4.2.7 Green Belt & Strategic Gaps Between Settlements Preferred Option

Showing comments and forms 31 to 45 of 45

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 752

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr K Clarke

Representation Summary:

Positive comment, re Land North of bull Lane, Rayleigh. 11 Acres have been put forward for housing as a preferred site in answer to the Core Strategy Plan. The land reaches criteria Policies HP8/HP9. It is the ideal location with local shops and schools nearby. It also reaches criteria TP1 -Travel Policy with a good road structure, and public transport closeby.

Full text:

POSITIVE COMMENT

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY - LAND at BULL LANE, RAYLEIGH
This representation is with regard to land at Bull Lane which has been put forward for release from Green belt for housing as a suggested and preferred site in answer to the Core Strategy Plan. This is an 11 acre field that is grassed and free of trees and buildings, it has also never had any farmer use for farm grazing or arable use. The land meets the criteria required as follows.

Policies HP8/HP9
As 1800 houses are required in Rayleigh alone; the land North of Bull Lane, Rayleigh which has been offered for building is in an ideal location. The plot of land is some 11 acres in size and will allow for affordable housing for local community needs as well as private residential development. It is very much suitable as it immediately adjoins the existing town in accordance to the criteria defined in Policy HP9. The release of the land would still allow presence of the openness of Green Belt. It would also not encroach on the "Green Buffer'' suggested in the councils preliminary publications.

The land North of Bull Lane is on the edge of town, with good access to:
Shops & Amenities
Local shops - a good range includes Butchers, Greengrocers, Post Office, Newsagents, Café and others, are all in walking distance of 0.4 mile

Town Shopping - Rayleigh Town Centre - itself with its wide range of shops is just 1 mile away.
The Local Park, Library, Community Centre, are also just a mile away.

Schools
Infants and Junior School are serviced by 'The Grove School' is 0.4mile distance from the site.
The Fitzwymark Senior School is local and just 0.5 miles away.

Travel Policy TP1
Roads - Bull Lane has a good road structure for traveling to Rochford - Southend - London- Chelmsford.

Buses - There are a variety of regular buses from Rayleigh which link the county in all directions, see attached routes.
Trains - The good train service carries passengers from Rayleigh to Southend and London directions.

Points raised here are within the East of England Plan, and for these reasons we believe that Bull Lane would be suitable for development.

POLICY TP1 - SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT .

RAYLEIGH BUS ROUTES
A variety of regular buses from Rayleigh link the county .

NO BUS ROUTES RAYLEIGH PICK UPS
20 Hullbridge-Lower Hockley-Rayleigh-Eastwood-Southend BULL LANE
20C Hullbridge-Lower Hockley-Rayleigh-Eastwood-Southend BULL LANE
20X Southend-eastwood-Ray;leigh-Hullbridge BULL LANE
1 Rayleigh-Thundersley-Leigh-westcliff-Thorpe Bay-Shoebury Rayleigh Station
Rayleigh-Hockley-Ashingdon High Street/Hockley Rd
8 Rayleigh-Rochford-Southend-Thorpe bay-Shoeburyness High Street/Hockley Rd
9 Rayleigh-Eastwood-Southend-Thorpe Bay-Shoeburyness High St,Eastwood Rd
11A Southend-Westcliff-Rayleigh-Chelmsford Eastwood Road/Rayleigh Station

15,15A,15B,15C,16 Southend-Rayleigh-Pitsea-Basildon Eastwood Road/High St
Lower Hockley-Rayleigh-Southend High Street./Rayleigh Station
Southend-Rayleigh-Canvey

Metro 25 Southend,Rayleigh,Wickford,Basildon Rayleigh Station
35/35X Chelmsford-Great Baddow-Rayleigh-Southend Eastwood Rise/Rayleigh Station
Chelmsford-Rayleigh-Southend
200 Bradwell on sea-Maylandsea- Althorne-Sth Woodham-
Rayleigh-Southend Eastwod Rd,High St,Station
222 Southend-Rayleigh-Wickford-Billericay-Brentwood-Warley
825 Basildon-Westcliff High School-St.Thomas More School Eastwood Rise,Rayleigh Station
X30 Southend - Rayleigh- Stanstead Airport Rayleigh Station

Metro 25 BASILDON,BEACHAMPS SCHOOL,Southend Town Centre -Rayleigh Station

TRAINS
Local Railway station - direct to London - Southend
ROAD
It is easy to travel by road to Southend,Chelmsford, London with choices of routes to choose from.

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 753

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Hatcliff

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 754

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr J Drake

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 755

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Maskell

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 756

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Bailey

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 757

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Chapman

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 758

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mrs S Foxwell

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 759

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Emmins

Representation Summary:

Positive comment, re Land North of bull Lane, Rayleigh. 11 Acres have been put forward for housing as a preferred site in answer to the Core Stragey Plan. The land reaches criteries Policies HP8/HP9. It is the ideal location with local shops and schools nearby. It also reaches criteria TP1 -Travel Policy. with a good road structure , and public transport closeby.

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 760

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr T Brown

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 761

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr Paul Saunders

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 762

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mrs F Print

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 763

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Nickless

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 764

Received: 03/07/2007

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Vel

Representation Summary:

Full text:

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 785

Received: 02/07/2007

Respondent: Essex County Council

Representation Summary:

Para 4.2.7 The expansion of King Edmund School would require extra land in the Green Belt. Therefore, it may be helpful to include community facilities in the consideration of relaxation of policy.

Full text:

Policy Content

The main comments concerning the content of the published consultation document are as follows:

1. To satisfy government guidance, the Core Strategy Preferred Options stage should have moved significantly on from the previous Issues and Options stage in terms of scope, content, and process as outlined below.

2. The evidence base should be substantially expanded and rolled forward to ultimately justify the selection of the Preferred Option. In particular, further evidence involving urban capacity, strategic housing market assessment, strategic housing land availability, town centres & retailing, employment land review, and transport studies is required. The whole evidence base should also be extended and rolled-forward well beyond 2021 so as to comply with PPS3 Housing guidance (namely that adopted DPDs should look forward at least 15 years' ahead at the date of their adoption).

3. Rochford district has significant functional economic relationships with Southend, Basildon, and other parts of Essex Thames Gateway, as well as parts of Greater London. The evolving Core Strategy should consider how these relationships might change and develop up to 2021, and what the practical implications might be for job/home alignment, commuting patterns, transport, and patterns of development provision.

4. The urban capacity study needs urgent updating before the broad direction of any Preferred Options can be confirmed. It also needs to be linked into a strategic housing market assessment and strategic housing land availability assessment in accordance with PPS3. In this way, the re-use of previously-developed land (PDL) and the consequential need for any greenfield site releases in the district can be properly clarified. At present there is inadequate information about this issue to inform discussion of Preferred Options.

5. The Preferred Options stage should also investigate the spatial planning implications of the RSS jobs figure. It should identify where the net jobs increase will come from within different economic sectors, and what the corresponding land-use implications might be for B1 employment uses, office development, retail and services, tourism, and the public sector (such as education and health). The District Council should undertake an employment land review to assess the extent to which existing employment areas will remain suitable and which new or existing locations would best support the future economic strategy of the district. This should then feed into the consideration of the future accessibility of employment sites to housing locations.

6. The Preferred Options should contain policy guidance regarding the preferred strategy for the district's town centres. This should include discussion of strategic options and choices for the amount and location of retail provision and other town centre uses. The policy approach towards out-of-centre development should also be explored and clarified.

7. The range of alternative options for the development strategy should be explained much more explicitly. This includes identifying and quantifying how much new housing should to be provided on PDL and greenfield sites, respectively; and the development provision required for employment, offices, town centre and retail uses, and other major development. Having established the broad quantum of new development required in the district, the Preferred Options stage should set out the reasonable alternatives for the location of new development in terms of its spatial pattern. This includes both the numeric distribution between individual key settlements and the broad locations for any major development. The latter would include identifying the geographical sectors on the edge of major settlements. The reasoned justification for any preferred option(s) should also be set out explicitly by drawing on the results of technical studies, SEA and sustainability appraisal, transport studies, and the results of public consultation at previous stages.

8. The practicality and desirability of designating 'buffers' in policy terms within the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB) is unclear. The stated purposes of the MGB already include preventing the coalescence of existing settlements plan situated within the MGB, so the proposed use of 'buffers' represents a duplication of existing policy. Alternatively, if the proposed 'buffers' are to perform a different policy role this is not adequately explained. Since greenfield land releases may be required in the district up to 2021 and beyond, it is unclear whether the proposed use of 'buffers' would be incompatible with such an approach or not.

9. The approach towards the provision of new affordable housing is based upon specific local size thresholds in terms of site size. However, the proposed local thresholds are different from those set out in PPS3 Housing. The use of local thresholds departing from national guidance requires special justification, but this is not provided. It is also unclear whether the proposed affordable housing could be delivered in the absence of clear mechanisms for its delivery.

10. The Preferred Options should set out much greater consideration of the elements of a sustainable transport strategy to support the 5, 10 and 15 year visions. The County Council would be willing to assist Rochford District Council in preparing this material to support its Core Strategy DPD submission.

11. The Core Strategy will require more consideration of implementation and monitoring in accordance with government guidance. In particular, the actions necessary for delivery, any absolute dependencies on infrastructure, and the timescale should be identified. The recent White Paper (Planning for a Sustainable Future, May 2007) is proposing that detailed implementation plans should be prepared alongside Core Strategy DPD preparation.

Future Process

In view of the above comments, Rochford District Council is recommended to:

a) Commission additional technical studies to support and supplement the evidence base, and extend the base well beyond 2021;

b) Give more explicit guidance about the range of future development options in the district for different types of new development, including a more fuller reasoned justification at arriving at any preferred option(s);

c) Carry out further public consultation on (a) and (b) before proceeding to the preparation of a Core Strategy DPD for submission to the Secretary of State.

2. MORE DETAILED COMMENTS

Spatial Portrait
Para 1.9 The sentence "Within the district road infrastructure is poor" should be deleted, as there is no evidence that Rochford's roads are particularly poor.

Para 1.9 The sentence "There are no designated Heavy Lorry Routes in the District and many routes are unfit for their current level of use" should be amended to "The district's road network is under pressure from increasing private car and commercial traffic."

Spatial Vision

Para 2.6 After second sentence add, "The larger new development sites will have been designed with priority access to public transport, pedestrians and cyclists in mind".

Para 2.14 Add "The South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT) project, enhancing the use and attractiveness of public transport in the Thames Gateway area, will have entered the District."
Para 2.24 Amend "Public transport is well used and has been enhanced by the completion of the South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT), which serves most of the population of the district." to "Public Transport is well used and has been enhanced by further South Essex Rapid Transit services."

Para 2.27 The phrase "Despite travel times to and from the airport increasing " should either be explained or deleted.

Green Belt

Para 4.2.7 The expansion of King Edmund School would require extra land in the Green Belt. Therefore, it may be helpful to include community facilities in the consideration of relaxation of policy.

General development locations

Para 4.6.2 The Rochford Core Strategy should have regard to the existing Brickearth Consultation Area when identifying new locations for development.

Para 4.6.1 Add at end: "embodying priority access by sustainable transportation modes consistent with Local Transport Plan policies as far as practicable where appropriate. Development will also be progressed with regard to highway development control policies to be defined in detail within the Development Control policies set of documents outlined in paragraph 3.9."

Para 4.6.3 While schools are included in the 'good range of facilities' alluded to, these settlements are only 'capable of sustaining some expansion' if the number of school places is increased. The document needs to be clear that there are insufficient surplus places to accommodate 3,900 additional homes.

Para 4.6.10 Significant additional schools capacity will be needed as set out below. In addition, Early Years and Childcare facilities will need to be provided in each case. Financial and land contributions from developers will be needed to deliver this infrastructure. The allocation of 300 more units than proposed to Hockley and 300 less to Rayleigh would provide a better fit in terms of maximising the use of current schools' capacity. Rochford/Ashingdon:- 1,000 UnitsThe capacity of Doggetts Primary can potentially be expanded to meet the needs of up to 1,000 new homes. If the sites are poorly located for this school, a new single form entry primary school would be needed (site area required 1.1 hectares). At secondary, King Edmund is already accommodating significantly more pupils than is recommended by the DfES for their site area. The school is forecast to remain oversubscribed. To expand, the school will need to obtain additional land. Land to the north and east of the school is open. The school has access difficulties with significant vehicle / pedestrian conflict and congestion at the start and end of the day. Incorporation of land to the north into the school site would allow the school to expand to serve new housing while at the same time providing improved access via Brat's Lane. The plan should allocate a minimum of 2.7 hectares of land for this purpose based on 1,000 new homes. RDC will need to consult with the School as to the precise piece of land needed. Hockley/Hawkwell: - 400 UnitsDemand for both primary and secondary places in the area is forecast to fall, which should allow this number of new dwellings to be accommodated without the need for significant additional capacity. Rayleigh: - 1,800 UnitsThis quantum of new development is likely to require an additional two forms of entry to be added to permanent capacity across the town at both primary and secondary levels. Half of this requirement at primary level can be met by expanding existing schools. The allocation of a single housing site of around 700 units would be needed to deliver a new single form entry primary school (1.1 hectares) to make up the anticipated shortfall. Limited expansion of Fitzwimarc and/or Sweyne Park can probably be achieved with careful planning/ negotiation with the schools. Smaller settlements: - 500 UnitsThe allocation of units to smaller settlements could help sustain rural primary schools within the District but would impose long term school transport costs upon the County Council that should be mitigated through developer contributions. Specific locations will require careful consideration.

Para 4.6.18 Reference to public transport should be added, as Rayleigh has excellent access by rail both towards London and Southend.

Employment

Para 4.8.8 Regional Employment Strategy should be amended to Regional Economic Strategy.

Good design & design statements

Para 4.9.9 Architects and developers should be required to design their new developments with the use of recycled and alternative materials in mind, as efforts to increase recycling will only be worthwhile if there is a local market for recycled products.

Character of place & the historic environment

Para 4.10.8 The policy bullet points should include reference to historic heritage (e.g. historic landscape and archaeology), not just identity and buildings.

Energy & water conservation & renewable energy

Section 4.12 It is considered the Core Strategy for Rochford should provide the basis of policy guidance for accommodating waste management facilities within the District in order to be consistent with the RSS and PPS10. Policies should address the following:

- Resource reduction, re-use and recycling during construction of new developments as a way of driving waste up the waste hierarchy. This should be a primary objective.

- Use of renewable resources from sustainable sources.

- Impact of development on the environment and local amenity.

- Appropriate layout and design of buildings, external spaces and roads to allow for waste storage and collection and to facilitate waste separation and recycling. PPS10 contains guidance with regard to what facilities should be incorporated into non-waste related development.

- The recommendations on pages 91 - 94 of The Essex Design Guide Urban Place Supplement, which is being adopted by Rochford District Council as a Supplementary Planning Document.

4.12.11 The first bullet point relates to much wider issues than the energy conservation heading under which it appears. It should be a core policy in its own right, and include aspects such as safe routes to schools.

Compulsory purchase & planning obligations

4.13.7 Add education to list of justifications for compulsory purchase. As stated above, The King Edmund School needs to secure additional land.

Comment

Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Representation ID: 806

Received: 17/08/2007

Respondent: Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

Representation Summary:

Para 4.2.7 However, the preferred option indicates that there may be some relaxation for major developed sites, green tourism and renewable energy proposals. Southend Borough Council considers it essential that the Core Strategy specifically addresses the need to review the Green Belt boundary within the proposed boundary of the Joint Airport Area Action Plan. The preparation of this AAP has been agreed by both Councils and work is underway on developing the plan. It would be inconsistent therefore not to address Green Belt boundary review in this area within the Core Strategy both in policy terms and on the Key Diagram.

Full text:

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options (Regulation 26) Draft:
Consultation Development Plan Document (DPD)

I refer to your recent statutory consultation on the above Development Plan Document
and subsequent telephone conversation with Bob Preston about Southend's delay in
making formal representations.

Please find attached Southend Borough Council's representations on your Core Strategy
Preferred Options Draft and trust that they will be given due consideration.

For your information, these comments at this time are still subject to approval by
members. I will confirm the Council's agreed position after their Cabinet meeting on 25th
September 2007.

I trust this is in order.

Main Points

1.1 The Rochford District Core Strategy should address:
* The expansion plans for London Southend Airport and related development. There should be a Core Strategy Policy stating clearly that a Joint Airport Area Action Plan (JAAAP) is being developed with Southend on Sea Borough Council. The policy would need to be clear about the potential for change within the area covered by the Area Action Plan. This should include Airport expansion plans, the development potential for additional employment land and the implications in terms of rolling back the green belt boundary in this area. The broad location of the JAAAP should be shown on the Key Diagram;
* transportation and accessibility issues including strategic road and rail links and address associated cross boundary issues such as SERT. For example the core strategy should identify potential locations for a Park and Ride Scheme on the A127 as part of 'SERT' and surface access improvements to London Southend Airport, including the new railway station. These elements should also be shown on the Key Diagram;
* the proposal within the Southend on Sea Core Strategy Core Policy CP7 to support development of a new Country Park facility located between Great Wakering and Shoeburyness and show the broad extent of the proposed Country Park on the Key Diagram.

Specific Comments

1. A Spatial Portrait of the Rochford District

para 1.4 The spatial portrait of Rochford provides an insight to the district and provides a context in which planning policy in the Core Strategy needs to be developed. As such it would be helpful if there was more detailed information about where the district's residents work and their mode of travel as well as commuting patterns into the district if significant. Further description could then follow about the district's role and connectivity with London, Essex Thames Gateway and the rest of the region. This would link with the discussion about transport infrastructure in paragraphs 1.9 to 1.11.

para 1.9 In light of the above comments it would also be helpful to set out, in the paragraphs about transport infrastructure, key linkages with areas outside the district such as London and Thames Gateway South Essex and Chelmsford. Clearly the A127 and A130 and the Southend Liverpool Street railway line are strategic transport linkages to London and the rest of the Gateway. These, together with national and regional cycle routes, should be identified on the Key Diagram.

Paras 1.11
& 1.12 Also significant to transport linkages is London Southend Airport which lies within the district. Whilst it is mentioned here, both its current and future significance, through expansion plans, for both transport (including surface access) employment generation, and the Green Belt is not addressed fully. Clearly the Core Strategy will need to consider these issues and establish a policy context within which the Joint Airport Area Action Plan can be developed. It would be helpful therefore for this section to fully develop the context in which London Southend Airport sits.

2. Spatial Vision for the District

Paras 2.7
& 2.17 The Southend on Sea Core Strategy DPD Policy CP7: 'Sport, Recreation and Open Space' supports the development of a new Country Park facility, as part of the development of a Green Grid of open spaces and associated linkages throughout Essex Thames Gateway. This is nominally located towards the north east of the borough, with potential to cross the border into Rochford district and shown on the Key Diagram. Southend Borough Council considers that such a proposal aligns with Rochford Council's objective of preventing coalescence in the area between Southend/Shoeburyness and Great Wakering and reinforces the visitor recreation and leisure role that Rochford uniquely holds both for its own residents and those of Southend. It would be helpful, therefore, if the spatial vision in either the 5 or 10 year periods reflected the proposal for a Country Park between Southend/Shoeburyness and Great Wakering.

3. The relationship of documents in the Local Development Framework

Para 3.9 In the text box detailing the set of Development Plan Documents there is reference to a 'Joint Area Action Plan covering land to the west of Rochford'. It is unclear whether this refers to the Joint Airport Area Action Plan or not. It would be helpful if this is the case that the word 'Airport' is included within the title of this AAP. If it is not, then clearly the Joint Airport Area Action Plan should be included within this section, particularly as there has been a formal resolution by both Councils. In addition, it is considered essential that the broad locations of the proposed Area Action Plans are shown on the Key Diagram.

4. Core Strategy Issues

Para 4.1 Rochford District contains an Airport and strategic road and rail links with demanding cross boundary issues that need to be addressed. The spatial portrait also highlights issues of congestion and accessibility both in terms of the road infrastructure and the inadequacies of public transport. Southend Borough Council considers it essential that 'transport infrastructure and accessibility' should be a key policy area within the Core Strategy and it should address strategic issues such as support for the Airport expansion and surface access solutions, SERT, public transport improvements and cycling and walking.

It is noted in paragraph 3.10 that the Core Strategy intends to avoid duplication between local and National policies particularly in relation to green belt and development in flood risk areas. However, flood risk and climate change are key challenges for all LPAs particularly in this area and the Core Strategy should specifically refer to how it will address flood risk locally.

There also appears to be a lack of consideration of sports and recreation provision outside the management of protected open spaces which are intrinsically attractive because they are natural habitats.

4.2 The Green Belt & Strategic buffers between settlements

Para 4.2.1 Southend Council agrees that as a matter of principle, Green Belt land should be protected, and where possible brownfield land should be given priority for development. It is also noted that a Strategic Review of the green belt boundary is not considered appropriate at this stage in line with RSS Proposed Changes Policy SS7 and that the preferred option is to continue its restrictive suite of policies for development within the Green Belt.

Para 4.2.7 However, the preferred option indicates that there may be some relaxation for major developed sites, green tourism and renewable energy proposals. Southend Borough Council considers it essential that the Core Strategy specifically addresses the need to review the Green Belt boundary within the proposed boundary of the Joint Airport Area Action Plan. The preparation of this AAP has been agreed by both Councils and work is underway on developing the plan. It would be inconsistent therefore not to address Green Belt boundary review in this area within the Core Strategy both in policy terms and on the Key Diagram.

Para 4.2.4 In addition, Southend Borough Council is unclear as to the need for another tier of protection to land already identified as Green Belt, as implied by the proposed designation of Strategic Buffers, particularly as these areas are subject to a continued application of Green Belt policy. However, should they be areas where particular enhancements or management for recreation were needed then this Council would recommend that the proposed Strategic Buffer between Great Wakering and North Shoebury be proposed as a Country Park to complement Policy CP7 in the Southend on Sea Core Strategy DPD.

4.8 Employment

para 4.8.3 The recognition of the potential of London Southend Airport to be a catalyst for employment generating uses providing jobs for local people is welcomed.

Para 4.8.5 This paragraph indicates that additional jobs growth in the district will be accommodated within, London Southend Airport, Rochford Business Park, and various locations throughout the district. These locations should be shown on the key diagram. In addition
Southend Borough Council consider that the Core Strategy Policy dealing with employment should state clearly that a Joint Airport Area Action Plan is being developed with Southend on Sea Borough Council and both show the broad area that the AAP will cover on the Key Diagram and be clear within the policy about the proposal in terms of the expansion of the Airport, the development potential for additional employment land etc and the implications in terms of rolling back the green belt boundary in this area.

4.14 Community, leisure & tourism facilities

The approach to the provision of community (which should include education, health and social care facilities) and leisure facilities appears to be criteria based approach for dealing with planning applications for such uses in an appropriate manner. Whilst this is necessary, it would also be helpful to have an overview as to the locational requirements of other agencies dealing with health and social care provision.