APPENDIX 1 ANNEX F New Green Belt / Green Gap Policy 1 Introduction 1.1 Following consideration of the Inspector’s Interim Views, the Arup New Green Belt Policy Advice Note and the available evidence, this Annex sets out a replacement policy for the New Green Belt proposal in the submitted Local Plan Strategy (LPS). 1.2 The previously proposed New Green Belt policy will be replaced by an alternative “Strategic Green Gaps” policy which will cover the gaps currently included in the existing Green Gaps policy (saved policy NE.4 in the Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan). These are identified as being the critical gaps to provide protection against coalescence, to protect the character and separate identity of settlements, and to retain the existing settlement pattern by maintaining the openness of land. The gaps identified in this policy are considered to be the strategic gaps required to prevent coalescence, primarily arising from the growth of Crewe. 1.3 In addition to the “Strategic Green Gaps” policy, further consideration should be given to an additional “Local Green Gaps” policy through the Site Allocations and Development Policies document. 2 Overview of Inspector’s Interim Views 2.1 The Inspector found that there was insufficient justification in the evidence to establish a new Green Belt around Crewe. In particular, the following concerns were identified: 2.2 Although the evidence addresses the criteria that have to be met, it does not explicitly identify the exceptional circumstances needed to establish the new Green Belt. 2.3 The area of search for the new Green Belt extends much further than that currently covered by the Green Gaps policy, which may not be fully justified, and earlier versions of the Plan envisages a much smaller area of Green Belt. 2.4 Significant areas of new development are proposed within the area of search for the new Green Belt. 2.5 Crewe has been a location for growth in the past and the scale of growth now proposed is not significantly different than in the previous adopted Local Plan. This does not seem to represent a major change in circumstances to justify establishing a new area of Green Belt; it could also constrain further growth around Crewe in the future. New Green Belt / Green Gap Policy Technical Annex Appendix 1 Annex F Page 1 2.6 There seems to be little evidence to suggest that normal planning and development management policies (including the Green Gaps policy) would not be adequate, provided that a 5-year supply of housing land is consistently maintained. 3 Arup Advice Note 3.1 Ove Arup & Partners were commissioned by the Council to provide advice on the proposed policy for the creation of a new Green Belt and to consider whether an alternative policy approach would be more appropriate. The Arup advice note is included at the end of this Technical Annex. 3.2 The Arup advisory note considers the approaches to dealing with this issue including the evidence available, the Inspector’s Interim Views and the outcomes of recent High Court and planning appeal decisions. It concludes that evidence submitted does not satisfy the Inspector that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the creation of a new Green Belt, and that based on the outcomes of recent High Court and planning appeal decisions, the existing Green Gaps policy cannot currently be considered ‘insufficient’. As a result, it recommends that the LPS considers a new Green Gaps policy rather than proceeding with the proposed new Green Belt designation. 3.3 The Arup Advice Note recommends that the LPS employs a ‘package of policies’ which can be used in conjunction to protect the green gaps and open countryside around Crewe and Nantwich. This package of policies comprises of a new Green Gaps policy supported by ‘protection’ based policies, such as: Open countryside; Environmental and heritage policies; and The use of ‘green buffers’ within strategic sites adjacent to Green Gaps. 4 Evidence Base 4.1 The ‘New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gap Study’1 (“the Study”) is the primary source of evidence for the proposed new Green Belt policy. In addition to considering the case for a new Green Belt, this study looks at alternative policy options such as a strategic open gap policy instead of a new Green Belt. 4.2 The Arup Advice Note recommends that this evidence be reviewed and updated to define critical and less critical gaps in order to refine the 1 Examination document [BE 011] New Green Belt / Green Gap Policy Technical Annex Appendix 1 Annex F Page 2 policy response to ensure a consistent approach to protection within Green Gaps 4.3 The Study also makes an assessment of various gaps within the current Green Gap areas and beyond. It assesses the current character of the existing Green Gaps and considers whether they are still capable of performing their original purpose, to prevent the merging of settlements. The assessments look at land-use, settlement character, landscape character, environmental and historic designations and public routes providing views in and out of the countryside. They also consider the narrowest point of each gap and make visual assessments of the gaps. 4.4 The Study also looks at a number of other gaps beyond the current Green Gap areas, although the assessments of these other gaps are not as rigorous and do not include a full visual appraisal. The gaps appraised in the study are shown in Figure F.1 below. 4.5 The Study only assesses the broad area of each gap and does not provide the evidence for defining detailed boundaries. Figure F.1: Location of Gaps Appraised in the New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gaps Study 4.6 A review of the Study shows that there is sufficient evidence to justify a strategic open gap policy within the current Green Gap areas: Gap A: Willaston / Wistaston / Nantwich / Crewe; Gap B: Willaston / Rope / Shavington / Crewe; New Green Belt / Green Gap Policy Technical Annex Appendix 1 Annex F Page 3 Gap C: Crewe / Shavington / Basford village / Weston; and Gap D: Crewe / Haslington. 4.7 The Study is clear that if a new Green Belt policy is not pursued then it will be essential to include these areas in a strategic open gap policy in the LPS. This policy would seek to identify land that performs an important role in protecting the setting and separate identity of settlements and to avoid coalescence; retaining the existing settlement pattern by maintaining the openness of the land; and retaining the physical and psychological benefits of having open land near to where people live. 4.8 It also recommends consideration of a strategic open gap between Sandbach and Middlewich (J), between Leighton and Bradfield Green (F) and between Shavington, Wybunbury and Hough (G). However, a review of the study shows that some additional evidence and further assessment of these gaps would be required before it could be determined whether their inclusion in a strategic gaps policy could be justified. 4.9 The Study concludes that for the other gaps between Haslington and Sandbach (H) and between Nantwich and Acton (E), normal policies such as those related to open countryside and heritage would suffice and there is no justification for their inclusion in a strategic gaps policy. 4.10 When considering the area of search for any potential new Green Belt, the Study also considers that it would be reasonable (if considering an extended Green Belt designation around the south, eastern and western edges of Crewe) to consider extending that designation towards the south-west to encompass other nearby settlements in the gap between Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent, that could in future become the focus for new development. 4.11 It may then be appropriate to consider additional gaps within the previous Green Belt area of search that have not been specifically- assessed in the Study. However, these gaps are unlikely to perform such a strategic function as those identified in the Study and consideration of further areas would require additional evidence. 5 Rationale for Protecting Gaps 5.1 The proposal for a new Green Belt was predicated, primarily, on a strategic need to prevent the neighbouring towns of Crewe and Nantwich merging together. The two areas have very different characters and origins: Nantwich is the historic centre of South Cheshire, with 2,000 years of settlement; Crewe is a ‘railway town’, a product of 19th Century rail expansion which has grown rapidly since then and threatens to overwhelm its smaller, historic neighbour. The aim of the new Green Belt policy, to realise the benefit of growth in New Green Belt / Green Gap Policy Technical Annex Appendix 1 Annex F Page 4 both towns whilst ensuring that they did not become physically linked and lose their individual characters, remains a fundamental objective of the LPS. This is supported by Strategic Priority 3 in the submitted LPS which seeks to maintain and enhance the character and separate identities of the Borough’s towns and villages. 5.2 In addition, the Study also identifies a number of other nearby settlements where there is a risk of coalescence with Crewe where a strategic gap designation would provide protection against coalescence and help to preserve the distinct character and separate identity of these settlements. 5.3 Throughout the LPS preparation process, there was significant and consistent community support for a policy to maintain physical gaps between settlements and to preserve the distinctive character of each settlement. Both the Crewe and Nantwich draft Town Strategies received strong support, through comment forms and petitions. The Development Strategy2, published in January 2013, included a proposal for two new areas of Green Belt (between Crewe and Nantwich and between Nantwich and Acton) and a ‘Strategic Open Gap’ policy to the south, east, north and north east of Crewe.