27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG OF HOLLANDS FARM, BOURNE END AND SURROUNDING AREA PREPARED ON BEHALF OF KEEP BOURNE END GREEN (KBEG) Prepared by: SARAH HAMILTON FOYN BSc (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI ANDREW COOK BA Hons MLD CMLI MIEMA CEnv Pegasus Group Pegasus House Querns Business Centre Whitworth Road Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 1RT T 01285 641717 F 01285 642348 W www.pegasuspg.co.uk Birmingham Bracknell Bristol Cambridge Cirencester East Midlands Leeds Liverpool London Manchester Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited
CONTENTS: Page No: 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. PURPOSE 1 TO CHECK THE UNRESTRICTED SPRAWL OF LARGE BUILT UP AREAS 3 3. PURPOSE 2 TO PREVENT NEIGBOURING TOWNS MERGING INTO ONE ANOTHER 7 4. PURPOSE 3 TO ASSIST IN SAFEGUARDING THE COUNTRYSIDE FROM ENCROACHMENT 10 5. PURPOSE 4 TO PRESERVE THE SETTING AND SPECIAL CHARACTER OF HISTORIC TOWNS 13 6. PURPOSE 5 TO ASSIST IN URBAN REGENERATION, BY ENCOURGAGING THE RECYCLING OF OTHER URBAN LAND 16 7. SUMMARY 17 Pegasus Professional Declarations In producing this report, I have followed all relevant professional guidelines of the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. As an expert witness, I understand that my overriding duty is to assist the Planning Inspector by providing objective, unbiased opinion on matters within my expertise and that this duty overrides any obligation to the party by whom I am engaged. All matters within this report that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional judgement on the matters to which they refer. Andrew Cook BA (Hons) MLD CMLI MIEMA C Env In producing this report, I have followed all relevant professional guidelines of the Royal Town Planning Institute. As an expert witness, I understand that my overriding duty is to assist the Planning Inspector by providing objective, unbiased opinion on matters within my expertise and that this duty overrides any obligation to the party by whom I am engaged. All matters within this report that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional judgement on the matters to which they refer. Sarah Hamilton-Foyn BSc(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to consider the definitions of the five purposes of the Green Belt as set out by the NPPF at paragraph 80 from a planning perspective and then to consider how these definitions have been applied by both Arup and Wycombe District Council in their respective Part 1 and Part 2 Green Belt Assessments for the purposes of Green Belt Review for the preparation of the Wycombe District Local Plan. 1.2 The Green Belt purpose planning interpretations are then considered against the specific factual context of the Hollands Farm site and with reference to the Martin Leay Green Belt report. 1.3 The principle of protection of the Green Belt land is set out in the NPPF at section 9. Paragraph 79 of this section states that: The Government attaches great importance to Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Greet Belt are their openness and their permanence. 1.4 It goes on to note in paragraph 80: The Green Belt serves five purposes: which are to: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one and other; To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling or derelict and other urban land. 1.5 Furthermore, the NPPF goes on to note in paragraph 81: Once Green Belts have been defined, Local Planning Authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscape, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 1
1.6 The emphasis on keeping the Green Belt open and maintaining its permanence is effectively reiterated in paragraph 82 which notes that the general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. 1.7 In paragraph 83 it goes on to note that once Green Belts are established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 2
2. PURPOSE 1 TO CHECK THE UNRESTRICTED SPRAWL OF LARGE BUILT UP AREAS 2.1 The Arup Part 1 Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment (7 th March 2016) (Arup Part 1) states at paragraph 4.4.7 to 4.4.15 how this purpose was assessed. Paragraph 4.4.7 states; The original strategic purpose of the Metropolitan Green Belt was to check the sprawl of London. However, given only a relatively small part of Buckinghamshire is directly adjacent to Greater London, this assessment instead considered the role of General Areas in restricting the sprawl of large built-up areas within the four Buckinghamshire districts and within neighbouring local authorities. These were defined to correspond to the Tier 1 settlements identified in the respective Local Plans for each local authority, both within and outside Buckinghamshire, to ensure a robust and evidence-based approach to the assessment 2.2 Paragraph 4.4.8 continues with regard to the definition of sprawl; this Study has adopted a simple definition, considering sprawl as the outward spread of a large built-up area at its periphery in an untidy or irregular way. In order to appraise the extent to which the Green Belt keeps this in check, it is necessary to consider: a) Whether a General Area falls at the edge of one or more distinct large built-up areas; b) The degree to which the General Area is contained by built-form, and the nature of this containment, as well as the linkage to the wider Green Belt, as well as the extent to which the edge of the built up area has a strongly defined, regular or consistent boundary 2.3 The Arup Part 1 study considered the Hollands Farm site within a much wider parcel identified as 58a lying to the south east of Bourne End. The study did not consider Bourne End and Wooburn as a large built up area as defined at drawing 4.4 at p.54 in the Arup Part 1 study. Site 58a therefore failed to satisfy this Green Belt purpose in the Arup Part 1 study. 2.4 The Wycombe District Council Part 2 Assessment (Sept 2017) states at paragraphs 2.19-2.21 that it scores each site against the five purposes of the Green Belt however it provides no definition for each Green Belt purpose, instead it includes this un-defined assessment as part of a group of criteria including; the approach to considering the general extent of the Green Belt and Ensuring the strength and permanence of the Green Belt boundary. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 3
2.5 In the Draft WDC Part 2 Green Belt Study (June 2016) the northern part of 58a is renamed as RSA 19. 2.6 Page 39 of Appendix 4 of the Draft WDC Part 2 Green Belt Study (June 2016) states of parcel RSA19; The site is not located at the edge of a distinct large built- up area Therefore the site score is a fail. 2.7 WDC provide no evidence of how they have assessed Hollands Farm against Green Belt purpose 1, simply stating at paragraph 3.32 of the WDC Part 2 Green Belt Assessment (2017); The site assessment process has concluded that this area is a sustainable location for growth, it is capable of removal from the Green Belt, and it is otherwise suitable for the uses proposed 2.8 Pegasus Assessment - Green Belt Purpose 1 is concerned with checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. Pegasus consider that urban sprawl is the creeping advancement of development beyond a clear physical boundary of a settlement. Where the Green Belt is adjacent to a clear physical boundary the adjacent landscape forms a role in safeguarding against unrestricted sprawl. 2.9 In contrast, a land parcel which lies away from the built development within the countryside would contribute less to this purpose. In other words, land which is closest to the edge of a settlement is working hardest in respect of this purpose. 2.10 While Bourne End and Wooburn is not a large built up area, the northern part of Parcel 58a, which forms the Thames Floodplain which falls within the Green Belt is a series of fields adjacent to Cores End. It is apparent from examination on the ground that the most northerly irregular rectangular field is abutting the residential area of Cores End. This field is adjacent to the residential properties associated with Princes Road and a further residential road known as Bridgestone Drive and Millside a further residential road. Analysis on the ground reveals that the Green Belt boundary which runs alongside this residential area is defined by mature tree cover and hedgerows. This forms a clear boundary which is substantial and clearly evident on the ground It draws a line between residential development to the west and the countryside to the east which forms part of the Green Belt. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 4
2.11 This residential area of Cores End is of reasonable high density and reflects a standard residential estate. In contrast on the opposite side of the field, which lies outside the Green Belt, there is a very low residential density wooded environment associated with Hawk s Hill and Harvest Hill. The two residential areas are very different in terms of their character and the Green Belt in terms of this field is effective in maintaining their separate identity. Both these areas rely upon the adjacent rural landscape i.e. the field to assist in providing clear definition for these character areas. 2.12 There is a further rectangular field in the northern part of the Green Belt which lies immediately to the east of the Bourne End Industrial Estate and to the south of the Cores End residential area. This field provides clear demarcation as to where the existing residential area of Cores End terminates and the Green Belt starts. This part of the Green Belt is working hard to prevent unrestricted sprawl of the Cores residential area further eastward and further southward. 2.13 There are a series of fields which lie immediately to the east of the Bourne End Industrial Estate. There is clear demarcation as to where the industrial estate on its eastward side finishes and the Green Belt starts. This clear boundary is demarcated by a combination of mature hedgerows and tree cover. These collectively form physical features on the ground which assist in defining the limit of the business park and demarcating the boundary to the Green Belt. 2.14 The strong physical presence of the hedgerows and tree cover provide a substantial boundary. The Green Belt immediately adjacent to this employment area is working hard to ensure that there is no unrestricted sprawl of the business area further eastward towards the wooded settlement environment of Hawk s Hill and Harvest Hill as evidenced by the Martin Leay Green Belt report. 2.15 Separately the Green Belt further east comprises a series of fields and some woodland. This is located in broad terms immediately to the west of Heavens Lea Road and Hawk s Hill Road. These two highways form the eastern boundary of the Green Belt in this location. The roads are narrow but flanked by mature hedgerows and tree cover creating a strong sylvan and wooded character and forms a clearly definable feature on the ground as to the boundary of the Green Belt. This adjacent Green Belt is working hard to prevent other unrestricted sprawl of Hawk s Hill and Harvest Hill area extending further westward towards Bourne End. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 5
2.16 For pedestrians using the Public Rights of Way across this area of Green Belt to the north of Hollands Farm and the Hedsor Road, there is a sense of passing through open countryside. There is also a clear sense that the Green Belt is framed to the west by the significant employment area of Bourne End and the residential area associated with Cores End to the north. This is in stark contrast to the residential area to the east associated with Hawk s Hill and Harvest Hill as evidenced by the Martin Leay Green Belt report. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 6
3. PURPOSE 2 TO PREVENT NEIGBOURING TOWNS MERGING INTO ONE ANOTHER 3.1 The Arup Part 1 Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment (7 th March 2016) (Arup Part 1) states at paragraphs 4.4.16 4.4.20 its methodology for assessing land parcels against Green Belt purpose 2. Paragraphs 4.4.16 and 4.4.17 state; In addition to the clear function of this purpose in preventing towns from merging and therefore protecting existing gaps between towns, it also forms the basis for maintaining the existing settlement pattern. National policy provides no guidance over what might constitute towns and whether this purpose should also take into consideration the gaps between smaller settlements. Historically, Buckinghamshire has been a predominantly rural area with a dispersed population across a number of distinct towns and smaller villages, which have retained their own distinctiveness, though there has been a degree of coalescence between settlements, particularly along major transport corridors and in the south of the county close to the larger towns of Slough and Maidenhead. (emphasis added) Given the dispersed settlement pattern, the assessment of General Areas primarily considered strategic gaps between all non-green Belt settlements, but also included a more local interpretation of the purpose where instances of the Green Belt protecting gaps between smaller Green Belt settlements, regardless of size or function, were identified. 3.2 Bourne End and Wooburn were identified in the study as a non-green Belt Settlement. The relationship of Bourne End to other non-green Belt settlements is clearly shown on drawing 4.5b at page 60 of the Arup Part 1 report. This map clearly demonstrates that the Hollands Farm site prevents the merging of Bourne End and Hawks Hill/Harvest Hill, despite the findings of the report that scores the land parcel 58a with a 0 for this Green Belt purpose (see p.80 of Arup Part 1 report). 3.3 The Draft Wycombe District Council Part 2 Green Belt Study (June 2016) states at Page 39 of Appendix 4 of parcel RSA19; Site does not provide a gap between settlements and makes no discernible contribution to separation Therefore the site scores a 0. 3.4 WDC provide no evidence of how they have assessed Hollands Farm against Green Belt purpose 2, simply stating at paragraph 3.32 of the WDC Part 2 Green Belt Assessment (Sept 2017); 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 7
The site assessment process has concluded that this area is a sustainable location for growth, it is capable of removal from the Green Belt, and it is otherwise suitable for the uses proposed 3.5 Pegasus Assessment - This Green Belt purpose seeks to avoid coalescence of built form. Coalescence can be perceived or actual or physical or visual. Some areas of land contribute more effectively in maintaining separation that others depending on the local environmental or site conditions, such as topography and tree cover. Open expansive landscape which contributes to significant separation between two settlements will contribute less in terms of anti-coalescence whereas a land parcel which forms a narrow gap between two settlements would have a significant anti-coalescence role. 3.6 In this instance, the Green Belt which is located at Hollands Farm is a narrow corridor of land located between Bourne End to the west and Hawk s Hill/Harvest Hill to the east. 3.7 As members of the public are able to appreciate this area of open countryside by means of the public right of way, they are able to appreciate that this area of landscape, which is designated Green Belt provides a clear sense of open landscape and sense of separation between the settlement of Bourne End to the west and the residential area of Hawk s Hill and Harvest Hill to the east. 3.8 As members of the public use the public right of way which is broadly orientated north-south through this discreet parcel of Green Belt they are able to look westward and see Bourne End in terms of its industrials estate and residential areas of Cores End but see these in the context of the Green Belt in the foreground. 3.9 There is a clear unmistakable and clearly definable boundary to the edge of these areas, both the residential area and the employment area as to their limits in geographical terms and where the sense of countryside and Green Belt starts. 3.10 Similarly, for those members of the public using these routes when they look eastward the residential areas of Hawk s Hill and Harvest Hill can be seen set within a heavily wooded environment situated on locally high ground. This area is similarly seen in the context of open countryside in the foreground and middle distance forming a setting and context to this residential area. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 8
3.11 As a consequence, members of the public using these footpaths through this corridor of Green Belts are able to fully appreciate the sense of separate identity of these two areas of settlement and this is effectively appreciated by the sense of openness between the two which forms agricultural landscape. 3.12 The Green Belt in this instance is significant in terms of fulfilling its purpose in preventing the neighbouring settled areas merging into one another. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 9
4. PURPOSE 3 TO ASSIST IN SAFEGUARDING THE COUNTRYSIDE FROM ENCROACHMENT 4.1 The Arup Part 1 Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment (7 th March 2016) (Arup Part 1) describes how it assess this criteria at paragraph 4.4.21 to paragraph 4.4.25 pp.61-62. Paragraphs 4.4.21 and 4.4.22 state the following; This purpose seeks to safeguard the countryside. The assessment considered openness and the extent to which the Green Belt can be characterised as countryside, thus resisting encroachment from past development. Openness refers to the extent to which Green Belt land could be considered open from an absence of built development rather than from a landscape character perspective, where openness might be characterised through topography and presence or otherwise of woodland and hedgerow cover. Historic open land uses associated with the urban fringe and urban characteristics as well as the countryside exist in the Buckinghamshire Green Belt and include, but are not limited to, mineral working and landfill, public utilities, motorways and their intersections, educational institutions, hotels and some small areas of residential development. Some of these semi-urban uses will have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt as identified in the assessment. 4.2 Paragraph 4.4.25 states that; Semi-urban character was defined as land which begins on the edge of the fully built up area and contains a mix of urban and rural land uses before giving way to the wider countryside. Land uses might include publicly accessible natural green spaces and green corridors, country parks and local nature reserves, smallscale food production (e.g. market gardens) and waste management facilities, interspersed with built development more generally associated with urban areas (e.g. residential or commercial). 4.3 The results of Arup Part 1 score parcel 58a with a 3 (on a scale of 0-5) against this criteria in the context of an overall scoring of medium for the parcel against the whole five purposes of the Green Belt. 4.4 Arup Part 1 pp.136-137 justifies further work for parts of 58a, of which Hollands Farm north is the largest part, on the basis that parts are more semi-urban and that in the case of Hollands Farm specifically Hedsor Road has an urban character and, overall, the influence of built form reduces the sense of rurality. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 10
4.5 This finding is in stark contrast to the findings of the Draft Hedsor and Riversdale Road Conservation Area Appraisal Consultation document (Sept 2017) which finds that; much of the conservation area s character and setting comes through the rural views from the fields that form its open countryside context in which the linear development of Area A sits. Area A comprising the Spit of Hedsor Road. 4.6 The Draft Wycombe District Council Part 2 Assessment (June 2016) states at Page 39 of Appendix 4 of parcel RSA19; Land parcel contains circa 20% built form and the character of the unbuilt part is also influenced by the surrounding built form. Although the site seems to be used as arable fields development surrounding the site weakens the connection to the wider countryside, giving the site a semi-urban character overall. 4.7 The Draft WDC Part 2 Green Belt study scores parcel RSA 19 with a score of 2 with regard to this Green Belt purpose. 4.8 Pegasus Assessment - In order to assess where the land parcels perform this purpose consideration will be given to the extent to which the countryside within a parcel has already been built upon. If the parcel is strongly influenced by built development or urban influences it will be assumed that this part of the countryside has already been significantly encroached by development and as a result is no longer able to perform this purpose. 4.9 If, however the parcel remains primarily free of development, possessing predominantly unspoilt countryside or uses as defined as appropriate in the Green Belt then it may be considered that encroachment has not yet occurred and the parcel continues to perform the purpose in this regard. 4.10 In this instance, the parcel of Green Belt in the vicinity of Hollands Farm is significantly free of built form. The northern fields are farmed and have no agricultural structures, barns associated with them. They are completely free of built form. Similarly, the fields located to the north of the Hedsor Road are free of built form, there are no significant built structures. The only cluster of buildings, agricultural structures are located in the south-western parcel of this land close to and adjacent to the Bourne End Industrial Estate. The vast majority of the Green Belt which is managed as open countryside is free of built form. The 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 11
parcel cannot therefore be considered to be semi-urban in nature according to the definition provided in the Arup Part 1 report. 4.11 As such there is no erosion of the sense of openness associated with this Green Belt area and as such the sense of openness is perceived to be fully intact. 4.12 There is therefore the strongest sense of openness associated with this part of the Green Belt and therefore it significantly assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and cannot be considered to be semi-urban in nature. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 12
5. PURPOSE 4 TO PRESERVE THE SETTING AND SPECIAL CHARACTER OF HISTORIC TOWNS 5.1 The Arup Part 1 Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment (7 th March 2016) (Arup Part 1) describes how it assess this criteria at paragraphs 4.4.28. Paragraph 4.4.28 states; The relative importance of particular landforms or landscape features to the setting and special character of a historic town was adjudged using the Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment, as well as Townscape Character Studies and Conservation Area Assessments (where applicable). Potential vistas were identified using Ordnance Survey contour maps and sense checked on site visits. 5.2 Importantly Arup Part 1 Purpose 4 Assessment Criterion pp.64 states that a score of 5 will be given to a parcel that; plays an important role in maintaining the unique setting of a historic settlement by providing unspoilt vistas of surrounding countryside from within the settlement or unbroken vistas into the settlement from afar, and protects open land which has a strong connection with the historic core, contributing to its immediate historic setting 5.3 While the Draft Hedsor and Riversdale Road Conservation Area Appraisal Consultation document (Sept 2017) (CAAP) has been produced since the publication of the Arup Part 1 Green Belt study, it is clear that the CAAP values the rural and open nature of the Green Belt to the north of Hedsor Road as part of the setting of the historic settlement comprising the spit of the Conservation Area. Important views towards the Conservation Area across Hollands Farm north are also identified in the CAAP. 5.4 The Draft Wycombe District Council Part 2 Green Belt Study (June 2016) states at Page 39 of Appendix 4 of parcel RSA19; Site does not abut an identified historic settlement core nor impact historic features 5.5 The Draft WDC Part 2 Green Belt Study scores parcel RSA 19 with a score of 0 against Green Belt purpose 4. This is quite clearly incorrect as evidenced by the Pegasus Heritage Note and Hedsor and Riversdale Road Conservation Area Assessment. Indeed, part of a Conservation Area is identified as forming part of RSA 19. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 13
5.6 Pegasus Assessment - Conservation Areas associated within towns and villages within the area are considered significant when assessing land parcels against this purpose. 5.7 In addition, the potential impact upon the setting and special character of historic elements of settlements in this area will also need to be taken into account when assessing whether a parcel of Green Belt performs this purpose. 5.8 When a land parcel is considered to significantly contribute to the preservation of such historic settings such as settlement or heritage assets it will be assumed to serve the purpose. 5.9 In this instance the Green Belt which lies to the west of Hawk s Hill/Harvest Hill has a significant role to play for pedestrians using the public right of way across this Green Belt area. There is the opportunity to gain views eastward towards Hawk s Hill/Harvest Hill area. 5.10 The character of this area is seen as being low density residential environment within a heavily wooded landscape. Importantly its context and its setting is a rural one which is achieved by the Green Belt. This significantly assists in maintaining the identity of this historic residential area. 5.11 The Hedsor Road has historically has residential properties flanking this highway over some considerable time. Given its residential heritage it is now designated as part of a wider Conservation Area. This wider Conservation Area is divided into a series of discreet parcels which reflect the unique character of particular parts of the Conservation Area. 5.12 The Conservation Area statement as it relates to Hedsor Road recognises that this particular part of this Conservation Area relies upon its surrounding rural agricultural landscape to provide its context and setting. 5.13 Examination of the character of the residential area associated with Hedsor Road reveals that it has a strong rural village feel to it given the configuration of the residential properties and their curtilages and their joint relationship with the highway, Hedsor Road. The rural agricultural backdrop to this linear residential area is fundamental to maintaining and protecting its particular locally unique character. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 14
5.14 The Green Belt washes over the entirety of this part of the Conservation Area associated with Hedsor Road with the Green Belt lying both north and south of this area. 5.15 The Green Belt is playing a significant role in protecting and maintain the setting and perception of this heritage asset. 5.16 The Green Belt north of Hedsor Road also plays a significant role in maintaining the rural context and setting to the wooded residential environmental to Hawk s Hill and Harvest Hill. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 15
6. PURPOSE 5 TO ASSIST IN URBAN REGENERATION, BY ENCOURGAGING THE RECYCLING OF OTHER URBAN LAND 6.1 The Arup Part 1 Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment (7 th March 2016) (Arup Part 1) describes how it assess this criteria at paragraphs 4.4.29 to 4.4.35. These paragraphs state; Purpose 5 focuses on assisting urban regeneration through the recycling of derelict and other urban land. As outlined in Section 2, the advice note issued by PAS suggests that the amount of land within urban areas that could be developed will already have been factored in before identifying Green Belt land. Therefore, assessment of Green Belt against this purpose will not enable a distinction between General Areas as all Green Belt achieves the purpose to the same extent. Furthermore, during engagement with the Steering Group, we discussed whether any planned urban regeneration schemes were being inhibited by Green Belt designations, but no areas were identified by the Steering Group or stakeholders. As a result, Purpose 5 was excluded from the assessment. 6.2 It is submitted however that this was an incorrect analysis as some Green Belt parcels may assist more in helping to ensure the regeneration of urban brownfield sites than others in failing to assess this criterion the Arup Part 1 study is incomplete and lacking in evidence. 6.3 The Draft Wycombe District Council Part 2 Green Belt Study (June 2016) is silent on this Green Belt purpose at Page 39 of Appendix 4. 6.4 Pegasus Assessment - Green Belt forms a narrow swathe of land in the vicinity of Hollands Farm but is important in its role in several respects. By being in place here it ensures that inappropriate development is not sited in this particular rural landscape and therefore by its very presence assists in redirecting development pressures to other parts of the locality and in particular the wider settlement of Bourne End. Such a redirection of attention will assist in encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land within the urban fabric of the settlement. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 16
7. SUMMARY 7.1 Page 81 of the Arup Part 1 report states that the wider land parcel parcel 58a has an overall performance of medium against the five purposes of the Green Belt. 7.2 The Draft WDC Part 2 Green Belt Study (June 2016) states at p.39 that the northern part of parcel 58a (RSA 19); Scores relatively weakly against NPPF purposes 7.3 The Pegasus assessment of the site, with reference to the Martin Leay Green Belt Report, the Pegasus Heritage Note and Pegasus Conservation Area Assessment point to the important site-specific role that the site plays in terms of the five purposes of the Green Belt and raise site specific matters that the Draft WDC Part 2 Green Belt Study (June 2016) and Green Belt Part Two Study (September 2017) have failed to identify. 7.4 It is apparent from the analysis of the five purposes of Green Belt that having looked at the Green Belt on the ground and having understood its physical and visual relationship with the adjacent settled landscapes that this particular parcel of Green Belt, particularly to the north of Hedsor Road, is significantly fulfilling the five purposes of Green Belt. Not only is it fulfilling the purposes, it is having a strong role in maintaining the identity and setting of these settled areas by being in place and by fulfilling all five purposes that Green Belt designation seeks to address. 27 November 2017 SHF/AC P17-1325 KBEG 17