To consider the following Notice of Motion to be proposed by Councillor Horrill (seconded by Councillor Brook):
Green Belt for South Hampshire
“That this Council, in developing its Strategic Issues and Options as part of the forthcoming update of the Winchester Local Plan, and as part of its participation in the refresh of the PfSH Sub-Regional Strategy, supports the principle of a South Hampshire Green Belt designation for the countryside north of the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, to prevent coalescence of our towns and villages; and that support for this designation be sought with neighbouring authorities.”
Minutes:
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, a Motion was submitted by Councillor Horrill as follows. The Motion was seconded by Councillor Brook.
“That this Council, in developing its Strategic Issues and Options as part of the forthcoming update of the Winchester Local Plan, and as part of its participation in the refresh of the PfSH Sub-Regional Strategy, supports the principle of a South Hampshire Green Belt designation for the countryside north of the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, to prevent coalescence of our towns and villages; and that support for this designation be sought with neighbouring authorities.”
Councillor Horrill introduced the Motion and in summary raised the following points:
· Designation of a south Hampshire Green Belt should be considered with all issues and options for the new Local Plan. It should also be considered as part of the council’s participation in the refresh of the PfSH sub regional strategy.
· There has been considerable development in south Hampshire during recent years. During lockdown, there had been greater appreciation of countryside and role in wellbeing of open spaces etc
· Government consultation papers suggest that the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities was to be removed. Therefore, there could be increased development towards local authority borders in the future. This council therefore needed to be clear where countryside should be protected.
· Recent CPRE research regarding Green Belts showed that they provide benefits to the local economy and to health, wellbeing and to ecosystems to value of £26 million per annum. The health and wellbeing element of this from those living in and around a Green Belt was £17 million. There was a need to reinvigorate the local economy following the COVID -19 pandemic. A Green Belt would help with tourism and recreation benefits to tune of £1.3m per annum.
· The council should promote a genuine ‘brownfield first’ approach to development. Town centres may need to re purposed for housing should retail further decline. A Green Belt would promote urban regeneration, check urban sprawl and safeguard countryside and preserve the setting and special character of the district’s historic towns.
· The council should align and work in partnership with other local authorities and with MPs regarding the principle of the designation of a south Hampshire Green Belt.
During the debate which followed on the Motion, in summary, the following points were raised:
· The presence South Downs National Park in the district, as well as the government’s recent pledges to increase housing numbers in the Winchester district, would mean that the proposals for a south Hampshire Green Belt would push unsustainable development to the west, north and north east of Winchester as well as into existing settlements. This would put pressure on existing infrastructure. A fair and equitable distribution of housing in the district in sustainable locations was necessary.
· There were historical ideas for a ‘solent city’ with ‘green lung’ areas. The environment was at the core of the council’s polices and uncontrolled urban sprawl was at odds with this. There must be a fair and equitable distribution of housing, together with inclusion of ‘green lungs’. There was pressure from development close the borders of the district in some of the southern wards.
· Countryside was being lost to urbanisation and this impacted on biodiversity and recreational opportunities. There needed to be green corridors for wildlife etc.
· The council was a member of the PfSH partnership which was investigating the feasibility of a Green Belt in the district. The outcome this investigation was awaited with interest.
· The council was also examining how the three new descriptors of land (growth, renew and protect) could be used to protect green spaces across the district.
AMENDMENT - Moved by Councillor Porter and seconded by Councillor Tod, as follows:
“That the motion regarding designation of South Hampshire Green Belt for the countryside north of the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, be referred to Cabinet after consideration by the Local Plan Advisory Group of the issues raised this evening in relation to the motion, including:-
· The Government’s proposed increase in the district’s housing target to more than 10,000 houses in the next 10 years – and the consequent risk that the proposal concentrates a damaging amount of additional housing to the north, west and north east of Winchester
· The Government’s white paper “Planning for the Future” and the expectation that the Government is seeking agility in protecting green spaces by its designation of Growth, Renew, Protect
· Whether there are better mechanisms to protect green space right across the whole district
· The implication for building homes where they are needed in the district, when 40% is also covered by the National Park.
· The results if the investigation into the feasibility of a Green Belt as part of our membership of PfSH”
The meeting then proceed to debate the Amendment to the Motion and in summary, the following points were raised:
· The CPRE report regarding designation of a Green Belt was originally produced before the government’s declarations regarding reform of planning and housing numbers. There must firstly be detailed consideration of this and also having regard to other factors such as the proximity of the national park.
· Additional debate on the proposal was welcomed as should be discussed as part of the issues and options regarding the new local plan. The effective use of land for building new houses would help protect the most valuable countryside areas.
· Consideration of the planning reform proposals was deflecting away from the council’s debate of a Green Belt.
· By taking the proposal firstly to the Local Plan Advisory Group and then to the Cabinet would delay in bringing neighbouring authorities together to collectively debate a possible Green Belt.
· The supporting evidence provided by the New Economics Foundation for the CPRE for making its case for a Green Belt could equally be applied to the whole of the district and should be considered as part of any pilot for the next local plan.
· Wider discussion of the principle of designation of the Green Belt would be welcomed, but must not delay dialogue with neighbouring local authorities. Must be able to bring forward in time as part of the local plan and before implementation of the white paper housing numbers.
· There must be wider discussion on housing number allocations which had increased for this district more so than for other areas.
· There was work to be done before the council was able to consider the Green Belt proposal further. It should be discussed in the context of the whole district and the housing numbers now proposed.
· A Green Belt was part of the strategic issues and options and should been discussed urgently.
The meeting then voted on the Amendment to the Motion.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
The meeting then proceeded to debate the Original Motion, as amended – which was now the Substantive Motion. In summary, the following points were raised:
· Each of the five purposes of a Green Belt as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework were relevant to protect the needs of the whole district.
· A Green Belt policy did not forbid any appropriate development within it.
MOTION - Moved by Councillor Evans, as follows:
“That the Substantive Motion (the Original Motion as Amended) be now put.”
MOTION CARRIED
Before voting on the Substantive Motion (Original Motion as Amended), the mover of the original Motion (Councillor Horrill) then gave her right of reply.
SUBSTANTIVE MOTION (THE ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED) CARRIED
RESOLVED:
“That the motion regarding designation of South Hampshire Green Belt for the countryside north of the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton (as set out below), be referred to Cabinet after consideration by the Local Plan Advisory Group of the issues raised at this meeting in relation to the motion, including:-
· The Government’s proposed increase in the district’s housing target to more than 10,000 houses in the next 10 years – and the consequent risk that the proposal concentrates a damaging amount of additional housing to the north, west and north east of Winchester
· the Government’s white paper “Planning for the Future” and the expectation that the Government is seeking agility in protecting green spaces by its designation of Growth, Renew, Protect
· whether there are better mechanisms to protect green space right across the whole district
· the implication for building homes where they are needed in the district, when 40% is also covered by the National Park.
· the results if the investigation into the feasibility of a Green Belt as part of our membership of PfSH
“That this Council, in developing its Strategic Issues and Options as part of the forthcoming update of the Winchester Local Plan, and as part of its participation in the refresh of the PfSH Sub-Regional Strategy, supports the principle of a South Hampshire Green Belt designation for the countryside north of the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, to prevent coalescence of our towns and villages; and that support for this designation be sought with neighbouring authorities.”