Green Belt and countryside
Question GB 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards Green Belt and countryside, as set out in GB 1 'Green Belt and countryside' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended.
154 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Strong protection of the Green Belt (no release) | A very large proportion of respondents argue that the Green Belt is a vital and irreplaceable asset. They emphasise its importance for preventing sprawl, protecting village identity, safeguarding biodiversity and landscape quality, ensuring wellbeing/recreation, and avoiding irreversible urbanisation. Many insist that no Green Belt loss is justified given the availability of brownfield land and the updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stance. |
| Settlement boundaries – should be retained, not removed | Respondents see settlement boundaries as a crucial planning tool that prevents unchecked outward expansion and creeping urbanisation. They argue removing them would weaken control, invite speculative applications, and erode rural character. Some accept redrawing but not deleting. |
| Opposition to ‘Grey Belt’ concept | Many oppose or distrust the Grey Belt classification, viewing it as vague, open to manipulation, lacking statutory basis, and potentially enabling large-scale erosion of Green Belt protections. Concerns include opportunistic landowner behaviour and premature policy use without evidence. |
| Support for some Green Belt release (developers / landowners) | Submissions from landowners and developers broadly support a pragmatic Green Belt review to meet higher housing needs. They highlight parcels that perform weakly against Green Belt purposes, argue for alignment with new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provisions, and flag that certain sites are deliverable, sustainable, or previously developed. |
| Brownfield first / urban intensification priority | A strongly recurring viewpoint insists the Council must exhaust brownfield capacity before even considering Green Belt release. Respondents call for clearer urban capacity studies, town-centre regeneration, mixed-use redevelopment, and policies supporting higher densities in sustainable locations. |
| Protection of rural character, landscape and environment | Many respondents emphasise that rural character, agricultural land quality, ancient woodland, biodiversity corridors, and valued landscapes must be protected. They highlight intrinsic beauty, food production, flood mitigation, climate resilience, and the cumulative harm of incremental change. |
| Infrastructure capacity concerns | Objections often cite insufficient infrastructure to support major development: overstretched schools, lack of GPs/dentists, road congestion (A41/A51/A56 especially), poor public transport, and failing sewage systems. These constraints make Green Belt sites feel inappropriate and unsustainable. |
| Renewable energy, solar farms and utility infrastructure | Views are mixed: Some oppose large solar farms on farmland; some support using Green Belt for strategic decarbonisation infrastructure like CO₂ and hydrogen pipelines. Others support low-carbon energy if it enhances nature recovery and is well-designed. |
| Rural diversification, infill and flexible countryside policies | A proportion of responses advocate flexible rural policies allowing small businesses, farm diversification, sensitive infill, and community-supporting development. They argue infill and diversification can sustain rural settlements if carefully controlled. |
| Technical, policy alignment and evidence-based requirements | Many professional stakeholders emphasise the need for consistency with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024, clarity around DM19/STRAT 9, publication of Green Belt Review methodology, and proper definitions of openness, grey belt tests, exceptional circumstances, and sustainable patterns of development. |
Question GB 2
Should there be a separate policy for countryside and Green Belt areas?
92 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for separate Green Belt and countryside policies | Respondents argue that Green Belt and countryside have distinct purposes and therefore require separate policies, emphasising clarity, legal soundness, and tailored protection. |
| Preference for combined policies | Some respondents favour a single unified policy to avoid confusion and duplication while still providing protection. |
| Strong emphasis on protecting Green Belt | Respondents highlight the Green Belt as an irreplaceable asset that prevents sprawl, protects openness, and supports wellbeing. |
| Concerns about Grey Belt | Respondents warn that introducing ‘Grey Belt’ could dilute protections, create loopholes, and undermine trust. |
| Strengthening countryside protections | Comments emphasise the importance of protecting rural character, biodiversity, agricultural land, and managing development pressures. |
| Flexibility for rural development | Landowners and developers request more permissive countryside policies for infill, small-scale housing, and rural diversification. |
| Issues with existing Local Plan policy STRAT9 | Respondents argue the current Local Plan policy STRAT9 is inconsistent, treating small villages in countryside more restrictively than those in Green Belt. |
| Ecology and landscape responses | Comments stress Local Nature Recovery Strategy integration, ancient woodland protection, and ecological corridors. |
| General responses | Some respondents answered the question with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ without detail. |
Question GB 3
Are any other uses appropriate in the countryside that should be reflected in the policy?
46 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Strong protection of countryside / Green Belt | Respondents emphasise maintaining strict protection of countryside and Green Belt, resisting any expansion of appropriate uses. Concerns include urbanisation, speculative development, loss of tranquillity, landscape harm, and inappropriate/lack of infrastructure. |
| Support for limited rural economic uses | Support for small-scale, context-appropriate rural employment uses such as workshops, storage, home-working hubs, tourism-related business space, reuse of existing buildings and diversification, with emphasis on development scale limits and landscape sensitivity. |
| Rural tourism and leisure (small-scale only) | Support for sensitively designed rural tourism such as eco-tourism, walking/cycling infrastructure and low-impact visitor accommodation, while opposing large-scale leisure facilities or urban-style development. |
| Health and wellbeing benefits of countryside | Respondents stress the essential health value of countryside for physical exercise, mental wellbeing, community resilience and pandemic recovery, opposing uses that reduce access or tranquillity. |
| Agriculture, food production and land management | Highlights the countryside’s primary purpose as productive agricultural land, biodiversity habitat and environmental stewardship. Supports farming, forestry, nature recovery and increased food self-sufficiency. |
| Renewable energy (mixed views) | Views diverge between opposition to large-scale solar/wind farms in countryside or Green Belt, and support for small-scale, landscape-sensitive renewables on farms or buildings. |
| Rural exception / housing exceptions | Some respondents support rural exception sites to address housing needs, including self-build and traveller site needs, provided they are justified and sensitive to the landscape. |
| Green Belt review / Grey Belt / policy clarity | Comments include need for clear Green Belt review methodology and evidence, opposition to Grey Belt concepts, and calls for clear criteria for countryside uses. |
| Miscellaneous / uncertain responses | Some respondents were unsure, had no suggestions or declined to comment. |
Question GB 4
Should the policy limit redevelopment to that of the same use and other policy compliant development?
54 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Strong support for limiting redevelopment | Respondents argue redevelopment should remain tightly controlled to prevent inappropriate intensification, protect Green Belt openness, preserve rural character, avoid ‘back door’ use changes, and maintain compatibility with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) restrictions. |
| Opposed to limiting redevelopment | Respondents emphasise that redevelopment should not be restricted, citing flexibility for rural economic uses, viability of farm diversification, and sufficiency of wider planning policies. |
| Conditional or nuanced responses | Responses indicate acceptability depends on context: impacts, farm viability, sustainability, site characteristics. Some stress exceptions or case by case assessment. |
| Question or policy unclear | Respondents express difficulty understanding the question or see the policy wording as unclear. |
| Evidence based or detailed analysis | Some responses provide deeper reasoning, referencing policy, ecological concerns, infrastructure capacity, sustainability, or planning by stealth where redevelopment shifts into urbanising uses. |
Question GB 5
How else can rural buildings/rural character be protected to prevent new development harming the intrinsic character through ‘urbanising’ the countryside?
53 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Protecting rural character (general) | Respondents strongly emphasise the need to maintain the distinctiveness and tranquility and openness of rural areas. They highlight controls on design, scale, landscape impact, and avoidance of suburbanising features. |
| Opposition to urbanisation / overdevelopment | Strong resistance to large-scale housing, suburban encroachment, village coalescence and high-density schemes. |
| Green Belt protection | Green Belt is seen as vital and irreplaceable. Respondents call for its strict protection, correct boundary interpretation, and no release for development. |
| Caps on development scale / density | Some respondents propose limiting sites to 10–20 dwellings, phasing development, and restricting commercial floor space and building heights. |
| Design Codes and architectural controls | Strong support for rural design codes, use of vernacular materials, visual impact assessments and restrictions on suburban features. |
| Conversion and reuse of rural buildings | Conversions are acceptable only where they support the rural economy. Concern about ‘backdoor’ residential development and cumulative impacts. |
| Biodiversity, landscape and environmental protection | Calls for protection of hedgerows, trees, ecological corridors and key views. Landscape and visual impact assessments should be required. |
| Infrastructure and sustainable growth | Concerns that rural settlements lack capacity for major growth. Development must be phased and be infrastructure-led. |
| Community / Parish Council involvement | Emphasis on the role of local communities and Neighbourhood Plans in maintaining rural identity. |
Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.