South Broxtowe E-News 5 October 2014

20-20 logoClick on South Broxtowe E-News 5 October 2014

This entry was posted in Core Strategy Plan, Green Belt, Toton. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to South Broxtowe E-News 5 October 2014

  1. Nick Palmer says:

    I think this comment misunderstands the change. The substantive change is from:

    “inappropriate development on the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances”.
    “Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances”.

    What is the substantive difference? Is “very special” weaker than “exceptional”? Probably not. However, the new formulation is about changing the boundaries – it says, for instance, that you can’t (except in exceptional circumstances) say “We’ve had a Green Belt in Trowell, but we’re going to move it to the far side of Ilkeston”.

    That wasn’t the issue in Broxtowe – it wasn’t proposed to move the Green Belt somewhere else, but to allow house construction on a part of it. The Government Inspector, first by unofficial guidance to planners and then by an official ruling, decided that the perceived need for more housing constituted sufficient reason to do it (either because she felt it wasn’t “inappropriate” or that the circumstances were “very special”). The proposed change wouldn’t appear to affect that, so the suggestion that the Council should have waited for it seems to misunderstand the change.

    • Mark Nightingale says:

      Agree, and well explained.

      Simply pre election promises, there is a chronic housing shortage. Seeing as the conservatives have pledge 200,000 new homes a year I am somewhat confused by Mr Pickles. The councils have had hard decisions to make, picking the least damaging sites for the desperately needed new family homes.

  2. Tom Gulliver says:

    Broxtowe 20/20 is clearly a front group for the Tories. They are the 2004 US equivalent of ‘Swift Boat Veterans For Truth’. They are also wrong. This new planning guidance is meant for authorities with more developable land on brown field or green field than Green Belt. It also confirms a local authority’s ability to remove a site from the Green Belt through a Local Plan process. Which Broxtowe HAS done.

    More evidence of Anna seeing the iceberg of a life back on civvy street approaching.

  3. Mark Nightingale says:

    This is from the Bath inspectors report who also found there core strategy sound

    Discussing the proposed modifications to the Green Belt, the inspector said “a number of parties opposed to the allocations in the Green Belt highlight the guidance in the planning policy guidance … that unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt”.
    “However, the strategic allocations would be on land that is removed from the Green Belt, so would not be inappropriate development when a planning application is considered”, said the inspector. “The relevant test for changing Green Belt boundaries (to remove land from the Green Belt) is that of exceptional circumstances.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s