Nurton Developments considers that the correct site (Site 25) has been chosen for allocation at Hockley Heath and none of the red sites at Hockley Heath should be included for allocation. A summary is provided below of the reasons why each of these red sites should not be viewed favourably for allocation.

Site 13/121 - The development of this site would result in an incursion of built form into open countryside where no permanent physical features are present to establish a strong and defensible Green Belt boundary. The trees along the site boundary do not provide a readily recognisable feature that is likely to be permanent, as required by paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The site also has some constraints including Tree Preservation Orders and habitats of wildlife interest.

Site 14 - Given the presence of further low-density development to the south, it would be difficult to establish a defensible boundary to the Green Belt in this location. The site is affected by Tree Preservation Orders and a locally-listed building and is also within the setting of a listed building.

Site 38 - Development of this site would extend Hockley Heath into open countryside to the north and east where it would be very difficult to establish a logical and defensible Green Belt boundary. Only field boundaries separate this site from the wider countryside and they do not provide a readily recognisable feature that is likely to be permanent, as required by paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site 57 - This small site could only accommodate 4 dwellings and would require release from the Green Belt. It does not offer any defensible boundaries to which Green Belt boundaries could be re-drawn.

Site 120 - This site is detached from the main part of the settlement and does not relate well to the form of the settlement. Even if it were considered in conjunction with adjacent land for allocation, which would result in a very large and disproportionate urban extension to Hockley Heath, it would still lack a defensible Green Belt boundary. It would also reduce the gap between the village and
Blythe Valley Park/Cheswick Green, therefore conflicting with one of the main purposes of the Green Belt.

Site 145 - This site is remote from the built-up-area of Hockley Heath and would result in an isolated incursion into the countryside. It would not be possible to re-draw the Green Belt boundary to a logical and defensible boundary in this location.

Site 180 - The site extends out from Hockley Heath and does not relate well to the built-up-area of the settlement. The development would appear as an intrusion into the countryside and the site and lacks any defensible boundaries to which to re-draw the Green Belt.

Site 208 - This site is remote from the built-up-area of Hockley Heath and would result in an isolated incursion into the countryside. It would not be possible to re-draw the Green Belt boundary to a logical and defensible boundary in this location.

Site 416 - This site is poorly related to the form of the settlement, being located at the end of a ribbon of development, which it would continue into the countryside.

Site 417 - This site is detached from the main part of the settlement and does not relate well to the form of the settlement. It comprises an extensive area of countryside, development of which would be disproportionate to the village, appearing as urban sprawl. It lacks a defensible Green Belt boundary. Only field boundaries separate this site from the wider countryside and they do not provide a readily recognisable feature that is likely to be permanent, as required by paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It would also reduce the gap between the village and Blythe Valley Park/Cheswick Green, therefore conflicting with one of the main purposes of the Green Belt.

For the above reasons, and since Site 25 is free of constraints, well related to the form of the village, would represent a proportionate expansion of the village and is well-contained by strong and defensible boundaries, Site 25 is a justified choice for allocation over these other red sites.