Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council
Green Belt Assessment Part Two Draft Report Appendix 5: Completed Assessment Pro Forma Volume 7 – Section 4 Areas: Site Nominations 4.294 to 4.352
October 2016
Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.294 Cliveden Stud, Taplow 53.76 Part One General Area No. 73 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The proposed site is effectively split into two halves by Huntswood Lane. The northern half is contained on all sides by roads - Cliveden Road to the west, Taplow Common Road to the north/north east, Parliament Lane to the east/south east and Huntswood Lane to the south. However, the southern half of the proposed site lacks the clear definition of the northern half because its long eastern boundary is soft and denoted by a minor track/footpath and the tree line of Hunts Wood. There appears to be no durable defensible boundary along this western edge of the proposed site. Additionally, the proposed site does not abut an existing non-Green Belt settlement and its release would effectively punch a hole in the Green Belt. It is not considered that the proposed boundaries of the identified land would represent an appropriate new Green Belt boundary.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.295 Depot, Dropmore Road, Burnham 1.02 Part One General Area No. 71 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is entirely within the Green Belt. It is bounded to the north by Chalk Pit Lane, to the east by Dropmore Road, to the south by a private dwelling and to the west by a hedgeline and open fields. The boundaries to the west and south are therefore not considered permanent and defensible natural features and as a result it is not possible to identify a NPPF compliant boundary around the site.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.296 Land North of Poyle Farm, Burnham 0.69 Part One General Area No. 71 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is entirely within the Green Belt. It is bounded to the west by Poyle Lane, to the north by Brickfield Lane, to the south by the dwelling and residential curtilage of Poyle Farm and to the east by extensive open field. It is not possible to identify an NPPF compliant boundary as the eastern and southern boundaries are neither permanent nor defensible. The site would not represent an appropriate new boundary for the Green Belt.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.297 Ashcroft Towers, Burnham 2.70 Part One General Area No. 73 Boundary Assessment It is possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements, with a slight adjustment. The proposed site occupies the majority of an area of land which directly abuts the non-Green Belt settlement of Burnham and is well-defined on the ground by the encircling roads of Wymers Wood Road, Brickfield Lane and Poyle Lane. By expanding the boundaries to include the currently excluded dwellings of Abbey Cottage and Limewood Gate (in the north-west and south-east of the site respectively) the boundaries would be rationalised and align fully with the encircling roads. It would then be possible to identify permanent and defensible boundaries for the site.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Purpose 1a: PASS Purpose 1b: The land abuts the non-Green Belt settlement of Burnham to the south. Much of the boundary of Burnham is formed by the back gardens of dwellings so it is considered that the settlement’s boundary as a whole lacks permanence. Score: 3+/5 Purpose 2: The land is on the north side of Burnham and therefore faces away from the nearest major settlement of Slough. The land parcel is not proximate to any other nearby settlements and consequently makes no discernible contribution to settlement separation. Score: 0/5 Purpose 3: It is considered that the land parcel does not derive its rural character from a strong sense of openness and connectivity with the surrounding countryside as it appears to be subject to heavy perimeter screening from trees and hedgerows. Additionally, aerial photography suggests relatively dense tree cover on the site itself. However this screening also prevents the land deriving any strong influence from the more urban character of Burnham to the south and the fact that it consists largely of undeveloped woodland means that its character is considered to be strongly unspoilt and rural. Score: 4/5 Purpose 4: The option does not abut the historic core of Burnham. Score: 0/5 Green Belt Purpose Conclusion: The area of land scores strongly against one or more Green Belt purpose(s). Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.298 Land South of Poyle Farm, Burnham 0.75 Part One General Area No. 71 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site abuts the non-Green Belt settlement of Burnham to the south/south east. The site is bounded to the west/ south west by Poyle Lane, to the north/north west by the dwelling and residential curtilage of Poyle Farm and to the north/north east by extensive open field. It is not possible to identify an NPPF compliant boundary for the site as the north/north eastern and north/north western boundaries are neither permanent nor defensible. The site’s boundary with open fields appears particularly arbitrary and is not defined by any visual feature on the ground. The site would not represent an appropriate new boundary for the Green Belt.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.299 Land off Wymers Wood Lane, 3.33 Burnham Part One General Area No. 73 Boundary Assessment It is possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. It is possible to identify a boundary for the option if the area is expanded to meet the surrounding roads. The option would acquire durable and defensible boundaries by using the whole area contained by Wymers Wood Road to the north and east and Taplow Common Road to the south and west as a perimeter. This would rationalise the boundaries of the option sufficiently to bring forward to the next stage of testing.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Purpose 1a: PASS Purpose 1b: The land has a long interface with non-Green Belt Burnham along its eastern side. Score: 5/5 Purpose 2: The land faces away from Slough to the south and does not provide an immediate gap between major settlements. However, it is considered that the land makes an important contribution the wider openness between Burnham/Slough and Maidenhead. Additionally, the land provides a gap between the collection of dwellings at Rose Hill to the north which could have their rural character impacted by development of the option. Score: 3/5 Purpose 3: The land is under considerable influence from Burnham as it faces Burnham across Wymers Wood Road. Additionally, there are 13 existing dwellings which limit the rural character of the land. However, the western side of the option is under a stronger rural influence and contributes to an overall character which is more rural than urban. Score:3/5 Purpose 4: The land does not abut a historic settlement core. Score: 0/5 Green Belt Purpose Conclusion: The area of land scores strongly against one or more Green Belt purpose(s). Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.300 Grove Road, Burnham 4.54 Part One General Area No. 80b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is entirely within the Green Belt. There are no natural durable features around the site except for a small stretch of Grove Road in the site’s south west corner. The remaining boundary consists of property boundaries, internal access roads and treelines/hedging. It is considered that no permanent defensible boundary to the site can be identified as a result of these soft permeable boundary features.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.301 Land surrounding Pelham Burn, 1.67 Burnham Part One General Area No. 80b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site abuts the non-Green Belt settlement of Burnham to the west and is bounded by the defensible feature of Grove Road to the east. However, it is not possible to identify durable and defensible boundaries to the north or south of the site where the boundary lacks natural defensible features and is only marked by hedging or fencing.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.302 Former Nursery, Britwell Road 17.42 Part One General Area No. 80b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. It is not possible to identify a boundary to the site as proposed due to a lack of natural durable features to the site’s east in particular. The portion of this eastern boundary which runs south from Britwell Road appears entirely arbitrary and follows neither property boundaries nor natural features. The site would not represent an appropriate new boundary for the Green Belt as a result of there being no permanent defensible boundary identifiable.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.303 Grenville Court East Site, Burnham 0.42 Part One General Area No. 80b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is entirely within the Green Belt. It is bounded to the east by Lower Britwell Road, to the north by private commercial/industrial premises and by woodland and green space for the remainder. It is considered that aside from the boundary with the main road the site is unable to demonstrate any permanent and defensible features from which a boundary might be derived. The boundary as proposed it soft and permeable and as a result fails to accord with the NPPF.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.304 Grenville Court West Site, Burnham 0.39 Part One General Area No. 80b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site forms a portion of a former nursery but the land proposed does not appear to closely follow visible features on the ground. An access corridor to Britwell Road cuts through an otherwise open green space and the main body of the site is similarly weakly bounded. Consequently the site fails to adhere to natural boundary features and it is therefore not possible to identify a permanent or defensible boundary to the site overall.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.305 Land off Hatchgate Gardens, 4.71 Burnham Part One General Area No. 80b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site abuts the non-Green Belt settlement of Burnham to the west and Slough to the east. The northern boundary of the site is formed by field lines or property boundaries. The southern boundary is formed by the grounds of Burnham Grammar School. Given that the northern and southern boundaries are both formed by neighbouring properties, including much green space, it is considered that a permanent defensible boundary cannot be identified. It should also be noted that releasing this site would sever the Burnham Grammar School area of Green Belt and facilitate coalescence between Burnham and Slough.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.306 Mayfield (South Piece of Garden) 0.18 High Street, Taplow Part One General Area No. 73 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is split either side of the driveway/access road which leads off Hill Farm Road. The southern portion is linear with the driveway forming its northern boundary and the remaining sides protruding into the residential curtilage of Mayfield. The northern portion is bounded by the driveway to the south, by the back gardens of dwellings on Buffins to the east and by grassland/woodland to the north and west. Given that all boundaries are formed either by open space or by property boundaries it is considered not possible to identify a permanent defensible boundary around the site.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.307 (intersects Land West of Station Road, Taplow 3.34 with 2.28) Part One General Area No. 73 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is entirely within the Green Belt. It is bounded to the north and south by the curtilages of existing dwellings. To the east it is bounded by Station Road and to the west by open fields. It is considered that the lack of durability to all boundaries other than Station Road means that it is not possible to identify a permanent defensible boundary to the site.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.308 (part of 1.23) 5 Ellington Gardens, Taplow 0.09 Part One General Area No. 89 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements, in isolation though the site is part of 1.23, for which defensible boundaries and exceptional circumstances for release have been identified. 4.308 in isolation consists of part of the garden of 5 Ellington Gardens along with what appear to be a series of structures consistent with the dimensions and location of private garages. A public right of way runs along the southern boundary of the option. It is considered that although the option is visually defined by surrounding properties there is no defensible boundary around the option.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.309A (part of Corner of Institute Road/ Hitcham 0.35 2.28) Road, Taplow Part One General Area No. 73 Boundary Assessment It is possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is part of the larger area 2.28. The site forms part of a strip of land that is contained by the railway line to the south, Institute Road to the north, Hitcham Road to the east and Station Road to the west. Whilst the railway line is theoretically a rational Green Belt boundary feature it was distorted historically so that the GB boundary jumped the railway line and absorbed a now- demolished building at the corner of Station Road and Institute Road so as to exclude it from Green Belt protection. It is therefore considered that a more rational, appropriate and defensible Green Belt boundary can be identified if the entire sliver of land – including the proposed site – is removed and a new boundary aligned with Hitcham Road, Institute Road and Station Road.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Purpose 1a: PASS Purpose 1b: The land is connected to Burnham/Slough to the east across Hitcham Road. Score: 3+/5 Purpose 2: The land makes only a limited contribution to settlement gap partly due to its location and partly due to its form. This is because its location between the railway and Institute Road and its long narrow form means that the land is contained by infrastructure and prevented from contributing to the perceived gap between Burnham/Slough and Maidenhead. The railway line severs any visual connection between the land and Maidenhead to the west whilst its narrow form means it has a very limited interface with Burnham/Slough and therefore contributes little sense of openness. Score: 1/5 Purpose 3: Despite the relatively small size of the option it is subject to extensive development already, albeit this includes the existing non-Green Belt portion of the area in the west. However, the currently non-Green Belt area to the east of the option has extensive hard standing and foundation development. The internal boundary between Green Belt and non-Green Belt is consequently effectively meaningless on the ground as there is little to distinguish between the two areas. It is therefore considered that the option has an urban character and is covered by extensive development. Score: 1/5 Purpose 4: The land does not abut a historic settlement core. Score: 0/5 Green Belt Purpose Conclusion: The area of land scores weakly against one or more Green Belt purpose(s). Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Is there a good fit with the spatial Option A – Making more efficient use of land within strategy? existing built-up areas. Option G – Review of inner Green Belt boundaries to address anomalies.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Would development in the area satisfy Development would have a minor adverse impact on: sustainable development criteria? - Pollution (Objective 7) Development would have a neutral impact on: - Cultural heritage (Objective 1) - Landscape (Objective 2) - Biodiversity and geodiversity (Objective 3) - Natural resources (Objective 6) - Waste (Objective 8) - Health (Objective 11) - Employment (Objective 12) Development would have a minor positive impact on: - Transport and accessibility (Objective 9) - Housing (Objective 10) Development would have an unknown impact on: - Climate change mitigation (Objective 4) - Climate change adaptation (Objective 5)
Looking just at the area of land in The specific area in question would not represent question, to what extent would there be significant conflict with the purposes and integrity of the conflict with the purposes and integrity Green Belt. The option’s limited size, narrow form and of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF close alignment with the railway line limits its role in (including wider objectives)? restricting sprawl and protecting the countryside from encroachment. It makes no contribution to the setting or character of a historic town and its weak green belt performance negates its role in encouraging the recycling of derelict urban land. Looking at the strategic context of the The option’s location limits its impact on the wider area’s wider area, to what extent is there Green Belt function. It is shielded by the railway line and conflict with the wider strategic function therefore has no impact on areas further south. The of the Green Belt in the form of playing fields to the immediate north of the site would be cumulative impacts: would release from unlikely to meet exceptional circumstances (see 2.28A) and the Green Belt affect the scoring in therefore the wider area’s openness and character would be likely to be preserved regardless of development at the surrounding parcels and/or is the scoring option. The containment by major infrastructure would be affected by judgements about likely to negate a ‘domino’ effect of further Green Belt exceptional circumstances in other release as there are clear defensible perimeters to the parcels? proposed option.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Exceptional Circumstances Conclusion: Yes. Institute Road provides a stronger, more rational and more defensible Green Belt boundary than at present as the current boundary is defined by the footprint of a now- demolished building and is entirely arbitrary as a result. Such arbitrary boundaries weaken the broader purpose of Green Belt designation and releasing this site will therefore contribute to strengthening the integrity of Green Belt elsewhere. The site is exceptionally sustainable as it is immediately adjacent to Taplow station. It therefore has very strong development potential. The encircling infrastructure provides highly durable boundaries to the site and should ensure that there will be no development ‘creep’ into neighbouring parcels.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.311 Land South of Amerden Lane, Taplow 1.14 Part One General Area No. 90 Boundary Assessment It is possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is well defined by natural features. Amerdan Lane forms the western and northern boundaries, Amerden Close forms the eastern boundary and Taplow Lake forms the southern boundary. A defensible boundary around the site can be identified.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Purpose 1a: FAIL Purpose 1b: Land is not directly on the edge of a built up area as the railway and Jubilee River sever any connection to the wider built area of Taplow/Maidenhead. Score: 0/5 Purpose 2: The general pattern of development in the immediate vicinity of the site lies north of an arc formed by the railway and Bath Road. Despite the fact that the site lies south of this arc it is nonetheless a notable green space in a corridor of land between Maidenhead and Burnham which is otherwise largely developed. Therefore the openness and scale of this site is considered to be important to the perception of separation between Maidenhead and Burnham despite the fact that it is physically severed from both settlements by the road and railway. Score: 3/5 Purpose 3: The site has residential dwellings to the east and west but appears to contain none itself. Its green and wooded nature and lakeside setting impart a largely rural character though this is tempered by the presence of dwellings on both sides and proximity to the railway line. Score: 3/5 Purpose 4: The site does not abut a historic settlement core. Score: 0/5 Green Belt Purpose Conclusion: The area of land scores moderately against one or more Green Belt purpose(s). Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.312 Land adjacent to 801 Bath Road, 0.09 Burnham Part One General Area No. 90 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is entirely surrounded by Green Belt and its boundaries to the east and south follow property boundaries rather than natural features. It is therefore considered that these boundaries lack durability and that the site as a whole fails to demonstrate permanent defensible boundaries.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.313 Former Council Depot, Burnham 0.15 Part One General Area No. 90 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is bounded to the west by a paved access road but its remaining boundaries all lack definition by durable natural features. The north appears to form part of the curtilage of 801 Bath Road and to the east and south there appear to be industrial/service facilities. The boundaries between all these features are internal and non-durable and it is considered not possible to identify a permanent and defensible boundary to the site as a whole.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.314 Land at West Town Farm, Burnham 21.05 Part One General Area No. 90 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The long linear site directly abuts the non-Green Belt settlement of Burnham for much of its northern and eastern boundaries. However, The southern boundary does not follow any defensible natural features as it falls across wide open fields. The HELAA representation (Rep 0011) makes reference to finding a boundary by following field boundaries and filling up any buffer space with green infrastructure but this would not be help identify a defensible boundary for the site as field boundaries are not considered durable and defensible in the Part 1 methodology.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.315 Wyeth Laboratories, Huntercombe 3.18 Lane Part One General Area No. 90
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is on the boundary of South Bucks DC and Slough BC. It abuts the settlement of Slough to the north and Huntercombe Lane to the west. The M4 Huntercombe Spur forms the option’s eastern boundary. However, it is considered that no permanent defensible boundary can be identified for the site as a whole as the site is bounded by extensive open fields to the south. There are no natural features which could provide an appropriate new Green Belt boundary.
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.316 Huntercombe Hospital 4.39 Part One General Area No. 90 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is entirely within the Green Belt and is bounded on only one side by a durable boundary, Huntercombe Lane to the west. The northern boundary follows the property line, the eastern boundary is formed where the option meets open fields and the southern boundary follows a hedgeline. It is considered that the lack of durability of these features makes it impossible to identify a permanent and defensible boundary to the option.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.317 Stoke Place Estate, Stoke Poges 38.77 Part One General Area No. 85b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site directly abuts Slough BC to the east and is encircled to the north and west by the B416. However, the border as proposed to the south appears to follow a hedgeline and offers no natural durability. This is of particular concern given the site’s proximity to Slough – the absence of a defensible boundary to the south would leave the remaining Green Belt strip vulnerable to encroachment. It is therefore considered that no permanent and defensible boundary can be identified and that the site does not represent an appropriate new Green Belt boundary.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.318 (part of 2.29 All Souls Farm Quarry, Wexham 65.46 and 4.338) Part One General Area No. 81 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is part of the larger areas of 2.29 and 4.338. It is not possible to define a boundary around the site which is permanent and defensible. This is because much of the site borders either open green space or dwellings within in a Green Belt settlement. Very little of the site directly abuts non-Green Belt Slough and so the site’s relationship is much stronger with the Green Belt that with Slough. Accordingly, the site’s boundaries are considered to be insufficiently durable and defensible to represent an appropriate new boundary for the Green Belt.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.319 The Park, Wexham Road, Wexham 14.93 Part One General Area No. 85b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is bounded to the west by Stoke Road and to the east by Wexham Road. However, its northern and southern boundaries do not follow natural features - the northern boundary onto open fields and grassland is particularly soft. Consequently it is not considered possible to identify a boundary which is permanent and defensible. The representation for this option (Rep 3840) highlights its development credentials as a previously developed site in the Green Belt. This is a separate and unrelated issue to that of release from the Green Belt and therefore does not strengthen the case for the option’s release from the Green Belt.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.320 (part of 2.30 Land East of Uxbridge Road, George 25.19 and 4.338). Green Part One General Area No. 88 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is part of the larger areas of 2.30 and 4.338. It has a long eastern boundary with a public right of way which itself borders extensive open fields. It is not considered that the right of way constitutes a permanent and defensible boundary as it is not a natural feature. Additionally, the site’s northern and southern boundaries follow property boundaries rather than natural features and are therefore considered to be of limited durability and defensibility as well.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.321 (part of 2.30 Slough Nursery, Uxbridge Road, 5.49 and 4.338). George Green Part One General Area No. 88 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is part of the larger areas of 2.30 and 4.338. It lies on the border between South Bucks DC and Slough BC. It directly abuts Slough to the west where the option’s existing access road joins the residential street of Rochford Gardens. The site is bounded to the north by open agricultural fields and to the south by lightly wooded green space. A private commercial yard bounds the option to the east. There are no boundaries which follow natural durable features with the northern and southern boundaries appearing particularly soft. It is therefore considered that no permanent and defensible boundaries can be identified for the site.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.322 (part of 2.30 Land off Middle Green Road, Middle 8.67 and 4.338). Green Part One General Area No. 88 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is part of the larger areas of 2.30 and 4.338. It lies on the border between South Bucks DC and Slough BC and abuts Slough BC to the west. Its boundaries appear to follow existing property boundaries rather than natural features, although the property boundary itself follows the course of Middle Green Road at the east of the option. The general absence of natural features around the option means that it is not possible to identify a permanent and defensible boundary.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.323 (part of 2.30 Lavender Farm, Middle Green 2.61 and 4.338). Part One General Area No. 88 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is part of the larger areas of 2.30 and 4.338. It is split in two by Nursery Lane. The south east portion of the site is a triangular shape and is well defined by Nursery Lane to the west, Middle Green Road to the east and the Grand Union Canal to the south. The north west portion is larger and does not have the same clarity of definition as its northern and western boundaries do not follow any natural features. Because of this it is considered not possible to identify a permanent and defensible boundary around the site as a whole.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.324 (part of 2.30 Grove Farm, St Marys Road, Middle 6.98 and 4.338). Green Part One General Area No. 88 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements, with a minor adjustment. The option is part of the larger areas of 2.30 and 4.338. The option as proposed has natural features as its boundary to the south, west and north west but relies on back gardens to form its north eastern and eastern boundary. If the option is extended to St Mary’s Road to include these properties then a ring of natural durable features extends around the entire area – Grand Union Canal, Middle Green Road and St Mary’s Road - and provides a clear permanent and defensible boundary.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Purpose 1a: PASS Purpose 1b: Although the Grand Union Canal provides a degree of physical severance from Slough itself the option has a strong relationship with Slough. Such is its proximity to Slough that it is considered that development on the option would be almost visually indistinct from existing development in Slough itself regardless of the presence of the canal. Score: 5/5 Purpose 2: The gap provided by the option site is ‘front line’ in the containment of Slough. Its openness is critical in preserving the difference in character between Slough and South Bucks. Score: 5/5 Purpose 3: There are three existing dwellings and a primary school on the option but the remainder of the area is open farmland. Its rural character is slightly diminished by the presence of high density development just over the canal in Slough though in general the area is defined by its openness. Score: 4/5 Purpose 4: The option does not abut a historic settlement core. Score: 0/5 Green Belt Purpose Conclusion: The area of land scores strongly against one or more Green Belt purpose(s). Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.325 (part of 2.30 and Land North of the Grand Union 32.74 4.338). Canal, Middle Green Part One General Area No. 88 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is part of the larger areas of 2.30 and 4.338. The Part 1 Methodology states in paragraph 4.3.4 that a “flexible approach” is appropriate when seeking to identify durable boundary features. Paragraph 4.3.5 suggests that as part of this flexible approach appropriately durable features may include “smaller water features … and other watercourses”. It is possible to identify a defensible boundary at this site which is consistent with this definition as a non-culverted drain forms the northern boundary. The Grand Union Canal forms the southern boundary and Trenches Road and St Mary’s Road form the eastern and western boundaries respectively. The non-Green Belt development at Marsh Wharf forms a buffer between the canal and the site in the site’s south west.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Purpose 1a: PASS Purpose 1b: Although the Grand Union Canal severs the physical connection between the site and Slough the relationship between the two is one of effective contiguity. It is considered that development upon the site would present as an extension of the Slough built area and would reduce both the real and perceived separateness between the two. Score: 5/5 Purpose 2: The site performs strongly as a gap between Slough and the much smaller settlement of Middle Green and, to a lesser extent, George Green. Middle Green in particular would be at risk of coalescence with Slough if development were to occur on the site. Score: 3/5 Purpose 3: The site is predominantly open and undeveloped. The only exceptions are the Langley Waste and Recycling Centre in the far south east of the site and the presence of overhead cables running laterally east-west across the site. The character is largely rural though this is tempered by the presence of the power lines. Score: 4/5 Purpose 4: The site does not abut a historic settlement core. Score: 0/5 Green Belt Purpose Conclusion: The area of land scores strongly against one or more Green Belt purpose(s).
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.326 Land North of the Langley Park Road, 9.43 Middle Green Part One General Area No. 88 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is entirely within the Green Belt. The option lies between Langley Park Road to the south and the disused portion of Hollybush Lane to the north. The defensibility of the Hollybush Lane is unclear as it no longer appears to function as a thoroughfare and as such its capacity to provide a permanent boundary might potentially be compromised. Additionally, the option takes its eastern and western boundaries from the perimeter of existing back gardens and property curtilages. It is considered that these features do not provide sufficient durability and therefore it is not possible to identify a permanent and defensible boundary for the site as a whole.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.327 (part of 2.31) Land from Langley Park Road to 28.91 Thorney Lane North, Iver Village Part One General Area No. 87b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site forms part of larger area 2.31. It is within the Colne Valley Regional Park. It borders the non-Green Belt settlement of Iver to the north, open fields to the west and south west, Ridgeway Business Park to the south east and Thorney Lane North to the east. It is not possible to identify a defensible boundary around the site due to the expansive open fields at the site’s south west corner. The absence of natural boundary features here means that an NPPF compliant boundary cannot be identified.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.328 (part of 2.31) Land South of Iver, Iver Village 31.33 Part One General Area No. 87b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site forms part of larger area 2.31. It is not possible to identify a permanent defensible boundary around 4.328 specifically due to its extensive southern boundary with open green fields. Without any natural defensible boundary features in this location an NPPF compliant boundary is not achievable.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.329 (part of 1.29 Field to the North of Market Garden 1.24 and 2.31A) Farm and South of Marina Way, Iver Village Part One General Area No. 92 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is rectangular in shape and has clearly defined boundaries on three sides – the M25 to the east, Marina Way to the north and Thorney Lane North to the west. However, the southern boundary is denoted by a fence along the property line and not by durable features. Due to the soft southern boundary it is considered that a permanent defensible boundary to the site as a whole cannot be identified. However, the site is part of the larger area of 1.29 which for which defensible boundaries and exceptional circumstances for release have been identified. See 1.29 for further details.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.330 (intersects Land at Thorney Lane South , Iver 53.58 with 2.32) Village Part One General Area No. 95/96/99 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The identified area is severed in the middle by the non-Green Belt Thorney Business Park which means there are two separate Green Belt areas within 4.330. This lack of contiguity means it is therefore not possible to identify a single permanent and defensible boundary for the whole of 4.330. However, an area within 4.330 is identified for release as part of the search within 400m of Iver station. See pro forma 2.32 and 2.32A for further details.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.331 (Part of 2.32) Land at Iver Station, Richings Park 5.67 Part One General Area No. 95 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. Please refer to 2.32.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.332 (Intersects with Land at Thorney Lane South, 5.77 2.32) Richings Park Part One General Area No. 99 Boundary Assessment Intersects with larger area 2.32 – see pro forma 2.32
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable
Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.333 Land North of North Park, Ritchings 10.41 Park Part One General Area No. 99 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is immediately west of the non-Green Belt settlement of Richings Park. It is connected to Richings Park to the east and is bounded by the road of North Park to the south. Its western boundary is formed by a public footpath and access track which cuts through open fields and the northern boundary appears to align to the field boundaries on the ground. It is not possible to identify an NPPF compliant boundary around the site due to the lack of natural durable boundary features to the north and west.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.334 (part of 1.30) Fourells Paddock, Richings Park 3.15 Part One General Area No. 99 Boundary Assessments Area is entirely within 1.30 - see pro forma for 1.30
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.335 Land adj to Sutton Court Farm, 0.29 Richings Park Part One General Area No. 99 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The site is surrounded by Green Belt except for its western frontage with Sutton Lane. Its boundaries are not considered to be durable to become new Green Belt boundaries. This is because they are denoted on the ground by property boundaries to the south and east and an access driveway to the north, none of which are considered to be NPPF compliant features in the Part 1 methodology. A permanent defensible boundary around the site is therefore not possible to identify.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.336 Trumpers Field, Meadow Way 4.72 Part One General Area No. 100 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. This site is adjacent to the GB3 settlement of Dorney Reach. It is considered that the site does not demonstrate a defensible boundary as it relies on property boundaries to mark its south and east extent. It should be acknowledged, however, that the site does demonstrate exceptionally defensible boundaries on its western and northern perimeters where it meets the River Thames and M4 motorway respectively. However, the absence of defensible boundaries to the south and east means that an NPPF compliant boundary around the entire site cannot be identified.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.337 Slough BC – Area between Burnham 77.52 and Farnham Royal Part One General Area No. 80b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option has been proposed by Slough BC as a potential urban extension. The southern boundary of the option aligns with the northern boundary of Slough as denoted by Farnham Lane. The option abuts Farnham Royal to the east and includes a range of existing land uses including residential dwellings, commercial plant nurseries and agricultural land. The option appears to have a defensible boundary in places. For example, part of the northern boundary is marked by Allerds Road, Cow Piece Lane and Walton Lane, all of which offer durability and defensibility. However, the boundary as proposed has several sections which are not marked by natural features and appear soft and of limited defensibility. For example, west of Walton Lane the boundary is marked by field boundaries and hedge lines which are not defensible features to form an NPPF compliant boundary. Additionally, at the north eastern corner of the option the boundary is marked by the property boundary of Farnham Royal Garden Centre in the absence of a natural boundary feature. These lapses in defensibility mean that a defensible boundary for the option as a whole cannot be identified.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.338 Slough BC – Area South of Stoke 871.88 Poges, George and Middle Green Part One General Area No. 100 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is proposed by Slough BC in Rep3844 as a potential urban extension and this objective is reflected by its substantial size. Naturally an option of 871.88 hectares will interface with a range of environments and boundary features so there are complexities to establishing a defensible boundary at this scale.
By affording a degree of flexibility to the process it is possible to identify a boundary of reasonable durability in places. This has been achieved by pushing the option boundaries out to the nearest natural features which in this case are generally A and B roads. However, there remain stretches where appropriate natural features with which to align the boundary are limited or absent and these areas threaten the overall option’s NPPF compliance.
Starting at the option’s south west corner the boundary as proposed follows Stoke Poges Lane north from Slough to its junction with the B416 at Stoke Green. From here the boundary follows the B416 north and then Farthing Green Lane north east to Wexham Street settlement. It then follows Rowley Lane east and then Black Park Road south to the A412. The boundary follows the A412 south to the settlement of George Green, corresponding to the northern and eastern edges of the settlement.
At this point the boundary follows a public right of way through open fields to Shreding Green before resuming alignment with the road network. The boundary as proposed proceeds south west with the B470 and finally follows Hollow Hill Lane south east to meet the existing Slough boundary at the Mansion Lane bridge over the Grand Union Canal.
It is considered that the absence of natural features for the section between George Green and Shredding Green undermines the defensibility of the rest of the proposed boundary. It is further considered that there are no appropriate natural or durable features in this section which might be used instead of the proposed public right of way. Therefore, given the exposed position within the overall option that this soft boundary occupies and the broader undermining effect it imparts it is considered that a permanent and defensible boundary for the option as a whole cannot be identified.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.339 Slough BC – Area to West of Richings 44.66 Park Part One General Area No. 99
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is roughly square shaped and is not well defined on the ground. The northern boundary is the mainline railway and the southern boundary is North Park. However the option has a western boundary as the border between South Bucks and Slough which is purely administrative with no physical definition on the ground apart from agricultural fields. The proposed eastern boundary is a public right of way and access track cutting across an otherwise open field. Whilst the track is well defined on the ground it does not constitute an NPPF compliant boundary feature as per the Part 1 methodology and it is therefore considered that a permanent defensible boundary around the site as a whole cannot be identified as a result.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.340 Hen & Chickens, Botley Road, 0.35 Chesham Part One General Area No. 16b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is entirely within the Green Belt. Its boundaries as proposed are formed by property lines to the north, west and east and by Botley Road to the south. The land to the west is open agricultural land and to the north and east appears to be in use for private dwellings with commercial functions attached. It is considered that due to the lack of natural boundary features around the option it is not possible to identify a permanent defensible boundary. Additionally, the location of the option entirely within the Green Belt would mean that its release would represent an inappropriate new Green Belt boundary.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.341 Land from St Leonard’s Road up to 6.41 the Metropolitan Line Part One General Area No. 22b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option abuts the non-Green Belt settlement of Chesham for its entire western and southern boundaries. The Metropolitan Line forms the northern boundary and a hedgerow and open field form the option’s eastern boundary. The eastern boundary is therefore soft and there are no natural features to which a boundary could be realigned. It is therefore considered that a permanent defensible boundary for the option as a whole cannot be identified.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.342 The Area between Waterside and 54.61 Chesham Bois up to Amersham Road Part One General Area No. 16a Boundary Assessment It is possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option abuts the non-Green Belt settlements of Chesham Bois and Amersham to the south and therefore its release would extend the existing non-Green Belt area northwards towards Chesham. With its southern boundary marked by existing non-Green Belt development the option’s remaining boundaries are all well defined by durable and defensible features. The western boundary is marked by Amersham Road and the Metropolitan line forms a long diagonal boundary from the option’s most northerly point to its most easterly point where it meets the existing Amersham built area. These boundaries are considered to be permanent, defensible and NPPF compliant.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Purpose 1a: PASS Purpose 1b: The option is contiguous with Chesham Bois/Amersham to the south and connected to Chesham to the north. Score: 5+/5 Purpose 2: The gap formed by the option provides a critical distinction between Chesham Bois/Amersham and Chesham. To release the option from the Green Belt would be to merge two currently separate non-Green Belt areas and present a clear and immediate risk of coalescence between two of Chiltern District’s major settlements. Score: 5 Purpose 3: With the exception of a handful of outlying agricultural structures, a small cemetery with associated access track and a cluster of four dwellings to the east of the option it is largely clear of any existing development and demonstrates an unspoilt rural character. This is partially down to the topography of the area – Thickly wooded steep slopes to the option’s south ensure that development here is limited and the additional protection afforded by large swathes of ancient woodland and blanket TPOs has resulted in a well preserved rural character. Even as the option approaches built-up Chesham there is sufficient screening in place to limit the visual impact of nearby development and maintain the tranquillity of the rest of the option area. Score: 5 Purpose 4: The option does not abut a historic settlement core. Score: 0/5 Green Belt Purpose Conclusion: The area of land scores strongly against one or more Green Belt purpose(s). Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.343 Christmas Tree Farm, Amersham 4.51 Road, Chesham Part One General Area No. 16a Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is adjacent to the non-Green Belt settlement of Chesham which lies directly to the option’s north and north east. The western boundary is provided by the A416 and the eastern boundary is provided by the Metropolitan Line railway. To the south of the option are what appear to be paddocks or fields across a boundary formed by a hedgerow. It is considered that although the option has durable boundaries to the east and west it is not possible to identify a permanent and defensible boundary to the south where there are no natural boundary features.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.344 Land North of Parish Lane and West 36.94 of Kiln Lane, adjacent to the A355 Part One General Area No. 59 Boundary Assessment It is possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. When viewed in isolation the option has clear defensible boundaries as it is ringed by Kiln Lane to the north, Andrew Hill Lane to the east, Parish Lane to the south and the A355 to the west. The option is in close proximity to the non-Green Belt settlement of Farnham Common but is entirely surrounded by Green Belt.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Purpose 1a: FAIL Purpose 1b: The site is not connected to a major settlement. Score: 0/5 Purpose 2: The option does not directly abut either Farnham Common or Hedgerley but contributes to the gap and sense of openness between the two settlements. Development of the option area would therefore risk negatively impacting this gap. Score: 3/5 Purpose 3: The option is undeveloped and open save for a public house on Parish Lane and a small quantity of farm buildings. The character is strongly rural, open and unspoilt as the land is predominantly in agricultural use with additional areas of woodland. Score: 5/5 Purpose 4: Score: 0/5 Green Belt Purpose Conclusion: The area of land scores strongly against one or more Green Belt purpose(s). Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.345 Richings Park Golf Club 94.60 Part One General Area No. Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option has a number of defensible boundary features but it is not possible to identify a permanent defensible boundary around the entire area. Whilst the M4 to the south, North Park to the north and Sutton Lane to the west are durable features the boundary to the east is marked by property lines and hedgerows. As per the Part 1 methodology this is not NPPF compliant.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.346 Land North of Longbottom Lane, 9.61 Jordans (1) Part One General Area No. 41a Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. Roads form part of the site boundary, with Longbottom Lane to the south and Jordans Lane to the east both forming permanent features.
To the west, part of the site abuts existing built development. Although the development is of a low density and relatively rural appearance, this part of the boundary has permanency. The remainder of the western boundary of the site is formed by a lane, Beech Lane, although tree cover on either side of the lane means that effectively the boundary runs through woodland. The woodland immediately facing the site under consideration is protected as ancient woodland. The combination of this status and the presence of the lane means that this part of the boundary also has permanence.
To the north the site boundary runs through the middle of a field. There is a very poorly defined track across the field but this serves no practical purpose as a boundary and would be very difficult to follow on the ground.
The site is surrounded on all sides by Green Belt and there are no permanent and defensible physical features to define the northern boundary of the site.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.347 Land North of Longbottom Lane, 11.56 Jordans (2) Part One General Area No. 41a Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The south western and south eastern boundaries of this site are formed by existing built development. Although the development is of a low density and relatively rural appearance, these boundaries have permanency. The bulk of the western / north western boundary is formed of an area of trees protected by a TPO and, in part, an ancient woodland designation. This boundary can also be considered to have permanency. The northern / north eastern boundary is less permanent. This comprises a row of non-protected trees with farmland beyond, and a portion of a field boundary with a footpath. Neither part of this boundary is formed of permanent and defensible physical features.
The eastern half of this site overlaps with another site 4.225, which extends further to the north east. Were the two sites to be considered jointly then the issue of the footpath field boundary would no longer be relevant, but a row of non-protected trees would form a much larger part of the north western boundary of the larger site. It would thus still not be possible to define a boundary for the larger site based on permanent and defensible physical features.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.348 Slough BC – Area between Burnham 77.52 and Farnham Royal Part One General Area No. 80b Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is entirely within the Green Belt. The boundary as proposed is formed by Collum Green Road to the north, the B416 to the east, Templewood Lane to the south and by a combination of Stoke Wood and property lines to the west. The original representation (Rep2442) proposes the area as suitable for infill which conforms to the existing settlement pattern. Although the pattern of development forms a visual western boundary on the ground - in the sense that there is an unbroken line of development from Templewood Lane north to Collum Green Road - this does not represent an NPPF compliant boundary for the Green Belt. The absence of natural boundary features to the west means that a permanent defensible boundary for the option cannot be identified.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.349 Land West of Lodge Lane, North of 53.94 Burtons Lane Part One General Area No. 35/29 Boundary Assessment It is possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option is roughly triangular in shape and is fully enclosed by Long Walk to the north, Burtons Lane to the west and Lodge Lane to the east. These features are considered to be durable and defensible and would therefore represent an NPPF compliant boundary.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Purpose 1a: PASS Purpose 1b: The option lies at the far south east of the main settlement of Little Chalfont but is directly connected via the existing ribbon development along Burtons Lane and Long Walk. Little Chalfont is considered to be generally bordered by features lacking in permanence as much of the perimeter of the settlement is marked by the back gardens of residential dwellings. Score: 3+/5 Purpose 2: The option is considered to make a significant contribution to both the real and perceived gap between the settlements of Little Chalfont and Chorleywood. Development at the option would therefore have the effect of compromising the effect of the current gap and eroding the sense of separateness between the two settlements although would not in itself result in their actual coalescence. Score: 3/5 Purpose 3: The option is considered to be under the strongest influence from the surrounding countryside rather than the settlement of Little Chalfont. There is some existing residential development but this is considered to be subservient to the wider rural character of the area and does not impart a substantially urban feel. Score: 4/5 Purpose 4: The option does not abut a historic settlement core. Score: 0/5 Green Belt Purpose Conclusion: The area of land scores strongly against one or more Green Belt purpose(s). Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.350 Thorn Barn Hall, Ashley Green Road 16.67 Part One General Area No. 11 Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option consists largely of undeveloped open fields although does also include three dwellings and a commercial premises. The A416 forms the option’s eastern boundary, a cluster of properties and their respective boundaries collectively form the option’s northern boundary and the option’s southern and eastern boundaries are marked by the hedge lines of fields. Whilst the A416 provides a durable boundary to the east the remaining sides offer no natural boundary features and it is therefore considered that the option as a whole cannot demonstrate a permanent defensible boundary.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 4.351 Properties north, east and south of 3.54 Wood Lane, South Heath. Part One General Area No. 10c Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The option consists of a cluster of existing residential properties at the end of the Wood End cul-de-sac in South Heath. The option is entirely within the Green Belt. It is not possible to identify a permanent and defensible boundary around the option and it would therefore represent an inappropriate new Green Belt boundary. For example, the southern boundary as proposed bisects the gardens of existing dwellings and fails to correspond to any kind of durable feature on the ground. The option abuts fields to the east, woodland and private gardens to the north and an area of woodland to the west. None of the features offer permanence or defensibility.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Assessment Part Two Reference No. Area Name Hectares 0.25 4.352 Brawlings Croft, Brawlings Lane, Chalfont St Peter Part One General Area No. 13a Boundary Assessment It is not possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. The eastern boundary of the site is formed of Brawlings Lane. However there are no permanent or defensible features with which to define the northern, southern and western boundaries of the site, these currently being formed of hedgerows and trees.
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL
Green Belt Purpose Assessment Not Applicable Exceptional Circumstances Assessment Not Applicable
Classification: OFFICIAL