Whilst there are significant elements I agree with, there are aspects I do not.
Whilst the methodology appears to perform well on paper, there is a glaring weakness in it.
Most notably, the ability to consider the performance of Green Belt requires intimate knowledge of the area. Despite having been born in the borough and spending the vast majority of my life here, I would not venture to say, with confidence, that I can confirm the performance of the Green Belt in all areas.
The compounding criticism of this model is the degree of connection an area has. There is a negative feedback loop with regards to travel. Where there are not concentrations of people who currently use alternative travel (i.e. not private cars), transport options are limited. As the provision of these services is primarily determined by private provision (business case) we see little expansion of services. More recently we have seen significant reduction in provision of bus routes across the region.
Added on to this, where we design and develop settlements with private car travel in mind, we compound existing issues. The example of Dicken's Heath, where buses cannot get to the centre of the settlement, should serve as a lesson learned.
Where this can be corrected is taking an approach that accounts for future growth corridors. There may be sites that can perform well in terms of sustainable travel, as well as create a viable business case for alternative modes of travel, that might not be included in the existing methodology.
The current methodology emphasises urban extension over new settlement creation. In short, if we take the same approach as we have in the past, we shouldn't expect different results.