / limited
Very strong
None / limited
-
M19
Very strong
Lower
Strong
None / limited
-
M20
Lower
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
-
M21
Moderate
Lower
Moderate
None / limited
-
M22
Moderate
Lower
Moderate
None / limited
-
M23
None / limited
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
Yes
M24
Lower
Moderate
Lower
None / limited
-
M25
Lower
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
Yes
M28
Very strong
Very strong
Strong
Strong
-
M29
Very strong
Very strong
Strong
Very strong
-
M30
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
-
M31
Very strong
Strong
Moderate
Moderate
-
M34
Very strong
Very strong
Strong
Very strong
-
M35
None / limited
None / limited
Moderate
None / limited
-
M36
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
Lower
-
M38
Moderate
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
-
M39
Very strong
Very strong
Very strong
None / limited
-
OW1
Very strong
Strong
Very strong
Very strong
-
OW2
Strong
None / limited
Very strong
Very strong
-
OW4
Strong
Moderate
Very strong
Very strong
-
OW5
Strong
None / limited
Very strong
Strong
-
OW6
Strong
None / limited
Very strong
Strong
-
OW7
Very strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
-
W1
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
None / limited
-
W2
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
None / limited
-
W3
Strong
Moderate
Strong
None / limited
-
W4
Very strong
None / limited
Very strong
Lower
-
W5
Very strong
None / limited
Lower
Lower
-
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
35
Conclusions
Table 11 Assessment Summary
Parcel
Sprawl
Merging
Encroachment
Historic
Regeneration
WR1
Moderate
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
-
WR2
Moderate
None / limited
Moderate
None / limited
-
WR3
Strong
None / limited
Strong
None / limited
-
WR4
Strong
None / limited
Strong
None / limited
-
WR5
Lower
None / limited
Lower
None / limited
-
4
36
4
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Conclusions
Map 3 Parcels assessed as performing last well against the purpose of Green Belt and parcels which provided an
opportunity to support regeneration initiatives.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
37
Conclusions
Map 4 Parcels assessed as making a moderate performance to one or more purposes of Green Belt.
4
- Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
38
Glossary
A
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
39
Glossary
GLOSSARY
Term
Definition
Durable boundary
A readily recognisable boundary which is likely to be permanent. Durable
boundary features include built features such as roads, railway lines and
property enclosures, and landform features such as rivers and streams,
woodland.
Enclosed
Almost entirely contained or surrounded by built form.
Excluded Settlement
A settlement which is within the general extent of the Green Belt but that
has been excluded from it, that is the Green Belt designation does apply to
the land within the settlement.
Green Belt Settlement
A settlement which is washed over by the Green Belt designation, that is
the Green Belt designation applies to land within the settlement.
Large built-up areas
Area defined to correspond to all settlements within the Royal Borough and
adjoining local authorities which are excluded from the Green Belt.
Parcel
An area of land. Defined by using physical features.
Purposes of Green Belt
Defined in paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
To assist urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land.
Metropolitan Green Belt
The name given to the Green Belt surrounding London. The Royal Borough
is wholly located within the extent of the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Openness
The extent to which land might be considered open from the absence of
built form and urbanising influences rather than open from a landscape
perspective.
Rural
Land which is characterised by rural land uses and an absence of built form.
Rural land uses include agricultural land, forestry, woodland, shrub land /
scrub land and open fields.
Settlement Beyond the Green
Belt
A settlement which is located beyond the extent of the Green Belt.
Sprawl
The outward spread of a large in an untidy or irregular way.
Urban area
Land which is characterised by urban land uses, including housing and
business properties.
A
40
A
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Glossary
Term
Definition
Urban Fringe
The transitional area between the urban area and the countryside. The
character of the land is under significant influence of the urban area.
- Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
41
Maps of constraints
B
42
B
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Maps of constraints
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
43
Maps of constraints
B
44
B
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Maps of constraints
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
45
Maps of constraints
B
- Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
46
Consultation statement
C
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
47
Consultation statement
CONSULTATION STATEMENT
Respondent (agent):
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Berkeley Strategic Land (Carter Jonas)
Berkeley Strategic Land (Savills)
Bloor Homes (Woolf Bond Planning)
Bracknell Forest Borough Council
Landhold Capital (Boyer Planning)
Runnymede Borough Council
Slough Borough Council
South Bucks District Council
Spelthorne Borough Council
Surrey County Council
The Crown Estate (CRBE)
The Emerson Group (Nexus Planning)
The Hughes Family (Boyer Planning)
Webbpaton (McLoughlin Planning)
Wokingham Borough Council
Wycombe District Council
Please note that references by respondents to pages, paragraph numbers and tables relate to the consultation
draft methodology and may not correspond to those in this report. References within the Council Response
column are correct to this report.
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
General
No comments.
F; J
Comment noted.
Support the need to review the Green Belt.
N; C; H
Comment noted.
Notes that the study is not a
comprehensive review of the Green Belt
such as that being undertaken in
Buckinghamshire.
P
A comprehensive strategic level Green Belt
Purpose Analysis was undertaken and published
in November 2013. The current study builds
upon this previous study providing an in-depth
assessment of how land performs against the
purposes of including land in the Green Belt on
the edge of settlements. Such locations are
considered to be reasonable and comparatively
sustainable compared to other Green Belt
options.
It is noted that this assessment has been
undertaken at a much finer scale than that
commissioned by the Buckinghamshire local
authorities.
It is further noted that the Buckinghamshire
authorities Housing and Economic Land
Availability Assessment (HELAA) Methodology
2015 excludes land for consideration of
suitability for development which is not adjoining
a settlement. Whilst the Buckinghamshire
C
48
C
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
authorities have assessed land designated
Green Belt which is not on a settlement edge,
their decision to exclude such land in principle
and not consider its suitability would lead to
broadly similar outcomes.
Terminology should be clearly defined (no
examples offered).
H
A glossary of terms has been added.
A glossary of terms should be added to
assist clarity.
P
A glossary of terms has been added.
Wish to understand how the study fits in
with the emerging Housing and Economic
Land Availability Assessment
Methodology.
O
A sub-section explaining the relationship to the
HELAA has been added to the Introduction
chapter. See paragraph 1.9 - 1.10.
Need to revisit the strategic Green Belt
Analysis 2013 in light of the need for
housing.
G
Disagree. The Green Belt Purpose Analysis
November 2013 considered how land performs
against the purpose of including land in the
Green Belt. How land performs against the
purpose of including land in the Green Belt is
independent from development requirements.
As submitted by the respondent in another
comment recorded under introduction, Green
Belt analysis is one of a number of technical
exercises and cannot be used on its own to
inform the suitability of land for development.
The methodology paper should be
amended to reflect the updated PAS
guidance “Planning on the Doorstep”
February 2015.
L
The report has been updated.
There is no mention of site visits being
carried out.
P
The report has been updated to clarify that site
visits have been undertaken to inform both the
identification of land parcels and in the
assessment of how land performs against the
purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
See paragraphs 3.6 and 3.10.
General approach
Broadly similar in approach to Green Belt
studies.
General support for the methodology /
process being undertaken.
F; I
Comment noted.
K; M; E
Comment noted.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
49
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
Consideration of the methodology followed
by other authorities is a pragmatic
approach.
D
Comment noted.
A bottom up study to see how land
performs in Green Belt is not necessarily
the best way to decide the most
sustainable locations for development.
G
Comment noted. As outlined in Chapter 1, the
scope of the study is to consider how land
performs against the purpose of including land
in the Green Belt.
As submitted by the respondent in another
comment recorded under introduction, Green
Belt analysis is one of a number of technical
exercises and cannot be used on its own to
inform the suitability of land for development.
The study does not therefore do what the
respondent suggests.
Agrees the assessment should assess the
varying degrees to which parcels of land
contribute to the purpose of including land
in the Green Belt.
C; D
By not assessing the whole of the Green
Belt the proposed approach confuses the
purpose of a Green Belt Assessment with
the consideration of the suitability of land
for development.
H
Comment noted.
A comprehensive strategic level Green Belt
Purpose Analysis was undertaken and published
in November 2013. The current study builds
upon this previous study providing an in-depth
assessment of how land performs against the
purposes of including land in the Green Belt on
the edge of settlements. Such locations are
considered to be reasonable and comparatively
sustainable compared to other Green Belt
options.
It is noted that this assessment has been
undertaken at a much finer scale than that
commissioned by the Buckinghamshire local
authorities.
It is further noted that the Buckinghamshire
authorities Housing and Economic Land
Availability Assessment (HELAA) Methodology
2015 excludes land for consideration of
suitability for development which is not adjoining
a settlement. Whilst the Buckinghamshire
authorities have assessed land designated
Green Belt which is not on a settlement edge,
their decision to exclude such land in principle
and not consider its suitability would lead to
broadly similar outcomes.
Any land that is considered not meet a
Green Belt purpose or which performs
weakly should be considered for further
assessment.
H
Agree. Paragraph 1.8 clearly states that land
parcels which perform least well against the
purpose of including land in the Green Belt will
proceed for further assessment.
C
50
C
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
Concerned that the study does not
recommend parcels that should be
released from the Green Belt.
N
Disagree. How land performs against the
purposes of including land in the Green Belt is
only one factor that should be considered when
assessing the suitability of land for
development. Recommending the release of
sites is beyond the scope of the study and could
not be robustly undertaken without regard to a
full range of factors.
It is unclear how RBWM has been working
with other local planning authorities across
the Housing Market Area in the
development of the methodology.
E
Comments from local authorities were invited
as part of the consultation process. This
included those considered to be within the
relevant functional geography for both housing
and employment. Representations were
received from seven local planning authorities.
See paragraphs 3.7 - 3.8.
It should be made clear that the EoS work
is one of a number of technical exercises
and cannot be used on its own to
determine whether land should be
released from the Green Belt.
G
Agree. Clarification has been provided in
paragraph 1.8.
The relationship between the Green Belt
Purpose Analysis 2013 and the Edge of
Settlement Part 1 study should be more
clearly explained.
E; H; M
Agree. Clarification has been provided in
paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6.
Paragraph 2.21 appears to acknowledge
that there were flaws in the previous 2013
Green Belt Purpose Analysis.
H
Incorrect. The paragraph is referring to the Edge
of Settlement Analysis January 2014 and not
the Green Belt Purpose Analysis November
2013.
H; O
Disagree. The phrase is considered appropriate
to the introduction chapter. The Conclusion
chapter will clearly set out those land parcels
considered to be performing least well and any
others that will proceed to consider further
indicators of their suitability for development.
Introduction
The term “least well” should be defined
(paragraph 1.4)
It is noted that the Buckinghamshire Green Belt
Assessment (August 2015) also uses the phrase
"performs least well" within the Introduction and
Methodology chapters. The use of the phrase
is therefore consistent with the respondent's
own work.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
51
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Comments that the relationship of the
study against the previous 2014 Edge of
Settlement work should be clearly set out,
e.g. if it is reassessment or an additional
assessment?
Respondent
E; M
Council Response
Agree. Clarification has been provided in
paragraph 1.4.
Policy context and best practice
The history of the Green Belt should
recognise that the spatial policy of needs
being met in central Berkshire no longer
exists.
C
Disagree. The sub-section relates to the history
of the Metropolitan Green Belt including its
designation and changes in extent. Reference
to a change in spatial policy is considered
misleading. The National Planning Policy
Framework indicates that development should
be restricted on land designated Green Belt.
Considers the reference to unmet need for
housing as a consideration of very special
circumstances within decision taking to be
irrelevant and unnecessary (methodology,
page 7).
K
Agree. Text deleted.
Suggest the approach taken by the
Oxfordshire authorities is reviewed within
the Policy Context and Best Practice
chapter.
A
Comment noted.
The Buckinghamshire Green Belt
Assessment was also commissioned by
Buckinghamshire County Council
(paragraph 2.18).
H
Corrected made.
Correct “strategic parcels” to “general
areas” (paragraph 2.18). Add the study is
comprehensive and considers all Green
Belt across the county.
H
Correction made.
The methodology paper should be
amended to reflect the updated PAS
guidance “Planning on the Doorstep”
February 2015.
L
Corrected made.
Flow diagram is difficult to read.
H
Agree. The resolution of the diagram has been
improved.
Openness of the Green Belt is the most
important characteristic but does not
specifically appear in the methodology.
G
Whilst the NPPF confirms in paragraph 79 that
the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to
prevent urban sprawl by keeping land
Methodology
C
52
C
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
permanently open and that the essential
characteristics of Green Belts are their openness
and their permanence, openness in itself if not
one of the five defined purposes of Green Belt.
Notwithstanding this, the openness of the land
is an important attribute and forms part of the
assessment process for each of the defined
purpose of including land in the Green Belt.
It is considered that appropriate regard has been
had to openness throughout the study
methodology and its application.
Comments that the approach would
reasonably vary depending on the size of
site. Clarification to address this point
should be provided.
E; M
Disagree. To ensure the robustness of the study
it is considered important that the assessment
of how land performs against the purposes of
including land in the Green Belt is consistently
applied to all land parcels regardless of their
individual size.
Parcels of land which form extensions to
settlements beyond RBWM should have
been identified in Stage 1.
G
Agree. The identification of parcels has
considered those on the edge of settlements
situated in adjoining local authorities. Two such
parcels are identified on the edge of the
respondents administrative area.
Agree that ancient woodland is a hard
constraint to development.
G
Comment noted.
Unclear why general woodland is a hard
constraint to development.
G
UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats
include broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland
and deciduous woodland. The felling of a
woodland to provide development is not
supported by national policy.
Agrees that land ownership by The Crown
Estate is not a constraint to development
and that such land should be assessed as
any other land ownership.
K
Comment noted.
Supports the identification of the parcel to
the west of Old Windsor but considers that
it should be refined to exclude the land
adjacent to the listed building.
N
Disagree. The boundaries of land parcels have
been aligned to physical features to create
logical areas. Amending boundaries to exclude
individual buildings is not appropriate and
unnecessary.
Stage 1 Identification of parcels
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
53
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
Paragraph 3.32 confirms that the impact of
development on individual listed buildings will
be considered under detailed constraints within
the Edge of Settlement Part 2: Constraints,
Opportunities and Delivery Assessment.
Support the general approach to defining
land parcels which strikes balance
between keeping the exercise manageable
and not identifying too larger parcels.
A
Comment noted.
Support the initial sieving exercise to
exclude from consideration areas where
national policy or legislation indicates
development would be unsuitable or where
the nature of the land indicates
development would not be feasible or
deliverable.
A; L
Comment noted.
Object to the initial sieving exercise to
exclude areas subject to hard constraints.
All land in the Green Belt should be
assessed. Constraints are an allocation
issue.
D ; H; P
The exclusion of land where national policy of
legislation indicates development would be
unsuitable in principle has been used to improve
the efficiency pf the project. Such an approach
does not undermine the robustness of the study.
It is noted that the Buckinghamshire authorities
Housing and Economic Land Availability
Assessment (HELAA) Methodology 2015
excludes land for consideration of suitability for
development where it is subject to national
environmental constraints such as flooding,
SSSI, SAC, SPA and SAM. In addition land
which is not adjoining a settlement is also
excluded. Whilst the Buckinghamshire
authorities have assessed land designated
Green Belt which is not on a settlement edge,
their decision is to exclude such land and not
consider its suitability would lead to broadly
similar outcomes.
The initial excluding land where national policy
of legislation indicates development would be
unsuitable in principle is considered to be
reasonable, proportionate and broadly
consistent with approach of nearby local
authorities.
Supports parcels not being excluded from
further consideration where hard
constraints apply to part of the site only.
A
Comment noted.
C
54
C
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
Comments that the methodology must
allow for disaggregation of the land parcels
as the appraisal process proceeds.
A
Comment noted.
Clarification is requires to as to the
meaning of “each parcel of land should
exhibit similar characteristics” and
“boundaries should be aligned to natural
physical features wherever possible”
(paragraph 34).
D
The draft methodology proposed the
identification of parcels utilising three criteria: 1)
that they should be of similar use or exhibit
similar characteristics; 2) boundaries should be
aligned to natural physical features wherever
possible and 3) boundaries should not split
woodland or other significant areas of trees or
existing settlements or other areas of housing.
The first was proposed to assist the assessment
process, that is ensure against numerous
sub-division to reflect different characteristics.
Notwithstanding the intention,the first criteria
proved unnecessary due to the fine scale of the
assessment. The criteria has therefore been
deleted from the confirmed methodology.
The second criteria has been amended to delete
the reference to natural. Referring simply to
physical features conforms to NPPF paragraph
85.
The identification of parcels which “exhibit
similar characteristics” is not reflected in
the NPPF. Concerned that this criterion
might exclude possible parcels from
assessment.
L
The draft methodology proposed the
identification of parcels utilising three criteria: 1)
that they should be of similar use or exhibit
similar characteristics; 2) boundaries should be
aligned to natural physical features wherever
possible and 3) boundaries should not split
woodland or other significant areas of trees or
existing settlements or other areas of housing.
The first was proposed to assist the assessment
process, that is ensure against numerous
sub-division to reflect different characteristics.
Notwithstanding the intention,the first criteria
proved unnecessary due to the fine scale of the
assessment. The criteria has therefore been
deleted from the confirmed methodology.
The definition of parcels should not solely
be a desk base exercise but include
refinement through site visits (paragraph
3.4).
H
The report has been updated to clarify that site
visits have been undertaken to inform both the
identification of land parcels and in the
assessment of how land performs against the
purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
See paragraphs 3.6 and 3.10.
Permanent man-made physical features
should also be used to define parcels
(paragraph 3.4). This is supported by the
NPPF, paragraph 85.
H
Agree. The criteria has been amended to delete
the reference to natural. Referring simply to
physical features conforms to NPPF paragraph
85.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
55
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
All sites promoted through the “call for
sites” exercise should be assessed as part
of the study.
Respondent
Council Response
L
Disagree. The scope of the study is to provide
in-depth assessment of how land performs
against the purposes of including land in the
Green Belt on the edge of settlements. In doing
this, the study builds upon a a comprehensive
strategic level Green Belt Purpose Analysis was
undertaken and published in November 2013.
Considering all land promoted through the "calll
for sites" exercise goes beyond the scope of this
study.
Object to parcels being excluded due to
being developed areas or education
facilities. Developed areas have already
caused harm to the Green Belt and may
not represent areas which are necessary
“to keep permanently open” (NPPF Para
85). Such areas might provide
regeneration opportunities.
L
Agree in part. The report has been amended
at Table 1 to clarify that land parcels comprising
education facilities which might form part of a
wider redevelopment should be considered.
Excluding land parcels comprising education
facilities with no intention to relocate or might
form part of a wider redevelopment is considered
reasonable and proportionate.
Unclear how the extent of parcels defined
having regard to the boundaries previously
promoted.
E; M
The defining of parcels has been refined to
ensure that they are bound by physical features
rather than having regard to impressive
boundaries or the extent of constraints.
Sprawl is an unhelpful concept.
G
The NPPF defined the checking of the
unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas as
one of the defined purposes of the Green Belt.
The assessment must therefore consider how
land performs against this specific purpose.
Support for the consideration of the degree
to which the land prevents the irregular
spread of the built up area.
A
Comment noted.
Support for the consideration of whether
a parcel (or part of a parcel) has a weak
connection to the wider Green Belt, and
also the strength of the existing boundary
and that which could be achieved, should
the boundary be amended.
A
Comment noted.
Stage 2 The five purpose of Green Belt
To restrict the unrestricted sprawl of
large built up areas
C
56
C
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Paragraph 3.9 should include a third
matter:
Respondent
Council Response
C
Disagree. The issue of boundaries is considered
to be adequately covered by the second bullet:
"The extent to which the parcel serves as a
barrier to development."
C
Disagree. The proposed amendment is
considered unnecessary with paragraph 3.18
already refers to the types of boundary and their
relevance on restricted sprawl.
“3 The extent to which there are defensible
boundaries precluding unrestricted sprawl.”
Paragraph 3.10 should be amended so
that the second factor reads:
“A parcel which is largely enclosed by the
existing settlement or other recognised
visual permanent and defendable features
so that a limited connection to the wider
Green Belt would make a lesser
contribution to preventing sprawl as
development could retain a compact form
of settlement,”
Table 3 should be amended so that the
second comment reads:
It is not considered that defensible boundary
would as a rule limit a parcels connection to the
wider countryside or Green Belt. An additional
paragraph 3.19 has been inserted relating to
how boundary features relate to the visual
impact of development.
C
“A parcel which has a weak connection to
wider Green Belt, for example by virtue of
being largely enclosed by the existing
settlement or other recognisable,
permanent and visual defendable
boundaries, is assessed as making a
limited contribution to this Green Belt
purpose.”
Disagree. The proposed amendment is
considered unnecessary with Table 3 already
referring to the types of boundary and their
relevance on restricted sprawl.
It is not considered that defensible boundary
would as a rule limit a parcels connection to the
wider countryside or Green Belt. An additional
paragraph 3.19 has been inserted relating to
how boundary features relate to the visual
impact of development.
Query as to how “large built up areas”
have been defined and the meaning of
“excluded.” Comment that there may be
other large settlements which are outside
of the Green Belt but where Green Belt
serves to check unrestricted sprawl.
D
Large built-up areas have been defined as
comprising all settlements which are excluded
from the Green Belt. Excluded is commonly
used terminology. A definition has been added
to the glossary.
Agree Bracknell is a large built up area.
D
Comment noted.
Query whether North Ascot is identified as
a large built up area.
D
North Ascot is considered to constitute a large
built-up area. See Table 2.
There does not appear to be any
justification for the 5km cut off for the
consideration of settlements.
H
5km is considered to be a reasonable distance
over which to consider the presence of
settlements. The figure was reached with regard
to the settlement pattern found within the local
sub-region.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
57
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Do not consider all areas listed in Table 2
to be large built up areas. The approach
should be based on a settlement hierarchy
in an adopted Local Plan.
Respondent
Council Response
H
Disagree. The definition of large built-up areas
comprising excluded settlements is considered
robust. These areas have been excluded from
the Green Belt on the grounds of their built
character.
The alternative approach of reference to a
settlement hierarchy to define large built-up
areas is noted. This approach is considered no
more robust. Settlement hierarchy are defined
with regard to a wide range of factors beyond
built form such as services and facilities. No
settlement hierarchy is defined within the Royal
Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local
Plan.
Question whether sprawl needs to be
spread out over a large area as suggested.
H
The definition of sprawl has been taken from the
Oxford English Dictionary and is considered to
be an reasonable definition.
Reference to roads is not consistent with
paragraph 3.4.
H
Comment noted. In response to another
comment paragraph 3.4 has been amended so
that it refers to all readily recognisable features.
The paragraphs are now consistent.
Key terms and criteria should be defined
(Table 3).
H
A glossary of terms has been added.
There is little justification for treating all
non-Green Belt settlements as “large
built-up areas.” The Buckinghamshire
approach considers top tier settlements
as defined in local plans.
P
Disagree. The definition of large built-up areas
comprising excluded settlements is considered
robust. These areas have been excluded from
the Green Belt on the grounds of their built
character.
The alternative approach of reference to a
settlement hierarchy to define large built-up
areas is noted. This approach is considered no
more robust. Settlement hierarchy are defined
with regard to a wide range of factors beyond
built form such as services and facilities. No
settlement hierarchy is defined within the Royal
Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local
Plan.
To prevent neighbouring towns from
merging into one another
Brands Hill (not Brans Hill), Colnbrook,
Poyle and the Myrke should be listed as
Excluded Settlements not “washed over”
settlements (Table 5).
G
Corrections made.
C
58
C
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
Support for the consideration of the degree
to which parcels of land prevent the
coalescence of settlements, the strength
of the existing separation between the
settlements and that which could be
achieved should development occur.
A
Comment noted.
It would be helpful if the approach to
assessing ‘qualitative measures’ could be
clarified in the methodology, with a view
to ensuring consistent consideration of the
issues.
A
Paragraph 3.22 refers to the aspects that will
be considered in the assessment, i.e. visibility,
the existence of built form and the level of
enclosure / containment.
It is unclear what definition of town has
been used. Chavey Down (Chavey Down
Road/Locks Ride), Chavey Down (Church
Road/North Road) may need to be
included.
D
The approach is outlined in paragraph 3.21.
The assessment considered the performance
of land in preventing the merging of all
settlements noting whether settlements were
excluded from the Green Belt, beyond the outer
edge of the Green Belt or Green Belt
settlements. The consideration of all settlements
is consistent with the study being undertaken
by the Buckinghamshire authorities and that
undertaken by Runnymede Borough Council.
Bracknell is not an excluded settlement
but is outside of the Green Belt.
D
Comment noted. Table 4 has been amended
to refer to excluded settlements and settlements
beyond the Green Belt.
There is no Winkfield within Bracknell
Forest (Table 7).
D
Agree. The list of settlements has been review
and corrected.
Bracknell Forest Borough contains a
number of Green Belt villages, namely:
D
Corrections made.
H
Comment noted. The comment relates to the
“Assessment criteria at a glance” Table.
Throughout the methodology, these tables
provide an accessible summary of the
approach. Fuller detail is provided in the
supporting text. The approach is outlined in
Brock Hill
Cheapside (crosses the Borough
boundary with RBWM) Cranbourne
(Lovel Road)
Maidens Green/Winkfield Street
North Street (Cranbourne)
Prince Consort Drive
Church Road Winkfield
Woodside (Woodside Road/Kiln
Lane) (crosses the Borough
boundary with RBWM)
Key terms such as “clearly demonstrable
role,” “no demonstrable role” and
“significantly” should be defined.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
59
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
paragraph 3.22, i.e. visibility, the existence of
built form and the level of enclosure /
containment. The level of performance will be
interpreted and justified through the individual
assessments.
It is noted that the Buckinghamshire Green Belt
Assessment (August 2015) also uses the
terminology such as “significantly reduce”
without specific definition. The use of such
phrases is therefore consistent with the
respondent’s own work.
The assessment should make a qualitative
assessment of the character of place to
reflect PAS guidance that two places which
are close to each other but have distinctive
characteristics may be joined but not loose
their individual identity.
L
Comment noted. The methodology supports a
qualitative assessment. See paragraph 2.22
and Table 6.
Considers reference to “unspoilt”
countryside (methodology, Table 7) to be
introducing a landscape quality test which
is not supported by the PAS guidance
which focuses on the difference between
urban fringe and open countryside.
N
Disagree. Whilst acknowledging that PAS
guidance refers simply to urban fringe and open
countryside, it is considered that consideration
of the strength of countryside character will
assist in distinguishing the performance of
individual land parcels to this purpose.
The methodology should also consider the
opportunities for a new, defensible
boundary to be created through extensive
tree planting or the creation of a new
access road which defines the boundary
of the newly developed land, in addition to
existing features.
A
Disagree. The National Planning Policy
Framework states that local planning authorities
should defined boundaries clearly, using
physical features that are readily
To assist in safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment
recognisable and likely to be permanent. It is
not considered appropriate at this stages to have
regard to features that do not exist.
Notwithstanding the above, should land be
proposed for release from the Green Belt
associated site development principles could
suitably address the nature of the boundary to
be created.
Agree that it is useful to look at the
difference between urban fringe and open
countryside, taking account of the type of
boundaries that can be achieved.
C
Comment noted.
C
60
C
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
C
Disagree. The proposed amendment is
considered unnecessary with the existing text
already referring to the character of the parcel
and its relationship with the wider countryside.
C
Disagree. The proposed amended is considered
unnecessary with the existing existing criterion
referring to both the existing boundary and that
which could be achieved should the boundary
be amended.
Reference to NPPF paragraph 85 on the
definition of boundaries should be made.
D
Agree. A new paragraph 3.28 has been inserted
which makes reference to NPPF, paragraph 85.
Noted that the assessment approach is
similar to the Buckinghamshire Green Belt
Assessment.
H
Comment noted.
Key terms should be defined (3.19 and
Table 7).
H
A glossary of terms has been added.
Definitions should be provided of the terms
“rural character” and “semi-urban
character.”
L
A glossary of terms has been added.
Welcome the clarification in paragraph
3.25 that this criterion does not refer to the
assessment of the site against the setting
of individual listed buildings, scheduled
ancient monuments and historic parks and
gardens.
A
Comment noted.
An explanation of how historic towns have
been identified should be included.
D
The approach is outlined in paragraph 3.30.
The assessment considered historic settlements
to be defined by the presence of a conservation
area designation relating to the settlements core
area.
There does not appear to be any
justification for the 2km cut off for the
consideration of historic places.
H
2km is considered to be a reasonable distance
over which to consider the presence of
settlements. The figure was reached with regard
to the pattern of historic settlements found within
the local sub-region.
Table 7 should include a third matter:
“A parcel which is related visually and
physically more to the adjoining settlement
than the wider, more open countryside
beyond is assessed as making a limited
contribution to this Green Belt purpose.”
Table 7 should be amended so that the
second comment reads:
“A parcel which provides a weak boundary
relative to a new outer boundary is
assessed as making a limited contribution
to this Green Belt purpose.”
To preserve the setting and special
qualities of historic towns
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
61
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
The assessment should only consider the
historic core of a place abuts the Green
Belt, i.e. the Green Belt relates directly to
the historic core of a settlement.
Comments that the proposed approach is
more wide ranging considering places
such as Dorney, Taplow and Little Marlow.
H; P
Disagree. The approach of only considering
land parcels which directly abut the boundary
of a conservation area is considered flawed.
Guidance by Historic England on setting within
their publication “The Setting of Historic Assets”
(Historic England, July 2015), advises that land
beyond the immediate context can make a
significant contribution to setting through its
character or use, and in views. By way of
illustration, Windsor Castle is surrounded by
parkland and other areas of open space. The
historic landscape is considered to be an
important aspect in the setting of Windsor.
Key terms should be defined (Table 10).
H
Comment noted. The comment relates to the
“Assessment criteria at a glance” Table.
Throughout the methodology, these tables
provide an accessible summary of the
approach. Fuller detail is provided in the
supporting text. The approach is outlined in
paragraph 3.30. The level of performance will
be interpreted and justified through the individual
assessments.
To assist urban regeneration by
encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land
Agree that it is not necessary to assess
the 5th purpose of including land in the
Green Belt (to assist with urban
regeneration).
A; D; G
Comment noted.
Support the reference to Ascot High Street
and its role in urban regeneration.
C
Comment noted.
Sites on the edge of Maidenhead may also
assist the regeneration of Maidenhead
town centre.
C
Comment noted.
Do not agree that each of the 5 purposes
of including land in the Green Belt is of
equal ranking.
G
Comment noted. The National Planning Policy
Framework in defining the purposes of Green
Belt does not rank their importance or confirm
their equality.
It is not clear how the performance of sites
can be assessed until the need for
development is known.
G
The assessment of how land performs against
the purpose of Green Belt is independent from
development requirements.
Stage 3 Presenting the assessment
C
62
C
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
As submitted by the respondent in another
comment recorded under introduction, Green
Belt analysis is one of a number of technical
exercises and cannot be used on its own to
inform the suitability of land for development.
Comments that only land which is
considered to make a very strong
contribution to the purposes of the Green
Belt should be excluded from further
consideration.
A
Comment noted.
The absence of scoring performance will
result in the assessment being heavily
reliant on judgement with the
consequential risk that assessments will
not be consistent.
H
Disagree. The performance of land parcels to
each purposes of Green Belt will be categorised
into five categories ranging from none/limited
contribution to a very strong contribution. This
categorisation is effectively scoring the
performance. The use of a numeric system is
not considered suitable as it can mislead
interested parties into thinking that adding how
land performs against the Green Belt purposes
together is a suitable way to interpret results.
The use of descriptive categories is considered
more robust.
It is noted that the Buckinghamshire Green Belt
Review methodology (August 2015) details
scores both numerically and descriptively, e.g.
1 = weak or very weak, 2 = relatively weak, 3 =
moderate, 4 = relatively strong, and 5 = strong
or very strong.
A finer grain approach than “strong” or
“limited” should be made based on clearly
defined terms.
H
The approach outlined in paragraph 3.10
provides five assessment categories.
There is no clear link between the result
categories and the assessment criteria.
H
Disagree. The methodology sets out the criteria
that will be used in the assessment.
Notwithstanding this, additional detail has been
inserted into the criteria to improve the
transparency of the assessment process.
A scoring system should be used to assist
clarity.
P
The performance of land parcels to each
purposes of Green Belt will be categorised into
five categories ranging from none/limited
contribution to a very strong contribution. This
categorisation is effectively scoring the
performance. The use of a numeric system is
not considered suitable as it can mislead
interested parties into thinking that adding how
land performs against the Green Belt purposes
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
63
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Respondent
Council Response
together is a suitable way to interpret results.
The use of descriptive categories is considered
more robust.
It is noted that the Buckinghamshire Green Belt
Review methodology (August 2015) details
scores both numerically and descriptively, e.g.
1 = weak or very weak, 2 = relatively weak, 3 =
moderate, 4 = relatively strong, and 5 = strong
or very strong.
Unclear how each parcel will be
categorised in the absence of a numerical
scoring system.
E; M
The performance of land parcels to each
purposes of Green Belt will be categorised into
five categories ranging from none/limited
contribution to a very strong contribution. This
categorisation is effectively scoring the
performance. The use of a numeric system is
not considered suitable as it can mislead
interested parties into thinking that adding how
land performs against the Green Belt purposes
together is a suitable way to interpret results.
The use of descriptive categories is considered
more robust.
L
Comment noted. Paragraph 3.26 clarifies that
parcels which display a strong or largely rural
character will be assessed as making a
significant contribution. Correspondingly,
parcels displaying an urban or urban fringe
character will be assessed as making a
comparatively lower contribution.
Part 1 page 18 Table 2 – delete
“Standwell” insert “Stanwell” and note that
all references in this, and other tables, to
“Spelthorne DC” should read “Spelthorne
BC”
I
Correction made.
Paragraph 2.18, the Buckinghamshire
Green Belt Assessment. Add “each” to
“assess the contribution of each parcel to
each Green Belt purpose.”
H
Correction made.
The pro-forma should be amended as
follows:
Under purpose (3) ‘To assist safeguarding
the countryside from encroachment’ – The
use of the term “strength of the existing
countryside character” is unclear. It is
recommended that it clear made clear that
land parcels which display an ‘unspoilt
rural’ character will be assessed as making
a ‘strong’ contribution, and, those which
display an ‘urban’ or ‘semi-urban’ character
will be assessed as making a ‘limited’
contribution.
Typing errors
C
64
C
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Consultation statement
Summary of comment
Table 3 and Table 7. Misspelling of
contribution with construction.
Respondent
H
Council Response
Correction made.
- Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
65
Parcel Assessments
D
66
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Ascot group
CONTEXT MAP
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
67
Parcel Assessments
A1 - Land north east of Winkfield Road, North Ascot
Description
Parcel A1 is situated to the north of the excluded settlement of North Ascot and is bound by Windsor Road,
Winkfield Road, Hodge Lane and the boundary of properties on Kiln Lane and Fydlers Close. The parcel
large;y comprises open land but contains a number of farm complexes and a small number of residential
properties.
D
68
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread of
the built-up area
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing the unrestricted
sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing
boundary and that which could be
achieved should the boundary be
amended
The parcel contributes to the separation of the built up area of North Ascot
and developed areas to the north including the Green Belt settlements
of Woodside (Woodside Road) and Cranbourne (Lovel Road).
Development would create a stronger linkage increasing the impression
of sprawl.
The parcel is well related to the built-up area. Notwithstanding this the
land is not enclosed by the built-up area nor does any surrounding feature
provide a sense of visual containment.
The parcel displays a strong connection to the wider countryside and
Green Belt, and is highly visible from beyond the parcel.
The parcel is bound by a mix of features some of which lack durability
such as private roads. Private roads are considered to be of a moderate
level of durability. The existing boundary of the Green Belt is durable,
consisting of well defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Very strong
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land prevents
the coalescence of settlements,
including consideration of ribbon
development and existing sporadic
development
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing settlements
from merging.
The parcel forms part of a narrow gap between the excluded
settlements of North Ascot and the Green Belt settlements of Woodside
(Wooodside Road) and Cranbourne (Lovel Road). The gap is
approximately 0.7km and 0.5km. The gap includes sporadic
development.
The parcel itself is largely open in character albeit with some built form
including residential properties and stabling. It is highly visible from
Winkfield Road.
Development would significantly reduce the actual and perceived
distance between the settlements.
Conclusion
Very strong
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
69
Parcel Assessments
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of
sporadic development and other
urbanising influences
The strength of the existing boundary and
that which can be achieved should the
boundary be amended
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
The parcel displays a strong countryside character. The land is
largely in agricultural / pasture use.
The land is highly visible from beyond the parcel, providing a
strong connection to the wider countryside an Green Belt and
increasing the sense of rurality.
The parcel is bound by a mix of features some of which lack
durability such as private roads. Private roads are considered to
be of a moderate level of durability. The existing boundary of the
Green Belt is durable, consisting of well defined and regular
property boundaries.
Conclusion
Very strong
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land
contributes to the setting of a
historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified historic
settlement. Whilst the landscape retains some characteristics of the
nearby Windsor Great Park, for example mature trees, the degree of
contribution are on balance not considered relevant to the assessment
of this Green Belt purpose.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative supported in
adopted development plan policy
The parcel is not in proximity to a regeneration project
supported in existing development plan policy.
D
70
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
71
Parcel Assessments
A2 - Ascot Racecourse, High Street, Ascot
Description
Parcel A2 is located to the north of Ascot and to the south east of North Ascot. It is bound by the High Street,
Windsor Road and Winkfield Road. The parcel comprises Ascot Racecourse. The grandstands and other
built forms concentrated to the southern section with the remaining majority of the land being open.
D
72
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread of the
built-up area
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing the
unrestricted sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing
boundary and that which could be
achieved should the boundary be
amended
The parcel contributes to the separation of the built-up areas of Ascot
and North Ascot. Development would act to reduce the separation
increasing the impression of sprawl.
The parcel is well connected to the built-up areas. Notwithstanding, the
land is not enclosed by them nor does any surrounding feature provide
a sense of visual containment.
The parcel displays a strong connection to the wider countryside and
Green Belt, and is highly visible from beyond the parcel, assisted by the
flat topography and open landscape.
The boundaries of the parcel are durable consisting predominantly of
public roads and well defined property boundaries. The existing
boundary of the Green Belt is durable, consisting of roads and well
defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Very strong
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land prevents
the coalescence of settlements,
including consideration of ribbon
development and existing sporadic
development
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing settlements
from merging.
The parcel forms part of a gap between the two excluded settlements
of Ascot and North Ascot. The gap is approximately 0.1km at its
narrowest point extending to 1.5km at its most distant. The gap
contains built development to the southern section associated with the
racecourse use with the remainder of the land being open in character.
Views into and out of the parcel are available from Windsor Road and
Winkfield Road.
Further development would significantly reduce the physical and
perceived separation of the settlements.
Conclusion
Very strong
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of
sporadic development and other
urbanising influences
The parcel makes a strong contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
The parcel is characterised by its use as a racecourse. Whilst the
racecourse may not be thought as a rural use, such facilities can be
expected in a countryside setting. The grandstands and other built
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
73
Parcel Assessments
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
The strength of the existing boundary
and that which can be achieved should
the boundary be amended
form is concentrated to the south of the parcel. Beyond these areas
the racecourse comprises of substantial open areas, including
scrubland.
The land is highly visible from beyond the parcel providing a strong
connection to the wider countryside and Green Belt.
The boundaries of the parcel are durable consisting predominantly
of public roads and well defined property boundaries. The existing
boundary of the Green Belt is durable, consisting of roads and well
defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Strong
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land
contributes to the setting of a
historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified historic
settlement. Whilst the landscape retains some characteristics of the
nearby Windsor Great Park, for example mature trees, the degree of
contribution are on balance not considered relevant to the assessment
of this Green Belt purpose.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative supported in
adopted development plan policy
The parcel is not in proximity to a regeneration project
supported in existing development plan policy.
D
74
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
75
Parcel Assessments
A3 - Heatherwood Hospital, London Road, Ascot
Description
Parcel A3 is situated to the west of the excluded settlement of Ascot and to the south of the excluded settlement
of North Ascot. It is bound by London Road. Kings Ride and woodland edge. The parcel comprises a hospital
campus across which there is extensive development.
D
76
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land prevents the
irregular spread of the built-up area
The parcel does not contribute to preventing the unrestricted
sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing boundary and
that which could be achieved should the
boundary be amended
Conclusion
The parcel is not contained by the built-up areas and forms a
poorly related distinct protrusion. Notwithstanding this, the
parcel contains significant built form across the full extent of
the land. Redevelopment would be unlikely to increase the
extent of development to a degree considered relevant to this
assessment of this purpose.
None / limited
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land prevents the
coalescence of settlements, including
consideration of ribbon development and
existing sporadic development
The parcel makes a lower contribution to preventing settlements
from merging.
Conclusion
Lower
The parcel is located between the excluded settlements of Ascot
and North Ascot, and Ascot and South Ascot but contains
significant levels of development across its full extent. Due to
the developed nature of the land, the parcel makes only a low
contribution to the separation of settlements in spite of its location.
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of sporadic
development and other urbanising influences
The parcel does not contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
The strength of the existing boundary and that
which can be achieved should the boundary
be amended
The parcel displays an urban character, comprising of
hospital facilities with associated residential accommodation.
Significant built form occurs across the full extent of the land.
The boundaries of the parcel are durable comprising public
roads an woodland edge. The existing boundary of the
Green Belt is durable, consisting of roads.
Conclusion
None / limited
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
77
Parcel Assessments
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
The degree to which land contributes to
the setting of a historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified
historic settlement. The parcel does not retain characteristics of
the nearby Windsor Great Park.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative supported in
adopted development plan policy
The parcel is not in proximity to a regeneration project
supported in existing development plan policy.
D
78
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
79
Parcel Assessments
A4 - Land south of Police station, including stables, High Street, Ascot
Description
Parcel A4 is situated to the south west of the excluded settlement of Ascot and is bound by the High Street,
Heatherwood Hospital and woodland edge / tree belts. The parcel largely comprises open land, however
stabling and associated accommodation is situated within the southern area.
D
80
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread of
the built-up area
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing the unrestricted
sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing
boundary and that which could
be achieved should the
boundary be amended
The parcel contributes to the separation of the built-up areas of scot and
South Ascot. Development would act to reduce the separation increasing
the impression of sprawl.
The parcel is poorly related to the built-up area, joining the excluded
settlement of Ascot in proximity to the race course rather then the
commercial centre or residential areas. Whilst not contained by the built-up
area, mature woodland and a mature tree belt to the south and south west
boundaries provides some sense of visual containment and act to reduce
the relationship with the wider countryside.
The boundaries of the parcel are durable comprising woodland edge and
a tree belt. The latter is considered to be of moderate strength. The existing
boundary of the Green Belt is durable, consisting of public roads and well
defined property boundaries.
On balance, the parcel makes a very strong contribution. Whilst the
woodland and tree belt act to restrict views, the land is makes an important
contribution to the separation of settlements which would increase the
impression of sprawl.
Conclusion
Very strong
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land
prevents the coalescence of
settlements, including
consideration of ribbon
development and existing
sporadic development
The parcel makes a strong contribution to preventing settlements from
merging.
The parcel forms part of a gap between the two excluded settlements of
Ascot and South Ascot, extending almost the full distance between the
settlements. The gap is approximately 0.45km and contains only limited
built development.
The parcel self is largely open. The police station buildings front the High
Street while stabling associated with Ascot Racecourse is found to the
southern of the parcel. Mature parkland trees are found across the parcel.
A small woodland is found to the southern boundary.
Notwithstanding that a large part of the parcel is not visible from the High
Street, should development occur within the parcel, built form would
effectively straddle the gap, significantly reducing the actual and perceived
distance between the settlements.
Conclusion
Strong
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
81
Parcel Assessments
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of
sporadic development and other
urbanising influences
The parcel makes a lower contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
The strength of the existing boundary
and that which can be achieved should
the boundary be amended
The area is characteristic of a transition between an urban and
parkland environment, with the open area incorporating a strong
framework of mature parkland trees. The parcel is highly visible
from the High Street which forms the northern boundary. The
parcel does not have a visual relationship to the wider countryside.
On balance the parcel displays an overall urban fringe character.
On balance, the parcel makes a very strong contribution. Whilst
the woodland and tree belt act to restrict views, the land is makes
an important contribution to the separation of settlements which
would increase the impression of sprawl.
Conclusion
Lower
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land
contributes to the setting of a
historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified historic
settlement. Whilst the landscape retains some characteristics of the
nearby Windsor Great Park, for example parkland trees, the degree of
contribution are on balance not considered relevant to the assessment
of this Green Belt purpose.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative supported in
adopted development plan policy
The parcel is not in proximity to a regeneration project
supported in existing development plan policy.
D
82
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
83
Parcel Assessments
A5 - Land south of High Street, west of Station Hill, Ascot
Description
Parcel A5 is situated to the south of the excluded settlement of Ascot and is bound by the High Street, Station
Hill and a tree belt. The parcel comprises open land.
D
84
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread of the
built-up area
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing the
unrestricted sprawl of a built-up area.
The parcel contributes to the separation of the built-up areas of Ascot
and South Ascot. Development would act to reduce the separation
increasing the impression of sprawl.
The strength of the existing
boundary and that which could be
achieved should the boundary be
amended
The parcel is poorly related to the built-up area. Development would
create a protrusion leading to ribbon or linear development along Station
Road. The parcel is not contained by the built-up area. Boundary trees
and shrubs do partly restrict views views into and out of the parcel.
The parcel is bound by a mix of features some of which lack durability
such as a tree belt. Tree belts are considered to be of moderate
strength. The existing boundary of the Green Belt is durable, consisting
of well defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Very strong
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land prevents
the coalescence of settlements,
including consideration of ribbon
development and existing
sporadic development
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing settlements
from merging.
The parcel contributes to a narrow gap between the excluded settlements
of Ascot and South Ascot, extending the full distance between the
settlements. The gap is approximately 0.5km and contains only limited
built development in the form of hardstanding to northern section and
buildings associated with the railway station and garage in the southern
section.
Development would be visible from Station Hill, although views into and
out of the parcel are restricted in part by boundary trees and shrubs.
The parcel plays an important role in preventing ribbon development
along Station Hill. Development would significantly reduce the physical
and perceived separation between the settlements.
Conclusion
Very strong
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
The strength of the existing
countryside character, including
consideration of sporadic development
and other urbanising influences
The parcel makes a lower contribution to safeguarding the countryside
from encroachment.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
85
Parcel Assessments
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
The strength of the existing boundary
and that which can be achieved should
the boundary be amended
The parcel is characteristic of a transition between an urban and
parkland environment. The northern area is used for car parking
(gravel rather than hardstanding) with the southern area being an
open grassed field .
The parcel is highly visible from the High Street which forms the
northern boundary and Station Road although views are restricted
in part by boundary trees. There is no visual relationship to the wider
countryside. On balance the parcel displays an urban fringe
character.
The parcel is bound by a mix of features some of which lack durability
such as a tree belt. Tree belts are considered to be of moderate
strength. The existing boundary of the Green Belt is durable,
consisting of well defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Lower
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land
contributes to the setting of a
historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified historic
settlement. Whilst the landscape retains some characteristics of the
nearby Windsor Great Park, for example mature trees, the degree of
contribution are on balance not considered relevant to the assessment
of this Green Belt purpose.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative supported in
adopted development plan policy
The parcel is not in proximity to a regeneration project
supported in existing development plan policy.
D
86
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
87
Parcel Assessments
A6 - Land including Ascot railway station car park, Station Hill, Ascot
Description
Parcel A6 is situated to the north of the excluded settlement of South Ascot and is bound by Station Road
and the railway line. The parcel comprises Ascot railway station and associated car park. The parcel also
accommodates a number of other commercial properties including a public house / restaurant and a car
showroom.
D
88
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land prevents
the irregular spread of the built-up
area
The parcel makes a moderate contribution to preventing the
unrestricted sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing boundary
and that which could be achieved
should the boundary be amended
The parcel is poorly connected to the built-up area of South Ascot
being separated by the railway line. This provides a severance
effect. Notwithstanding this, the land contains a moderate level of
built form and hard standing. On balance the land is more strongly
associated with the urban area than the wider countryside and Green
Belt. Intensification would reinforce an impression of sprawl.
The boundaries of the parcel are durable comprising a public road.
The existing boundary of the Green Belt is durable consisting of well
defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Moderate
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land prevents the
coalescence of settlements, including
consideration of ribbon development
and existing sporadic development
The parcel makes a strong contribution to preventing settlements
from merging.
The parcel contributes to a narrow gap between the excluded
settlements of Ascot and South Ascot. The gap is approximately
0.5km and contains only limited development, mostly within this
parcel.
Whilst built form already exists, further development would be visible
from Station Hill and would reinforce the visual impact on the gap
between the settlements.
Development would significantly reduce the perceived separation
between the settlements.
Conclusion
Strong
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of sporadic
development and other urbanising influences
The parcel does not contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
The strength of the existing boundary and that
which can be achieved should the boundary be
amended
The parcel displays an urban character. Built form and
hardstanding occurs across a large extent of the land.
The boundaries of the parcel are durable comprising a
public road. The existing boundary of the Green Belt is
durable consisting of well defined and regular property
boundaries.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
89
Parcel Assessments
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Conclusion
None / limited
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land contributes to
the setting of a historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified
historic settlement. The parcel does not retain characteristics of
the nearby Windsor Great Park.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative
supported in adopted development
plan policy
The parcel forms part of the Ascot Station Site project as identified in
the Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan. The
boundary of the project encompasses the majority of the parcel.
The neighbourhood plan requests that the boundary of the Green Belt
is redrawn to encourage a mixed development that would reflect the
station’s position as a gateway to Ascot, improved pedestrian, cyclist
and car parking arrangements.
D
90
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
91
Parcel Assessments
A7 - Land south of Hermitage Parade, High Street, Ascot
Description
Parcel A7 is situated to the south of the excluded settlement of Ascot and is bound by Station Hill, High
Street, St Georges Lane and woodland edge. The parcel largely comprises open land although two clusters
of development exist within the parcel to its northern and southern boundaries.
D
92
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread of
the built-up area
The parcel makes a moderate contribution to preventing the unrestricted
sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing
boundary and that which could
be achieved should the boundary
be amended
The parcel contributes to the separation of the built-up areas of Ascot and
South Ascot. Development would act to reduce the separation increasing
the impression of sprawl.
The parcel is well related to the built-up area. Whilst not contained by the
built-up area, the woodland situated beyond the southern boundary of the
parcel provides a sense of visual containment and acts to reduce the lands
relationship with the wider countryside.
The boundaries are the parcel are durable comprising of public roads,
woodland edge and well defined property boundaries. The existing
boundary of the Green Belt is durable, consisting of roads and well defined
and regular property boundaries.
On balance the parcel makes a moderate contribution. Whilst contributing
t the separation of built-up areas, the mature woodland which separates
the areas constitutes a strong visual separation. The durable boundaries
would guard against further development.
Conclusion
Moderate
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land prevents
the coalescence of settlements,
including consideration of ribbon
development and existing sporadic
development
The parcel makes a strong contribution to preventing settlements from
merging.
The parcel contributes to a narrow gap between the excluded settlements
of Ascot and South Ascot. The gap is approximately 0.5km and contains
only limited development, mostly within this parcel. The north of the
parcel is visible from Station Hill which connects the two settlements.
Whilst built form already exists, further development would be visible
from Station Hill and would reinforce the visual impact on the gap between
the settlements. The woodland to the south of the parcel would act to
restrict merging, however the physical separation would be significantly
reduced in distance.
Development would significantly reduce the physical and perceived
separation between the settlements.
Conclusion
Strong
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
93
Parcel Assessments
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of
sporadic development and other
urbanising influences
The strength of the existing boundary
and that which can be achieved should
the boundary be amended
The parcel makes a lower contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
The parcel is characteristics of a transition between an urban and
parkland environment, with the open area incorporating a strong
framework of mature parkland trees. The parcel is highly visible
from the High Street which forms the northern boundary. The parcel
does not have a visual relationship to the wider countryside. On
balance the parcel displays an urban fringe character.
The boundaries are the parcel are durable comprising of public
roads, woodland edge and well defined property boundaries. The
existing boundary of the Green Belt is durable, consisting of roads
and well defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Lower
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land
contributes to the setting of a
historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified historic
settlement. Whilst the landscape retains some characteristics of the
nearby Windsor Great Park, for example parkland trees, the degree of
contribution are on balance not considered relevant to the assessment
of this Green Belt purpose.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative
supported in adopted
development plan policy
The parcel forms part of the Ascot High Street project as identified in the
Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan. The boundary
of the project encompasses the majority of the parcel.
The neighbourhood plan requests that the boundary of the Green Belt is
redrawn to encourage a mixed development that would create a
sustainable residential and retail centre in the heart of Ascot that reflects
the world renowned standing of its racecourse and delivers a community
hub, a vibrant and prosperous daytime and evening economy and a safe,
attractive, thriving High Street for residents and visitors.
D
94
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
95
Parcel Assessments
A8 - Land west of St George's Lane, including Shorts Recycling, Ascot
Description
Parcel A8 is situated to the south of the excluded settlement of Ascot and if bound by the High Street, St
George's Lane and a woodland edge. The parcel comprises a recycling transfer station.
D
96
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread of
the built-up area
The parcel makes a moderate contribution to preventing the unrestricted
sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing
boundary and that which could
be achieved should the
boundary be amended
The parcel contributes to the separation of the built-up areas of Ascot and
South Ascot. Development would act to reduce the separation increasing
the impression of sprawl.
By itself the parcel is poorly related to the built-up area. The parcels
relationship would be better should the adjoining Parcel A7 be deemed
suitable for development. Whilst not contained by the built-up area, the
woodland situated beyond the southern boundary of the parcel provides
a sense of visual containment and acts to reduce the lands relationship
with the wider countryside.
The parcel is bound by a mix of features some of which lack durability.
The existing boundary of the Green Belt is durable, consisting of roads
and well defined and regular property boundaries.
On balance the parcel makes a moderate contribution. Whilst contributing
t the separation of built-up areas, the mature woodland which separates
the areas constitutes a strong visual separation. The durable boundaries
would guard against further development.
Conclusion
Moderate
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land prevents
the coalescence of settlements,
including consideration of ribbon
development and existing sporadic
development
The parcel makes a strong contribution to preventing settlements from
merging.
The parcel contributes to a narrow gap between the excluded settlements
of Ascot and South Ascot. The gap is approximately 0.5km and contains
only limited development, mostly within this parcel. The north of the
parcel is visible from Station Hill which connects the two settlements.
Whilst built form already exists, further development would be visible
from Station Hill and would reinforce the visual impact on the gap between
the settlements. The woodland to the south of the parcel would act to
restrict merging, however the physical separation would be significantly
reduced in distance.
Development would significantly reduce the physical and perceived
separation between the settlements.
Conclusion
Strong
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
97
Parcel Assessments
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of
sporadic development and other urbanising
influences
The strength of the existing boundary and
that which can be achieved should the
boundary be amended
The parcel makes a lower contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
The parcel is characterised by its use as a recycling transfer
station. Built form and hardstanding are concentrated to the
north of the land with waste material distributed wider. Whilst
not necessarily an urban use, on balance the parcel displays
an urban fringe character.
The parcel is bound by a mix of features some of which lack
durability. The existing boundary of the Green Belt is durable,
consisting of roads and well defined and regular property
boundaries.
Conclusion
Lower
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land contributes to
the setting of a historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified
historic settlement. The parcel does not retain characteristics of
the nearby Windsor Great Park.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative supported in
adopted development plan policy
The parcel is not in proximity to a regeneration project
supported in existing development plan policy.
D
98
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
99
Parcel Assessments
A9 - Land east of Cheapside Road, Ascot
Description
Parcel A9 is situated to the east of the excluded settlement of Ascot and is bound by London Road, Cheapside
Road, the boundaries of properties on Silwood Close and woodland edge. The parcel comprises open land.
D
100
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread of the
built-up area
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing the
unrestricted sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing boundary
and that which could be achieved
should the boundary be amended
The parcel contributes to the separation of the built-up areas.
Development would act to reduce the separation increasing the
impression of sprawl.
The parcel is well related to the built-up area of Ascot. Whilst not
contained by the built-up area, the adjoining woodland provides an
increased a sense of visual containment although the size of the parcel
means that the land retains a sense of openness.
The boundaries of the parcel are durable comprising well defined and
regular property boundaries and woodland edge. The existing
boundary of the Green Belt is durable, consisting of well defined and
regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Very strong
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land prevents
the coalescence of settlements,
including consideration of ribbon
development and existing sporadic
development
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing settlements
from merging.
The parcel forms part of a narrow gap between the excluded
settlements of Ascot and Sunninghill. The gap is approximately 0.3k
and contains sporadic development. The presence of wider built form
within the gap increases importance of open areas, making gap
sensitivity to further development.
The parcel is one of only a few open spaces within the gap and is
visible from Cheapside Road which connects the two settlements.
Development would significantly reduce the actual and perceived
distance between the settlements.
Conclusion
Very strong
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of
sporadic development and other urbanising
influences
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to safeguarding
the countryside from encroachment.
The strength of the existing boundary and
that which can be achieved should the
boundary be amended
The parcel displays a strong countryside character. The land
is in agriculture / pasture use and contains no built form. The
land is highly visible from Cheapside Road providing a clear
transition from town to countryside.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
101
Parcel Assessments
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
The boundaries of the parcel are durable comprising well defined
and regular property boundaries and woodland edge. The
existing boundary of the Green Belt is durable, consisting of
well defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Very strong
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land
contributes to the setting of a
historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified historic
settlement. Whilst the landscape retains some characteristics of the
nearby Windsor Great Park, for example mature trees, the degree of
contribution are on balance not considered relevant to the assessment
of this Green Belt purpose.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative supported in
adopted development plan policy
The parcel is not in proximity to a regeneration project
supported in existing development plan policy.
D
102
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
103
Parcel Assessments
A10 - Land south of London Road, including Victory Field, Sunninghill
Description
Parcel A10 is situated to the west of the built up area of Sunninghill and is bound by London Road, Coombe
Lane track, woodland edge and the boundaries of properties on Oriental Road. The parcel largely comprises
open land used as a recreation ground. Several residential properties are located towards the north western
boundary.
D
104
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread of the
built-up area
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing the
unrestricted sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing boundary
and that which could be achieved
should the boundary be amended
The parcel contributes to the separation of the built-up areas.
Development would act to reduce the separation increasing the
impression of sprawl.
The parcel is well related to the built-up area. Notwithstanding the
parcel is not contain by the built-up area, nor does any surrounding
feature provide a sense of visual containment.
The parcel displays an important connection to the wider countryside
and Green Belt.
The parcel is bound by a mix of features some of which lack durability
such as the track. The existing boundary of the Green Belt is durable,
consisting of well defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Very strong
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land prevents
the coalescence of settlements,
including consideration of ribbon
development and existing sporadic
development
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing settlements
from merging.
The parcel forms part of a narrow gap between the excluded
settlements of Ascot and Sunninghill. The gap is approximately 0.3k
and contains sporadic development. The presence of wider built form
within the gap increases importance of open areas, making gap
sensitivity to further development.
The parcel is one of only a few open spaces within the gap and is
visible from Cheapside Road which connects the two settlements.
Development would significantly reduce the actual and perceived
distance between the settlements.
Conclusion
Very strong
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of sporadic
development and other urbanising influences
The parcel makes a lower contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
The strength of the existing boundary and
that which can be achieved should the
boundary be amended
The parcel has a mixed character comprising areas of open
space and development associated with the recreation
ground. On balance the land has an urban fringe character.
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
105
Parcel Assessments
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
The parcel is bound by a mix of features some of which lack
durability such as the track. The existing boundary of the
Green Belt is durable, consisting of well defined and regular
property boundaries.
Conclusion
Lower
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land
contributes to the setting of a
historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified historic
settlement. Whilst the landscape retains some characteristics of the
nearby Windsor Great Park, for example mature trees, the degree of
contribution are on balance not considered relevant to the assessment
of this Green Belt purpose.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative supported in
adopted development plan policy
The parcel is not in proximity to a regeneration project
supported in existing development plan policy.
D
106
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
107
Parcel Assessments
A11 - Land around Church Lane including Ashurst Park, Sunninghill
Description
Parcel A11 is situated to the north of the excluded settlement of Sunninghill and is bound by London Road
and woodland edge. The parcel largely comprises open land, but a manor house, church and associated
properties are situated centrally.
D
108
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread of
the built-up area
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing the unrestricted
sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing
boundary and that which could be
achieved should the boundary be
amended
The parcel contributes to the separation of the built up area of Sunninghill
and Ascot and developed areas to the north the Green Belt settlements
of Cheapside. Development would create a stronger linkage increasing
the impression of sprawl.
The parcel is poorly related to the main built-up area of Sunninghill.
Whilst the parcel is not contained by the built-up area, the adjoining
woodland provides an increased a sense of visual containment although
the size of the parcel means that the land retains a sense of openness.
Development would result in a protrusion away from the built-up area on
to what is largely open land.
The boundaries of the parcel are durable features comprising public
roads and woodland edge. The existing boundary of the Green Belt is
durable, consisting of well defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Very strong
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land
prevents the coalescence of
settlements, including
consideration of ribbon
development and existing
sporadic development
The parcel makes a moderate contribution to preventing settlements from
merging.
The parcel forms part of gaps between three settlements, the excluded
settlements of Ascot and Sunninghill, and the Green Belt settlement of
Cheapside. The parcel itself comprises a number of large residential properties
and an office clustered around a central church.
The gaps between Ascot and Sunninghill and Sunningdale and Sunninghill are
approximately 0.3k and 0.4km. Both contain sporadic development. The
presence of wider built form within the gaps increases importance of open
areas, making gap sensitivity to further development. The western and eastern
sections of the parcel are two of only a few open spaces within the gap. Whilst
views into this section of the parcel are limited by boundary trees and shrubs,
development in these sections would significantly reduce the actual and
perceived distance between the settlements.
The gap between Sunninghill and Cheapside is approximately 1km and contains
sporadic development. The land beyond the parcel to the north heavily wooded
providing a strong visual separation between the settlements. Given the partially
developed nature of the land and the strong visual separation, there may be
scope for some development without the risk of these settlements merging.
Conclusion
Moderate
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
109
Parcel Assessments
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of
sporadic development and other
urbanising influences
The parcel makes a strong contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
The strength of the existing boundary
and that which can be achieved should
the boundary be amended
The parcel displays a strong rural comprising of a manor house,
church and associated properties set within managed parkland
grounds. Whilst not in a countryside use, such properties could
be expected in a countryside setting. The house, church and
associated built form is largely located centrally within the parcel.
Much of the remainder of the land consists of open fields.
The boundaries of the parcel are durable features comprising
public roads and woodland edge. The existing boundary of the
Green Belt is durable, consisting of well defined and regular
property boundaries.
Conclusion
Strong
To preserve the setting and special qualities of historic towns
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land
contributes to the setting of a
historic place
The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting or special
qualities of a historic place.
The parcel does not adjoin or provide direct views of an identified historic
settlement. Whilst the landscape retains some characteristics of the
nearby Windsor Great Park, for example mature parkland trees, the
degree of contribution are on balance not considered relevant to the
assessment of this Green Belt purpose.
Conclusion
None / limited
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
(OBSERVATION ONLY)
Criteria
Observation
Proximity to regeneration initiative supported in
adopted development plan policy
The parcel is not in proximity to a regeneration project
supported in existing development plan policy.
D
110
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
111
Parcel Assessments
A12 - Land south of London Road, north of Larch Avenue, Sunningdale
Description
Parcel A12 is situated to the north of the excluded settlement of Sunninghill and is bound by the London
Road, Silwood Road and the boundaries of properties on Larch Avenue. The parcel comprises large residential
properties within substantial grounds and paddocks.
D
112
D
Edge of Settlement - Part 1 Green Belt Purpose Assessment 2016
Parcel Assessments
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which the land
prevents the irregular spread of
the built-up area
The parcel makes a very strong contribution to preventing the unrestricted
sprawl of a built-up area.
The strength of the existing
boundary and that which could be
achieved should the boundary be
amended
The parcel contributes to the prevention of ribbon or linear development
along London Road. Whilst the parcel itself comprises large residential
properties within substantial grounds including paddocks, the
spaciousness and mature trees this affords is important to reducing the
impression of sprawl.
The parcel is well related to the built-up area and contains some
development. Notwithstanding this additional development would create
a stronger linkage between the built-up area and developed areas situated
within the parcel and beyond the boundary of the parcel to the north,
increasing the impression of sprawl.
The boundaries of the parcel are durable comprising public roads and
well defined property boundary. The existing boundary of the Green Belt
is durable, consisting of well defined and regular property boundaries.
Conclusion
Very strong
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging
Criteria
Assessment
The degree to which land prevents
the coalescence of settlements,
including consideration of ribbon
development and existing sporadic
development
The parcel makes a lower contribution to preventing settlements from
merging.
The parcel contributes to a gap between the excluded settlement of
Sunningdale and the Green Belt settlement of Cheapside. The gap
is approximately 1.3km and contains sporadic development including
the Silwood Park estate.
The parcel itself comprises large residential properties within substantial
grounds including paddocks.
Due to the topography and wooded character of the land, including
that beyond the parcel to the north, reducing the visual impact,
development would be unlikely to lead to be to the detriment of
separation of the settlements.
Conclusion
Lower
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Criteria
Assessment
The strength of the existing countryside
character, including consideration of
sporadic development and other
urbanising influences
The parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.