The modifications required are:
1) The settlement of Cheswick Green should be inset from the Green Belt.
2) Additional land should be removed form the Green Belt to meet any potential shortfall in the provision of housing land during the plan period. This should include an omission site at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green.
3) Additional land should be removed from the Green Belt and identified as safeguarded land.

1. Richborough Estates Limited supports the principle of land being excluded from the Green Belt for housing purposes. However, objection is made to Policy P17 the Local Plan because (a) consideration should be given to the exclusion of the settlement of Cheswick Green from the Green Belt; (b) additional housing allocations are required and insufficient land is proposed to be excluded from the Green Belt and (b) no safeguarded land has been excluded from the Green Belt. Policy P17 is not effective and inconsistent with national planning policy. For these reasons, additional land should be excluded from the Green Belt including Richborough Estates’ interest at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green.

2. Once established, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies of plans should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they can endure beyond the plan period (Paragraph 136).

Principle of Insetting Cheswick Green from the Green Belt

3. Paragraph 140 of the Framework recognises that if it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. However, if the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt.

4. As identified on the Proposed Policies Map the vast majority of the settlement of Cheswick green is washed over by the Green Belt. The exception is a previous housing allocation at Mount Diary Farm (Cheswick Place) which was excluded from the Green Belt, which is located to the south ofRichborough Estate’s site off Tanworth Lane Paragraph 423 justifies the retention of Cheswick Green, and other settlements in the Green Belt because this reflects the character of these settlements, the limited impact that small infill developments would have on the wider Green Belt, including by way of openness, and the limited, small scale opportunities that exist within their settlement envelope. This justification might apply to some of the other settlement but not Cheswick Green.

5. Analysis of Cheswick Green’s settlement pattern, or even a cursory review of the aerial photographs, identifies that the only significant open element of the settlement is associated with the watercourse and its floodplain. Other than this linear green feature, and as acknowledged at Paragraph 578 of the Local Plan, Cheswick Green is a predominantly a planned village dating from the 1970s and consists almost entirely of post-war development characterised by cul-de-sac, open plan layouts. It has an urban character associated with a 1970s housing scheme and not an open character that makes a positive contribution to the openness of the Green Belt.

6. Cheswick Green also has population of 2,197 residents in 891 households which are increasing because of recent housing development. There are a range of facilities, including shops and a primary school. It is, somewhat unusual for a settlement of this size to remain within the Green Belt, especially when comparing Cheswick Green to other villages such as Hockley Heath which has a similar sized population and number of households.

7. As a matter of principle, reflecting the national policy in the Framework, Cheswick Green should be inset from the Green Belt together with any land required to meet short or longer term housing needs.

Principle of a Housing Allocation at Cheswick Green

8. Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, taking in to account whether the strategy makes as much use as possible of previously developed and underutilised land; optimises the density of development to make efficient use of land including higher densities in town centres and other locations well served by public transport; and informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development (Paragraph 137).

9. When reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account and where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land, plans should give first priority towards land which has been previously developed and/or is well served by public transport, and plans should set out ways in which the impact can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land (Paragraph 138).

10. Although there is no definition in policy or guidance of what comprise exceptional circumstances as envisaged in the Framework, Case Law has confirmed that any alteration to the Green Belt must be justified by exceptional circumstances rather than general planning concepts (Carpets of Worth Ltd v Wyre Forest DC (1991) 62 PCR 334). It is a matter for the Council to reach a sound planning judgment on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case (Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)). The application of the exceptional circumstances test was also recently considered in the decision of Ouseley J. in Compton PC & Others v Guildford BC & Others [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin) (Compton). Although this case related to the 2012 version of the Framework the commentary for this Case concerning exceptional circumstance remains relevant.

11. There is a recognised two-stage approach to which can be followed to provide the necessary evidence and justification to identify that exceptional circumstances exist to alter the Green Belt boundary through the preparation of a Local Plan. The first stage is the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in-principle decision that alterations of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. Such a need may relate to the significant benefits which would be associated with a specific development proposal (e.g. in the Compton case was found to have significant benefits in terms of affordability and delivery of affordable housing notwithstanding the objectively assessed housing need was being materially exceeded).

12. Stage 1 concerns the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in-principle decision that a review of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. It is set out at paragraph 137 of the Framework and requires the Council to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. .

13. There is evidence that there have been discussions throughout the preparation of the Local Plan with neighbouring authorities, under the Duty to Co-operate, to consider whether there is the opportunity for these areas to accommodate some of Solihull Borough’s housing need on non-Green Belt land. However, the authorities boarding Solihull Borough have a lack of land within their urban areas, the same Green Belt considerations and issues about accommodating the growth needs of an adjoining large urban area, whether Birmingham or Coventry.

14. The Overall Approach Topic Paper records the issues related to accommodating the unmet housing needs of Birmingham across the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (HMA). As at April 2019, there was still a shortfall of some 2,597 dwellings to be accommodated across the HMA even after Solihull agreeing to accommodate some 2,000 dwellings. However, it is also recognised in the Topic Paper that the final details of any contribution must be tested through a Local Plan process in accordance with national guidance. This is primarily associated with the need to release land from the Green Belt to support any contributions it makes. Equally, there is a question whether Solihull Borough might be able to accommodate further unmet housing needs to address the ongoing HMA shortfall.

15. Although Richborough Estates does have concerns about the assessed housing requirement, principally associated with the HMA shortfall, it is clear from the Local Plan’s evidence base that to accommodate the level of housing proposed does require land to be removed from the Green Belt. There have been extensive studies concerning what land might be suitable and available for housing development within the urban areas of Solihull Borough. Indeed, the Local Plan has sought to making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land within both the urban area and, in sustainable locations, the Green Belt. A significant number of the potential housing sites in the Site Assessments document are within the urban area.

16. Within the urban areas there is evidence the Council is seeking to optimise density compatible with local character. The justification for Policy P15 refers to “The appropriate density of residential development will be informed by the need to make efficient use of land together with the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting. Where it can be demonstrated that a higher density would improve the character and quality of an area, this will be supported.”

17. As a matter of principle, Richborough Estates concur with the Council that the necessary Stage 1 exceptional circumstances exist to alterations to the Green Belt boundary to accommodate the housing needs during the plan period. There is a separate point whether it is necessary to identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. (Framework paragraph 139).

18. Stage 2 of the exceptional circumstances approach then determines which sites would best meet the identified need having regard to Green Belt harm and other relevant considerations, including whether they are suitably located and developable. Stage 2 considers matters such as previously developed land or land well served by public transport together with ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be off-set through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. In the case of this Local Plan, Policy P17A allows for such enhancements to be secured through off-setting which is a pragmatic approach to adopt and is supported by Richborough Estates.

19. The Site Selection Process Topic Paper usefully explains the approach of combining the various studies which were undertaken and form part of the Local Plan’s evidence base, including the Green Belt Study, the Sustainability Appraisal the Accessibility Study and the Landscape Character Assessment. Unfortunately, some of the potential sites, such as Richborough Estates’ interest at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green have not been fully tested. Such sites form part of a much larger parcel and, as such, the merits of these smaller sites have not been fully considered.

20. Cheswick Green is a settlement where no allocations are currently proposed notwithstanding the settlement possessing “a number of key local facilities, including a one-form entry primary school, GP surgery, village hall, pub and local shops. Public transport is via the bus service which runs to Shirley and Solihull.” (Local Plan paragraph 578). It is also proposed that the primary school will be enlarged to 2-form entry to accommodate pupils from new housing development at Blythe Valley Park and Mount Dairy Farm. The accessibility and sustainability credentials of Cheswick Green were recognised by the allocation and subsequent housing development at Mount Diary Farm (Cheswick Place).

21. These same accessibility and locational credentials, alongside the opportunity to inset Cheswick Green within the Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 140 of the Framework, provide a demonstrable basis for the identification of a further housing allocation at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green to meet any shortfall in the housing requirement during the plan period.

22. Richborough Estates land interest fronts Tanworth Lane and lies between the recent housing development at Mount Diary Farm and Highleys Farm. The land is referred to as Site 99 in the Borough Council’s Site Assessment document and a location plan accompanies this objection. Other documents assessments forming part of the evidence base do not consider this site individually.

23. The omission site could come forward for housing development for a minimum of 130 dwellings. Based upon a consideration of the wider Local Plan evidence based published by the Council, an up-date assessment of this site has been undertaken upon the Site Assessment’s criteria and this is attached to this objection. Also attached to this representation is an illustrative concept masterplan which shows how the site could come forward for development. This reflects the approach in the Council’s Concept Masterplan document (October 2020).

24. A landscape-led approach to the master planning of the site has been adopted as a key principle with the existing boundary vegetation being retained and creation of a physical and defensible Green Belt boundary. Areas of open space are identified which provide the opportunity for biodiversity benefits of the type of compensatory improvements to environmental quality and accessibility sought by the Framework when land is released from the Green Belt.

25. Other than Green Belt, there are no policy or insurmountable physical constraints to the development of the omission site. If excluded from the Green Belt and formally allocated for residential use, the site could come forward for development as part of the first tranche of housing allocations.

26. There would be the opportunity to provide for a range of dwelling types and sizes at a density that respects the adjacent pattern of development and the site’s location on the edge of Cheswick Green. Housing on the site would not be visually intrusive within the wider landscape setting of Cheswick Green when viewed from the surrounding countryside, nor would it pose issues of wider coalescence.

27. For the Local Plan to be effective, the land at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green should be allocated for housing, especially if the settlement is to be an inset from the Green Belt.

 
Safeguarded Land

28. Paragraph 139 of the Framework refers to, where necessary, identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. This approach is to be able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. Such safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time and planning permission for the permanent development should only be granted following an update to a plan which proposes its development. However, the safeguarded land policy could include a criterion whereby such sites could come forward for development in the event that the Local plan is not delivering housing as expected (e.g. the Council fails the Housing Delivery Test). Such an approach would remove the necessity of a formal review to maintain housing land supply.

29. Although UK Central will deliver some housing and employment land beyond the end of the plan period, there are no safeguarded being proposed despite the Green belt boundary being redrawn. The Local Plan is inconsistent with national policy.

30. As an alternative to a housing allocation, Richborough Estates proposed that safeguarded land should be identified at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green, especially if the settlement is to be an inset from the Green Belt.