Parish Council Meeting 15th August 2024 Agenda

Select the 2024 Agenda or Minutes you wish to view:
2024 Meetings	MAY	JUN	JUL	AUG	SEP	OCT	NOV	DEC	KEY: ≡ Agenda 📖 Minutes
Main	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖
Planning	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖	≡ 📖
EHT		≡ 📖		≡ 📖		≡ 📖		≡ 📖	⇛ 2025

Dawn Lacey — Parish Clerk & RFO

claygate PARISH COUNCIL

caring for Claygate Village

Claygate Parish Council

Claygate Village Hall

Church Road

Claygate

Surrey KT10 0JP

☎ 07741 848 719

email: clerk@claygateparishcouncil.gov.uk

website: www.claygateparishcouncil.gov.uk

18th July 2024

YOU ARE HEREBY WELCOME TO ATTEND

A Meeting of the Claygate Parish Council will be held on Thursday 18th July 2024 at 8.30pm in the Main Hall, Claygate Village Hall

The meeting is open to the public and press. A quarter of an hour has been reserved for members of the public to address the Council, for three minutes each, on any subject relevant to the agenda. In order to address the meeting, we would appreciate you contacting the Parish Clerk before 11am on the day of the meeting who will allocate a slot. All meetings will operate to our Privacy Policy which can be found at www.claygateparishcouncil.gov.uk. Doors will open at 7.20pm.

Covid 19

If attendees have any of the main symptoms of Covid-19 and/or have tested positive to Covid prior to the meeting, you should not attend. Please refer to www.gov.uk for full guidelines.

Parish Clerk & RFO

AGENDA

• 1) To accept apologies for absence.
• 2) To receive Declarations of Interest in items on the agenda.
• 3) To confirm the minutes of the Parish Council Meeting held on Thursday 18th July 2024
• 4) Review actioning of items from previous minutes and agree any further action required

  (Actions List – Appendix 1)

• 5) To answer any questions from the general public
• 6) To Receive a Report of EBC’s Oversight & Scrutiny Committee & Agree Action As Appropriate
• 7) To Receive a Report of EBC Audit and Standards
• 8) To Receive a Report from the Planning Committee
• 9) To Receive a Report from the EH&T Committee
• 10) To Review the minutes from the recent EBC meeting held on 16th July 2024 (Appendix 2)
• 11) In respect of the recommendations of Claygate The Way Forward (CTWF), from the meeting held on Thursday 18th July and to follow up on the following area:

  To agree to defer until the following meeting discussion of the possibility of a new ‘This is Claygate’ website.

  ACTION – Cllr Bingham

• 12) Having regard to the resolution of the Council on 18 July 2024, to appoint pursuant to Standing Order 4 five Advisory Committees to take forward the recommendations of the Claygate Village Association in its report of 18 June 2024 “Claygate: The Way Forward”, as follows:

  (a) a New Development and Housing Advisory Committee, to report to the Planning Committee;

  (b) a Health, Wellbeing and Leisure Advisory Committee, to report to the Council;

  (c) a Shops and Businesses Advisory Committee, to report to the Council;

  (d) a Transport and Parking Advisory Committee, to report to the Environment, Highways and Transport Committee;

  (e) an Environment and Sustainability Advisory Committee, to report to the Environment, Highways and Transport Committee.

• 13) If the resolution in agenda item 12 is agreed, to appoint to the Advisory Committees set up under that resolution the following members:

  (a) to the New Development and Housing Advisory Committee, Clive Thompson

  (b) to the Health, Wellbeing and Leisure Advisory Committee, John Bamford, Cllr Collon, Cllr French, Pam Jarvis and Chris Kerr

  (c) to the Shops and Businesses Advisory Committee, Simon Baile, Philip Chapman, Emma Curtis, Cllr Holt, Ulrika Pulford, Gary State, Leo Tye, Nicole and Lauren Dodds, Redmond Walshe

  (d) to the Transport and Parking Advisory Committee, Ben Full, Peter Robinson, Mark Sugden

  (e) to the Environment and Sustainability Advisory Committee, Peter Stevenson

  (f) to add further members to the above Committees to be authorised by the Chairman Cllr Holt

• 14) To Review and Approve draft Documentation for SCC application for a new bench on the Parade sponsored by the CPC and agree the way forward in principle (Appendix 3 and 4)
• 15) To discuss any updates on arrangements of Remembrance Sunday on November 10th
• 16) To update on the requested Tree Surgery Work on the Meadow Road Village Green
• 17) To consider the Government Consultation on Amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Appendix 5)
• 18) To agree any changes to the AGAR following audit feedback
• 19) Matters for information purposes only
  • To discuss the Way Maker Project at Holy Trinity Church – to discuss arrangements for attendance of PC representatives the meetings on Tuesday 10th September at 8pm or Wednesday 11th September at 10am (Appendix 6)
• 20) To confirm the date and time of the next meeting which will be held on Thursday 12th September at Treetops Pavilion, Recreation Ground, Church Road.

Appendix 1: Actions List from the CPC Meeting held on Thursday 18th July 2024

ACTIONS:	DESCRIPTION	CLLR	STATUS
Item 4	To have quarterly updates on the CPC Website re the progress of Claygate The Way Forward	Cllr Holt
Item 10:1	Whether more use should be made of pavement areas by restaurants, cafes and pub to increase their sense of community	Cllr Holt
Item 10:3	The possibility of accessing the mailing list of the Claygate Village Association to keep Claygate residents informed of progress in implementation and recommendations	Cllr French
Item 11	To contact the village market organisers to have a charity stall and match fund their earnings on the stall to a max of £250	Cllr Holt
Item 14	To contact the Claygate Recreation Ground Trust (CRGT) regarding implementation of self-closing gates on the recreation ground in the centre as well as at the sides.	Cllr Moon
Item 19	To organise a distribution list for the next Courier	Cllr Bray
Item 20	To update arrangements of Remembrance Sunday on November 10th	Cllr Bray
Item 29	To add the Equality Policy to the Website	Clerk & RFO

Appendix 2a: Minutes - EBC Meeting 16th July 2024

Venue: EBC Civic Centre

Date: Tuesday 16th July 2024

Time: 12:30-2pm

Attendees:

• Councillor Mike Rollings (Leader & Claygate Ward Councillor, Elmbridge Borough Council)
• Councillor Alex Coomes (Claygate Ward Councillor, Elmbridge Borough Council)
• Councillor Mary Marshall (Claygate Ward Councillor, Elmbridge Borough Council)
• Councillor Donna Holt (Chair, Claygate Parish Council)
• Councillor Anthony Sheppard (Claygate Parish Council)
• Councillor Gil Bray (Claygate Parish Council)
• Councillor Michael Collon (Claygate Parish Council)
• Councillor Jenny French (Claygate Parish Council)
• Dawn Crewe (Strategic Director, Elmbridge Borough Council)
• Suzanne Parkes (Head of Planning & Environmental Health, Elmbridge Borough Council)

Agenda

1. Claygate The Way Forward

• Progress to date
• Actions, Recommendations & Further Research identified by CVA

  DH explained that broadly the CPC is minded to take on the work. It will formally vote on it on Thursday 18th July. There are a few things the CPC will clarify in our meeting on 18th July examples are:

  • Encouraging development of 1/2 bed housing units and how this can be done
  • Website and tech questions around how we may do this – Cllr Sam Bingham has been tasked with looking at this and will report back on Thursday 18th July
  • There are others but DH did not go in to them all
  • DH explained it’s clear that there are some specific CPC actions such as website but again CPC are minded that most of the actions they will co-ordinate or manage rather than do.
  • GB explained there will be a governance structure in place to do this with various CVA volunteers in Working Groups reporting into the CPC committees. This governance structure will also be reviewed and agreed by the CPC on 18th July.

• Next Steps
  • DH advised that the CPC - following their offsite meeting - is minded that we are producing a strategy and implementation plan with EBC but to be clarified on 18th July and it’s clear that some actions will be easier while others may take years to come to fruition.
  • SP mentioned that officers are also discussing the recommendations from the survey, identifying actions and areas of responsibility. It was mentioned that there are probably some ‘easy wins’ that can be implemented fairly quickly outside of the scope of the place-making work.
  • Next steps following adoption of the motions put forward on 18th July at CPC will be to review any actions with EBC that are theirs and develop the strategy and plan.
  • Progress should then be reviewed at our quarterly meetings. Action DH to liaise with DC and SP to start on this following 18th July decisions so we know exactly where we are.

2. Planning matters

• Station House – DH expressed the extreme dismay of the CPC regarding this application and that even though EBC know there is a severe parking problem they ignored it. Nor was it a good thing that one councillor in the East Area Planning chamber admitted that they did not know what an HMO was and then voted for it. MR acknowledged that whilst the decision made was unpopular, it was, in the opinion of EBC, a sound decision with the committee considering the details of the application, representations and other matters including the event of a possible appeal. The risk of costs being awarded if the council were unsuccessful in an appeal was deemed to have been unreasonable.
• 11 Elm Gardens – GB showed the council the laminates he had pre-prepared regarding this site and how it would be totally incongruous with the surroundings. SP explained that when determining planning applications, it was a professional view given not a personal one and that for most applications it is not a single officer decision but one that was reviewed by several officers. SP stated that the Compliance Team are now involved as a recent application had been turned down. EBC are continuing to monitor the situation.
• AS suggested that it would be useful to run over a small number of decided applications with a senior EBC planning officer to develop learning. SP said she would consider this.
• PA Garage Sites – Foxwarren & Holroyd Road - DH asked if EBC can meet with PA Housing to ask them to get on with their development on these sites. DC explained that they need to rebuild relationships with PA. The discussion is on the plan of things to do – DH asked that it is prioritised.
• Hook Park (Chessington) - SP explained that as far as she was aware, the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames was not proposing to allocate the site in its Local Plan and that this was not a development that they supported / were encouraging to come forward. Any application would therefore be speculative and would need to be considered under the relevant local and national policy frameworks. It was unknown whether the position would change with the new NPPF and whether the site would be considered ‘grey-belt’. SP stated that EBC would respond if / when required either via the Kingston Local Plan or a planning application and would be able to respond on matters such as the impact of any proposal on schools, health care and other infrastructure provision.
• SP urged caution regarding listening to developers promoting developments as they tend to highlight the positives of any development seeking to stoke up interest and support.
• DH brought up householder applications and the fact that when we object, these don’t go to East Area any more. We will be discussing at Planning Committee whether we think this is right.
• MC – the Local vs District centre debate rumbles on but that he had met with SP to discuss the previous day. EBC will not change the Local Plan however, CPC may have an opportunity to raise during Stage 3 of the Local Plan Examination if raised by the Inspector as part of her MIQs (Matters, Issues and Questions) particularly if Cobham being reclassified as a Town from a District is discussed. DH said she could not understand why they don’t just change it when they say it means nothing for the ability to develop large plots within the village centre. SP raised the point that we had not objected at the right time and had discussed with MC the Council’s position.

3. Environmental Matters

• Garages Holroyd Road (rats)
  • DH asked that the matter be dealt with urgently as a public health matter. The CPC are getting more and more complaints from residents about rats at the site.
  • This cannot wait for PA Housing to deal with.
  • DC will discuss with the Environmental Health Dept who deal with this and take action.

4. The Claygate Market

• DH – CPC thought it was generally successful and very much welcomed by the CPC. However:
  • There was no charity stall with matched funding to £250.
  • All profits going to the organiser.
  • People could not see butchers and other shops who had tables out as parking was not suspended down the rest of The Parade.
  • The butcher was told a stall cost £40 when DH was told stalls were £25.
  • DH will progress these learning points and feed back to the organisers via the Shops group.

5. Community Centre Update

• DH – we are still hearing comments that the Community Centre has been “taken over” by Dementia Services.
• We would like to look into allowing people to use the meal service more widely - people still feel very concerned that they have been pushed into the reception and coffee bar area and the food there is not as good.
• Further integration work is necessary especially at lunch times.
• DC explained the reasons for the delay in the review but that Vicky Wise was now taking forward with the emphasis on how the Council will help the 9% of the population that are in need rather than the 2% that use the centres and that the Council would be looking to take a more coordinated approach with the volunteer sector and other providers. It was agreed that a meeting with DH would be arranged.
• DC explained that the designation of Warm Hubs was driven by SCC and the Council were informed where these would be across the borough. DC agreed that the council would keep CPC informed of where these will be once discussed with SCC.

6. Winning Horse ACV application

• DH had wanted to clarify the renewal process but it is not really CPC business. She doesn’t need to cover this item. As secretary of the CCBS she is progressing the item offline with Sarah Kingston of EBC. MR asked whether there was a threat to the Community Centre or other businesses in Claygate. This matter was discussed at this point, but is recorded in AOB given it is not EBC-CPC business, rather a CCBS-EBC matter.

7. Progress with the Local Plan work

• AS asked whether in their view the Local Plan review was going well or not? What are the risks that we might need to go back to the drawing board? MR said he did not want to speculate in advance of the interim finding letter from Stage 2 of the examination process.
• GB asked why the rework of the housing trajectory figures? SP explained that the Inspector had asked EBC to rework their planning trajectory figures for another two years as it had been 18 months since the original baseline was produced in 2022 and that all Local Plan authorities are asked to show a 15-year housing land supply for the date of adoption of the plan. It had been impossible to do that work “on the fly” as officers were involved in the examination and it needed careful consideration taking into account for example, the decision regarding Land North of Raleigh Drive which had been issued the week prior.

8. AOB

• MR asked whether the CPC felt whether the proposed offer would be in competition with the community centre or other businesses in Claygate. DH explained that we certainly do not think there is any overlap with the Community Centre. Our business case describes it as being “full up” with 380 members and 140 regular Dementia Services people. In terms of other businesses the café/bar is only one aspect of what we plan to offer and there are many other things planned especially for other demographics.
• DH asked if there is any pre-app happening regarding the site [presumably this refers to the Winning Horse project?]. MR explained that there was not, due to it being an Asset of Community Value (ACV). DH explained that the ACV was being renewed so hopefully that will remain the case.
• DH - We do need a letter from EBC supporting the initiative as it is one of the things stipulated by grant funders that helps us. How do we get that? MR stated that he would need to see a robust business case. DH stated that one exists which has been fully reviewed by an accountant. It is in the final stages of development and should be fully ready in the next two weeks.
• Then we will move onto filling out the application form for Community Ownership Fund (COF) but we are awaiting COF to be resurrected as everything is on hold due to the General Election and a change of Government.
• It is likely that we will also go for Your Fund Surrey (YFS) money as well for cost of refurbishment but that we need the COF or similar grant for purchase of the asset.
• DH stated that we do not want to be caught out regarding the letter as COF could resurrect quite quickly and then we would be needing to get the letter quickly so we will move fast on this to obtain a letter from EBC.

9. Future meeting dates

Both Councils agreed to meet and review progress in October. In the mean time there will be multiple meetings with DC and SP to progress the strategy and actions. DH to liaise.

Appendix 3: Application for Bench on The Parade

Third Party Assets

Application for Approval in Principle (Draft)

Question	Answer
Road Name	The Parade
Town	Claygate
Location of works	TBC
Attach clear plan showing location of proposed asset – see guidance for further information.	TBC
What do you propose to install	A bench with a slightly higher seat and five arms so aged people can get up from the bench easily as all current benches are too low.
Description and size of item	Four-seater bench approximately 3m long x 63cm deep x 94cm high to be installed with four outer legs bolted into four concrete plinths. The tarmac excavated as a small square on each of the 4 outer legs then filled with concrete and the bench with bolts in the 4 outer legs to be lowered into it to set. See link below : https://www.cyan-teak-furniture.com/balmoral-large-heavy-duty-park-bench-with-5-arms-3m
If planter provide detail of planting eg seasonal bedding, permanent planting	NA
If bench provide size and location of hardstanding base, if required	Hard standing base required is minimum 3m x 63cm which is the base size of the bench.
Is asset to be located in conservation area?	NA
Does applicant have £10 million public liability insurance?	Yes – Claygate Parish Council
Is asset to be installed in road subject to Lane Rental charges?	No
If applying for a bench, please confirm that you have sought agreement from nearby residents.˟	TBC
Provide details of supplier and contractor if known.	TBC
Applicant contact name	Donna Holt
Applicant contact number	07919 335 233
Applicant address	Claygate Parish Council, Claygate Village Hall, Church Road, Claygate, Surrey KT10 0JP
Applicant email address	Donna.holt@claygateparishcouncil.gov.uk

Surrey Highways will assess your application and advise whether Approval in Principle is granted to install your asset on the highway.

Appendix 5: Consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 30 July 2024

Extracts on Green Belt. Closes 24 September 2024

Chapter 1 – Introduction

• 1. The Government has made clear that sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. Our approach to delivering this growth will focus on three pillars: stability, investment and reform.
• 2. Nowhere is decisive reform needed more urgently than in our planning system. The December 2023 changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) were disruptive to the sector and detrimental to housing supply. The Chancellor’s speech on 8 July committed to consulting on reforms to the NPPF to take a different, growth- focused approach.
• 3. Today, we set out specific changes we propose to make immediately to the NPPF following this consultation. These changes – amending the planning framework, and universal, ambitious local plan coverage – are vital to deliver the Government’s commitments to achieve economic growth and build 1.5 million new homes. Specifically, they will:
  • a. make the standard method for assessing housing needs mandatory, requiring local authorities to plan for the resulting housing need figure, planning for a lower figure only when they can demonstrate hard constraints and that they have exhausted all other options;
  • b. reverse other changes to the NPPF made in December 2023 which were detrimental to housing supply;
  • c. implement a new standard method and calculation to ensure local plans are ambitious enough to support the Government’s manifesto commitment of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament;
  • d. broaden the existing definition of brownfield land, set a strengthened expectation that applications on brownfield land will be approved and that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas;
  • e. identify grey belt land within the Green Belt, to be brought forward into the planning system through both plan and decision-making to meet development needs;
  • f. improve the operation of ‘the presumption’ in favour of sustainable development, to ensure it acts an effective failsafe to support housing supply, by clarifying the circumstances in which it applies; and, introducing new safeguards, to make clear that its application cannot justify poor quality development;
  • g. deliver affordable, well-designed homes, with new “golden rules” for land released in the Green Belt to ensure it delivers in the public interest;
  • h. make wider changes to ensure that local planning authorities are able to prioritise the types of affordable homes their communities need on all housing development and that the planning system supports a more diverse housebuilding sector;
  • i. support economic growth in key sectors, aligned with the Government’s industrial strategy and future local growth plans, including laboratories, gigafactories, datacentres, digital economies and freight and logistics – given their importance to our economic future;
  • j. deliver community needs to support society and the creation of healthy places; and
  • k. support clean energy and the environment, including through support for onshore wind and renewables.
• 4. The proposed changes are explained in this document and set out in an accompanying draft NPPF. The Government will respond to this consultation and publish NPPF revisions before the end of the year, so that policy changes can take effect as soon as possible.
• 5. Alongside these specific changes, the document also calls for views on:
  • a. whether to reform the way that the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime applies to onshore wind, solar, data centres, laboratories, gigafactories and water projects, as the first step of the Government’s NSIP reform plans;
  • b. whether the local plan intervention policy criteria should be updated or removed, so the Government can intervene where necessary to ensure housing delivery; and
  • c. proposals to increase some planning fees, including for householder applications, so that local planning authorities are properly resourced to support a sustained increase in development and improve performance.
• 6. Finally, it sets out how and when we expect every local planning authority to rapidly create a clear, ambitious local plan for high quality housebuilding and economic growth.

Chapter 5 - Green Belt

• 1. We have been clear that development must look to brownfield first, prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible. To support this, we will make the targeted changes set out below, including making clear that the default answer to brownfield development should be “yes”, as the first step on the way to delivering brownfield passports.
• 2. But brownfield development alone will not be enough to meet our housing need. To deliver the homes and commercial development this country needs, we are proposing the targeted release of grey belt land. This government recognises the important role the Green Belt plays in preventing urban sprawl and remains committed to its continued protection - but we must review the post-war Green Belt policy to make sure it better meets the needs of present and future generations. Without altering the general extent or purpose of the Green Belt, our proposed changes will support local planning authorities facing acute housing and development pressures to meet their needs, while securing environmental improvements, affordable housing and other infrastructure upgrades communities care about.
• 3. Instead of the haphazard release we see under the status quo, release will be strategic and underpinned by clear safeguards. We propose to make changes to the NPPF to make clear that, where a local planning authority is unable to meet housing, commercial or other needs after fully considering all opportunities to make effective and efficient use of brownfield and wider opportunities, it should undertake a Green Belt review. This review should look to release poor quality grey belt land from the Green Belt through both plan-making and decision-making to meet local needs. This release will be subject to the sustainable development principles that underpin national planning policy, and to clear ‘golden rules’ as set out later in this chapter.
• 4. The Green Belt serves a specific planning purpose, in terms of preserving openness and preventing sprawl, but is not an environmental designation or a marker of any environmental importance. Much of it is inaccessible to the public and of poor ecological status. We want our proposal to not simply offset the loss of Green Belt land, but to bring about positive improvements for the quality and enjoyment of the environment. We propose a two-stage process for doing this. First, land that is safeguarded by existing environmental designations, for example National Parks, National Landscapes and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, will maintain its current protections. Second, any development on land released from the Green Belt must bring benefits, via not only mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain, but also through new rules that will secure improved access to good quality greenspace.

Being clear that brownfield development is acceptable in principle

• 5. We have been clear that brownfield land must be the first port of call. We want to make clear that the principle of development should not be in question on brownfield land, and so we are consulting on an amendment to paragraph 124c out of the current NPPF, reinforcing the expectation that development proposals on previously developed land are viewed positively. This makes clear that the default answer to brownfield development should be yes.

Question 20

Do you agree that we should make the proposed change set out in paragraph 124c, as a first step towards brownfield passports?

Making it easier to develop Previously Developed Land

• 6. The first step when reviewing Green Belt land should be Previously Developed Land (PDL): it makes no sense to provide special protections for sites that have, for example, housed petrol stations or carparks. For that reason, we propose that we relax the restrictions that are currently applied to PDL and limited infilling in the Green Belt in paragraph 154g of the current NPPF, to make clear that development is ‘not inappropriate’ where it would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The requirements of our golden rules, set out later in this chapter, are intended to apply to release of PDL.
• 7. We are also interested in whether it would be beneficial to expand the definition of PDL in the NPPF to include hardstanding and glasshouses. We want to understand how expanding this definition might affect the availability of horticultural land, so would welcome views on how to ensure that there remains sufficient incentive for the development and maintenance of glasshouses for horticultural production.

Question 21

Do you agree with the proposed change to paragraph 154g of the current NPPF to better support the development of PDL in the Green Belt?

Question 22

Do you have any views on expanding the definition of PDL, while ensuring that the development and maintenance of glasshouses for horticultural production is maintained?

Defining the grey belt

• 8. As set out above, we must look to a wider set of low-performing sites where this is necessary. We propose defining grey belt land as Green Belt land which makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt’s purposes, as set out in paragraph 143 of the current NPPF. To maintain existing environmental protections, we propose excluding land of environmental value from the definition, or assets of particular importance, as set out in footnote 7 of the NPPF. We are interested in whether additional exclusions are necessary, such as areas identified in draft or published Local Nature Recovery Strategies, that could become of particular importance for biodiversity.
• 9. To support a consistent and transparent approach to identifying land, we propose inserting a new definition of grey belt land into the glossary of the NPPF. This will provide criteria for assessing whether land makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes. This definition will read as follows:

Grey belt: For the purposes of Plan-making and decision-making, grey belt is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising Previously Developed Land and any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt land that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes (as defined in para 140 of this Framework) but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance listed in footnote 7 of this Framework (other than land designated as Green Belt).

• 10. We are interested in whether further support is needed to assist authorities in judging whether land makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes. We propose incorporating the following into the glossary appended to the NPPF but welcome views on the most effective way of providing this guidance: Land which makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes will:
  • a) Not strongly perform against any Green Belt purpose; and
  • b) Have at least one of the following features:
    • i. Land containing substantial built development or which is fully enclosed by built form
    • ii. Land which makes no or very little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another
    • iii. Land which is dominated by urban land uses, including physical developments
    • iv. Land which contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns
• 11. We have chosen to avoid prescribing specific and quantifiable measures of terms such as “substantial built development” at this point. However, we are interested in whether respondents believe more specific criteria or further guidance are needed.
• 12. We want this approach to protect land which makes a strong contribution to any Green Belt purposes, while allowing authorities to consider a range of Green Belt land based on its merits for potential development.
• 13. We want to ensure that our definition of grey belt land acts to accurately identify land with a high sustainable development potential, while also avoiding providing incentives to allow the degradation of existing Green Belt Land. We believe that defining the grey belt in terms of its contribution to the purposes should help to prevent this, but we are interested in whether additional protections or requirements are necessary.
• 14. We do not want our proposals to undermine existing protections for best and most versatile agricultural land. Our proposals do not remove the requirement for planning policies and decisions to recognise the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and, where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality should be preferred.
• 15. We are clear that sustainability remains an overarching objective and that development in the grey belt should meet the expectations set out in the NPPF, around effective use of land and access to transport.

Question 23

Do you agree with our proposed definition of grey belt land? If not, what changes would you recommend?

Question 24

Are any additional measures needed to ensure that high performing Green Belt land is not degraded to meet grey belt criteria?

Question 25

Do you agree that additional guidance to assist in identifying land which makes a limited contribution of Green Belt purposes would be helpful? If so, is this best contained in the NPPF itself or in planning practice guidance?

Question 26

Do you have any views on whether our proposed guidance sets out appropriate considerations for determining whether land makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes?

Question 27

Do you have any views on the role that Local Nature Recovery Strategies could play in identifying areas of Green Belt which can be enhanced?

Land release through plan-making

Green Belt reviews

• 16. Under the existing NPPF, there is no requirement for local planning authorities to review Green Belt where they fall short of housing need. Instead, local planning authorities may choose to review and alter Green Belt boundaries where exceptional circumstances are fully justified. We propose correcting that, to allow local planning authorities to undertake a review where an authority cannot meet its identified housing, commercial or other need without altering Green Belt boundaries.

A sequential approach

• 17. We remain clear that brownfield sites should be prioritised, and our proposed changes to developing PDL in the Green Belt (outlined above) reinforce this commitment. To support release in the right places, we propose a sequential test to guide release. This will ask authorities to give first consideration to PDL within in the Green Belt, before moving on to other grey belt sites, and finally to higher performing Green Belt sites where these can be made sustainable. As set out above, land that is safeguarded by existing environmental designations, for example National Parks, National Landscapes and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, will maintain its protections.
• 18. The aim of this approach is to ensure that low quality Green Belt is identified first, while not restricting development of specific opportunities which could be made more sustainable (for example, on land around train stations). This is in recognition that not all PDL or ‘Grey Belt’ will be in the most suitable or sustainable location for development. As such, it is right that local planning authorities are empowered to make decisions that best support the development needs and sustainability objectives of their area through the plan-making process. There is clear expectation that local planning authorities should seek to meet their development needs in full. However, we remain clear that the release of land should not be supported where doing so would fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole. We propose changes to paragraph 147 of the NPPF to achieve this approach.

Question 28

Do you agree that our proposals support the release of land in the right places, with previously developed and grey belt land identified first, while allowing local planning authorities to prioritise the most sustainable development locations?

Question 29

Do you agree with our proposal to make clear that the release of land should not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole?

Allowing Development on the Green Belt through Decision Making

• 19. To ensure that in the short term we are best supporting the delivery of housing need, in advance of local planning authorities getting updated Local Plans in place and Green Belt reviews underway, we also propose changes that support the release of Green Belt land outside the plan making process. We propose to insert a new paragraph in the NPPF which will make clear that, in instances where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply or is delivering less than 75% against the Housing Delivery Test, or where there is unmet commercial or other need, development on the Green Belt will not be considered inappropriate when it is on sustainable ‘grey belt’ land, where golden rules for major development are satisfied, and where development would not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole.
• 20. Our proposal limits release via this route to grey belt, including PDL — reaffirming our commitment to a plan-led system by maintaining restrictions on the release of wider Green Belt land. It would, as now, be possible for other Green Belt land to be released outside the plan-making process where ‘very special circumstances’ exist, but such cases would remain exceptional.

Question 30

Do you agree with our approach to allowing development on Green Belt land through decision making? If not, what changes would you recommend?

Supporting release of Green Belt land for commercial and other development.

• 21. In recognition of the important role commercial and other types of development play in supporting wider social and economic objectives, we propose supporting the release of Green Belt land to meet other development needs (alongside residential development) through both plan-making and decision-making routes. We have provided draft text illustrating how local planning authorities should consider the need for commercial and other development sites, making clear that golden rules should apply, but we welcome views on how to deliver the underlying objective of securing clear public benefits for non-housing development.

Question 31 Do you have any comments on our proposals to allow the release of grey belt land to meet commercial and other development needs through plan-making and decision-making, including the triggers for release?

Appendix 6: Way Maker Project at Holy Trinity Church

Holy Trinity Church would like to invite members of the Parish Council to view our plans for the Way Maker project.

Over the last year detailed plans have been developed. This phase of the project is focused on access to and through our churchyard (north side of the church). We will share these briefly to the whole church on Sunday 8th of September as part of our vision presentations.

There will also be opportunity to have the Way Maker project plans and process explained in more detail in church on Tuesday the 10th of September at 8 pm or on Wednesday, the 11th of September at 10 am. You and other members of the Parish Council are most welcome to attend. If these dates are not convenient then we can explore other times.

These two gatherings are primarily for the church family to find out more, but we will also invite representatives of key community groups such as local Councillors, Parish Council members, the Claygate Village Association, and Trustees from Claygate Recreational Ground Trust to see the plans.

The plans will be displayed in the church foyer and we hope to update our film which explains our vision. There will be a link to this information through our website.

Given that it is a community project we will be looking to secure some community funding and plan to make applications to the Parish Council and other relevant grant-funding bodies.

I am away on holiday next week but have copied this to Ruth Ray and John Smith who can take and answer questions in my absence.

Kind regards

Patrick Bateman

Holy Trinity Claygate

Vicar