The London Green Belt Council Notes,
Issue 136 February 2004
Introduction
Most of this issue
is concerned with the Government's proposed alterations to the planning system.
Most of the proposals are being processed through Parliament as part of the
Planning and Compensation Bill. Over a period of a few weeks last autumn I got 14
consultation papers, draft regulations etc., eight of which required major
comment, by differing deadlines, and to five different individuals within the
Deputy Prime Minister's Office. Fragmentation of comment in this way makes it
all too easy for the Government to lose the overall picture; it may not mind
that, but we certainly do. So I wrote individual letters of comment where that
was necessary (indeed some deadlines had expired before we received some of the
later papers); and wrote an overall response which in some respects repeated in
abbreviated form the comments which had already been sent in on the earlier
papers. You need to read the following submission with that in mind. It was
sent in on 12th January.
Consultation Papers on the Countryside, Affordable
Housing, and Planning
Comments by The London Green Belt Council
Introduction
1. This paper is the LGBC's response to
eight recent consultation papers. It seems more sensible to us to present our
comments in one document rather than in the fragmented way in which the ODPM
has asked for them; but our response is so arranged that the detailed comments
on each paper can be easily extracted by whoever is concerned with that
particular aspect. Each nominated person is being sent a copy.
2. The consultation documents covered are:
a) Draft consultation paper on
PPS 11, Regional Planning;
b) Draft PPS 12: Local
Development Frameworks;
c) Consultation draft on the Process of Preparing Local
Development Frameworks;
d) Local Development Frameworks:
Guide to Procedures and Code of Practice;
e) Consultation Paper on Changes
to PPG 3: Supporting the Delivery of New Housing;
f) Consultation Paper on Changes
to PPG 3: Influencing the Size, Type and Affordability of Housing;
g) Draft Consultation Paper on
PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas;
h) Draft PPS 22: Renewable
Energy.
Papers (a) - (d) have a
consultation deadline of 16th January, and paper (h) has one of 30th January.
Papers (e) and (f) had a deadline of 31st October 2003 and paper (g) had one of
12th December 2003. Our comments on those have already been sent in, but are
also summarised here because from our point of view they all impinge on the
same issues so far as the protection of green belt is concerned.
General Points
3. The general issues which concern us and which are reflected in
several of the papers are:
a) The papers as
a whole are biased in favour of urban or rural development at the expense of
countryside protection;
b) The
protection of green belt must not be confused with scenic quality. The papers
verge on doing that;
c) The proposed
system is misconceived as regards the opportunities it offers for public
participation and for the expression of public concern;
d) The proposed
planning system is too complex, and the drafting too confusing in places,
4. To explain
these points more fully our comments are:
a) Development v. Protection of Countryside. Any attempt to
cater justly for these two aspects of national life is very difficult, but the
papers concentrate unduly on the former, apparently being designed to give
maximum scope to development and commercial interests at the expense of the
countryside. A particularly deplorable example is in the proposed PPS 7, which
replaces the clear and simple four-word objective that the countryside should
be protected 'for its own sake' by 23 words which will only invite confusion
and disputation as to why the statement has been changed and what can be wrung
out of the significance of the changes. Even in the case of green belt, for
which Ministers have given assurances of continued protection, examples
(detailed later) are coming to light in which policies are being revised to
undermine that protection. Secondly, the instruction to local authorities in
PPS 7 to drop local countryside designations is another example of the desire
to weaken countryside protection and the expression of local feelings for their
environment. Collectively these and other examples can only reduce confidence
in the Government's over-all commitment to the countryside, with potentially
very serious consequences.
b) Green Belt and Scenic
Quality. It has always been a basic principle that green belt is a planning
designation intended to preserve openness and the separation of communities,
and is not related to the quality of the scenery (see para 1.7 of PPG 2,
'The quality of a landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within a
green belt or to its continued protection'). For many years development
interests and some professional bodies, e.g. the RTPI, have tried to undermine
green belt whilst pretending to support it by implying that green belt of poor
scenic value might as well be built on. We regard it as of absolutely
fundamental importance that the principle enunciated in PPG2 should be
maintained. But the papers contain
several examples of hints where development might well be sanctioned in green
belt despite the policy of protection. Such references should be removed.
c) Scope for Public Participation.
Under this heading we include both participation by publicly elected
representatives, and representations by individuals and local interest groups.
Our concern as regards publicly elected representatives relates to the
composition of regional bodies and the attempt to supersede the counties.
Though there is undoubtedly a case for a new means of formulating plans on a
regional basis, or at least on a basis bigger than counties, the proposed
powers given to unelected, regional bodies seem to us an abnegation of
democracy. They appear to have neither the status of governmental bodies, to
which the ultimate sanction of ministerial responsibility would apply, nor the
sensitivity of local government bodies answerable to county etc. electorates.
They appear to be planned to operate in a sort of limbo, with powers but no
responsibilities, and to be overweighted with
development interests. The reduction of the influence of counties in the
planning scheme is to be deplored, for counties have been focal points for
public loyalties and history for many centuries. A better solution would have been to build
upwards by using groups of county councils as a basis for regional planning
rather than to create regional bodies into which some county input has been fed
as a reluctant afterthought.
As regards representations by
individuals and local interest groups, we recognise that the original proposal
to deny individuals the right to have objections to local plans heard by an
independent inspector has been dropped; and we recognise that there has been a
considerable advance in spelling out the desirable breadth of public
consultation.
But the sheer naivety of the
comments in the draft PPS 12 that continuous consultation should eliminate the
need for changes to a plan before its public examination is almost beyond
belief. Responsible participation by individual members of the public, or their
group organisations, should continue to be permitted on the present basis. It
should not be squeezed out of the system in the interest of speed or of
pandering to developers or organisations with an interest in a development
spree.
d) Complexity of Planning
Proposals, and bad drafting. We doubt whether the proposed system with its
multiplicity of documents will be any improvement on the present one,
particularly for local authorities. But the proposals are so confusingly
presented in places that a fresh draft should be prepared in plain English.
Document 2(c) in particular, on the process of preparing the frameworks, has
carried the use of initials to quite absurd lengths which slow the
understanding of the paper. For instance, one page contains the following
abbreviations: LPA 12 times, CS once, LPD 3 times, RSS twice, LDF 9 times, LTP
twice, and SCI twice. Another page contains AMR 3 times, LDS 4 times, LDD 10
times, LDF twice, LPA 3 times, and RSS once. The intelligibility of this paper
really should be looked at afresh.
Detailed Comments on each
paper
5. Our comments below take the papers in the
order given in para 2. Where general points made in paras
3 and 4 are particularly relevant, the paragraph number is quoted,
PPS 11: Regional Planning
6. (a) We note that para 2.3 makes clear that
Regional Spatial Strategies must have regard to national policies and advice on
key topics, but it is no help at all that Annex A, which is supposed to list
those topics, is blank. It is essential that it should include PPG2 on green belts,
and we shall be glad to have confirmation that it will.
(b) It is equally unhelpful that
para 1.4 refers to the new PPS 1, when that was not available. At the time of
writing the consultation draft has still not been received.
(c) Paras
2.14 and 2.15 discuss how the Regional Planning Body should 'work on a
partnership basis with local planning authorities and county councils'. This
savours of offering a concession to the existence of county councils rather
than accepting them as the basis of the whole regional operation, which we
would have preferred. See 4(c) above.
(d) We believe that organisations
with the specific interest of protecting green belt should be included in the
community involvement discussions in regions or parts of regions where green
belt exists. Development interests will not be slow in introducing their view
of green belt into these discussions, and it is right that the conservation
side should also be heard.
(e) Our answers to some of the
specific questions in para 8 of the consultation paper are:
(i), (iii)(a), (iii)(b), (x) and
(xiv). We agree with what is proposed.
(ii). See comment at 6(a)
above - Annex A is blank. Para 2.8 makes
no reference to regional environmental strategies, which appear not to get a
look-in. But this could be because the protection of the countryside is a
national rather than a regional policy, particularly so far as green belt is
concerned. If so, that should be made clear. The main thing is that the
environment should not just seem to disappear down the cracks between the other
listed subjects.
(iv). See 6(c) above.
(vi). See 4(c) (second
paragraph) above.
(viii). Bodies like ours
should be automatically involved. See also -
(xv)
and table 1 of Annex D. The LGBC is an environmental group which is
also an umbrella group. It should be included. The note about umbrella bodies,
printed under Community Groups, might give the impression that the comment
relates only to umbrella bodies which work in the social field. It might be
better to devote a separate note to umbrella bodies generally, making clear
that they operate in a number of different fields, e.g. environmental, social,
religious etc.
PPS 12: Local Development
Frameworks.
7. (a) We are pleased that para 2.2.15(i) refers specifically to green belt in the context of
areas of protection which must be identified in the proposals maps, but -
(b) The proposals overall are of mind-boggling
complexity, and it amazes us that the Department can seriously advance them as
an improvement on the present system. See also 4(d) above.
(c) We welcome the clarity of 4.3.6, but believe
that the second sentence of 4.3.7 should be omitted. The
naivety of this statement, and that in para 4.4.2 that continuous community
involvement should make pre-inquiry changes in the plan unlikely, is
breath-taking. Consequently, the fifth sentence of 4.4.2 ('Such changes .... effective') should be omitted. The
omission of the two sentences proposed does not alter the general procedure
recommended but it removes the irritating feeling of cynicism as regards public
consultation conveyed by the existing text.
(d) It is difficult to answer the questions in
para 7 of the introduction to the draft PPS 12 because the different documents
envisaged are simply too numerous. A simpler concept is needed.
Consultation draft on the
Progress of Preparing Local Development Frameworks
8. (a) We have
commented in 4(d) above on the obsession with abbreviations in this document,
which makes understanding it needlessly difficult. The first two fifths alone
contain 500 abbreviations - not counting general uses like SofS,
ODPM, PPS etc.
(b) So far as green belt is concerned we would
query the phrase 'the most efficient use of land' in para 2.3.1. How is
efficiency to be judged when conservation interests and commercial interests
clash? It is this sort of language which conveys the impression that the
commercial approach is intended to have priority. We suggest that the use of
'acceptable' instead would be preferable. It still leaves the question
'acceptable to whom and on what basis?', but that could be explained in terms
of established policies for different kinds of land. As for the reference to
PPS 1 in the same paragraph, our comments in 6(b) above apply.
(c) Our answer to Q.1 in the forward to the
document is that it should be rewritten in English. [The question was 'Is the draft guide easy to
understand and is the format user friendly']
Guide to Procedures and Code
of Practice, Local Development Frameworks
9. The similarity of this paper's title with
the title of the document discussed in para 8 above is bound to lead to
confusion. It would be better if they could be combined into a single document.
Changes to PPG 3: Supporting
the Delivery of New Housing
10. Our comments were submitted on 15th October
2003. We support the main aim of the proposed addition to para 42 of PPG3, but
think that the opportunity should be taken to remove an ambiguity in the
existing para 42 which we assume will remain in force. This states that local
authorities should review all their non-housing allocations with a view
to possible use for housing (our underlining). This could be interpreted as
including green belt. We also suggest that the amendment should be
cross-referenced to para 68 of PPG3, which refers to green belt policy, and
that the paragraph should be amended to remove the implication that there is a
difference between green belt and greenfield
land. In fact, of course, much green
belt is greenfield land, but green belt policies should apply if it has been so
designated, whether it is also greenfield or not.
11. To turn now to a point not made in our
previous letter, we have recently become concerned that PPG 3 is being used to
override the protection afforded to green belt by PPG 2. For example, in a
recent case at Welham Green, Herts an inspector rejected an appeal against
Welwyn Hatfield Council's refusal to allow three houses on previously partly
developed land on the grounds, not that
the proposal was inappropriate development in green belt (which he
agreed it was) but that it was not enough development on green belt land. In
response to a letter from our President about this, Keith Hill replied on 31st
October that 'proposals for new housing in green belt have to be considered
against national policies, PPGs 2 and 3 being, of
course, the most relevant .... One of the key planks in considering a site's
suitability for housing under PPG 3 policy is whether it makes the most
efficient use of land .... So, whilst an application for housing in the
green belt could meet the 'very special circumstances' test under PPG 2, it
also has to be considered against all of the policies set out in PPG 3
including whether that proposal makes the most efficient use of the land'.
12. Whilst appreciating the
general point that is being made, our complaint in the particular case (which
Mr. Hill was not commenting on) was that the proposal did not meet the
'very special circumstances' test, but that the inspector was pushing the applicant
into making another application, with higher density housing, which might meet
the test. This approach could have very damaging consequences for green belt, and to a lesser extent for the countryside
generally. We therefore ask that the
revision of PPG3 should make clear that in respect of residential development
higher density should not of itself constitute very special circumstances.
Changes to PPG
3: Influencing the size, type, and affordability of housing
13. Our comments were sent in on
15th October 2003. Our points were:
a) The paper gives no adequate
indication that environmental considerations such as green belt will play any
significant part in the scheme of things. This applies as much to green belt
surrounding villages within the belt as to green belt surrounding towns. People
in villages also value their green belt.
b) We object to the repeated use of
the phrase 'within or adjoining existing villages' whether or not the villages
are in the green belt. These villages are as entitled to respect for their
green belt as are towns. The words 'or adjoining' should be omitted where green
belt is concerned. This would more accurately reflect PPG 2.
PPS 7: Sustainable Development in
Rural Areas
a) The reference in para 16 to
'statutorily designated' landscape should be amended to cover green belt, which
is a protected but not statutorily designated landscape.
b) The words 'notwithstanding green
belt policy' in para 26, which seem to be an open invitation to override green
belt policy, should be replaced by 'subject to'.
c) The second sentence of para
30(iii) is another open invitation, this time to invent 'wider benefits'
sufficient to create the very special circumstances which can be alleged to be
sufficient to override green belt constraints.
These are further disturbing
examples of the recent trend, referred to in para 12, of the Government'
s pushing ideas to override green belt. Another one is in para 15 below.
Draft PPS 22: Renewable Energy
15. Comments on this paper are not due until 30th
January. The reference to green belts in para 11 is fair, but we ask that the
last sentence should be removed. It says that the 'wider environmental
benefits' of energy from renewable production sources could create the very
special circumstances sufficient to override green belt constraints. If such
proposals arise - and by definition renewable energy schemes are likely to be
in exceptionally prominent places - the issue should be fully and publicly
debated. There is no need to drop hints in PPS 7 that such proposals could be
floated with substantial expectations of Government support. See
paras 4(a) and (b) and 14.
Conclusion
16. This paper is lengthy, but we
think that the cumulative effects of all the consultation papers covered could
represent considerable threats to green belt protection and to the landscape
generally. The magnitude of the threats would be concealed if we confined
ourselves to the fragmentation of commentary which the form of consultation
requires. The wider picture needs to be seen as well.
Further comment
In some respects
things have of course moved on since our letters and paper were written. In an
apparent effort to mollify the counties the Government has reversed its
position and agreed to amend the Bill so as to guarantee a statutory role for
county councils in the planning system. One may doubt whether this is really a
change of heart and whether the county councils will have more than a temporary
advisory role.
Overall my own view is that the
changes are really unnecessary, vastly complicated, and will do more harm than
good except to development interests. Green Belt may not suffer more than
anyone else, but that is little comfort. There is reason for concern that
woolly thinking about green belt is being encouraged by Ministers at the same
time as they repeat assurances of commitment to green belt policy. Our paper
gives some examples, and the Minister's reply to a query from our President in
the case of Welham Green is given below. Another example is in a speech by Lord
Rooker (ODPM Minister in the House of Lords) during a
debate there on the Planning and Compensation Bill. Lord Judd had said '...Will the Minister say
authoritatively that all that is being done shows the Government's determination
to ensure that this rich resource - the countryside - is enhanced as an asset
for the nation?'. Lord Rooker
replied:
'....What we have said is that in
building sustainable communities, particularly in growth areas, we may have to
impinge on certain parts of the green belt. However we intend to grow it and
leave more statutory green belt than we started with. We have already done
this. There are an additional 30,000 hectares of green belt land now compared
with 1997. I realise a large part is in one area of the country but
nevertheless it is statutory and far bigger than it was. I would also say that
green belt is not the same as AONBs. Most green belt
serves as a buffer around urban areas. It is not land of high visual quality;
it is purely designed to stop cities and towns joining up, which is quite
right. But green belt and AONB are not the same thing
and are separate from the statutory national parks'.
The above quotation at least
shows that Lord Rooker, who recently described much
green belt as rubbish, is beginning to understand what it is for, but it is bad
in that it is repeating the old canard (old in that it dates back into previous
administrations) that developing some green belt land is all right if an
equivalent or greater area is made green belt elsewhere. That, of course,
defeats the whole object of the policy.
So
our members should challenge such doctrines, via their MP, whenever they
surface.
Building in the Green Belt may be all right if
you build enough,
We
have all been familiar with developers pleas that lower grade or previously
developed green belt will be better built on, when the earlier activity has
ceased, than allowed to continue as green belt. Many planning authorities
valiantly resist such tactics, and developers often respond by submitting
further schemes with less and less development, until the Council eventually
gives way. This is now in danger of being reversed by the doctrine that
development which did not constitute the very special circumstances sufficient
to override green belt policy might override it if there was a more intensive
development proposal. Notes 135 gave an example from Welham Green, Herts. Our
President wrote to Keith Hill, the ODPM Minister responsible for planning,
about this. The following is taken from Mr. Hill's reply:
"The
Government is strongly in favour of maintaining the Green Belt. We remain
committed to the principles of the Green Belt and currently have no plans to
relax planning controls on Green Belt land. The fundamental aim of Green Belt
policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. In
launching Sustainable Communities: building for the future, on 5
February this year, the Deputy Prime Minister gave a new commitment to maintain
or increase the area of Green Belt land in every region of England. This
includes those regions - the South East and East of England - containing the
priority growth areas.
"Proposals
for new housing development in the Green Belt have to be considered against
national policies, PPGs 2 and 3, of course, being the
most relevant. As you know, in
designated Green Belts, in addition to the strict controls on house building
and other development in the countryside, there is a general presumption under
PPG2 policy against inappropriate development. Such development is by
definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved unless the harm
is outweighed by very special circumstances. It is for an applicant to show why
permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify
inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by
reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other
considerations. However, each application has to be decided on its individual
merits and on the particular circumstances of the case.
"The Government's
preference remains that for most development needs priority should be given to
re-using previously developed land in urban areas, then urban extensions.
However, even when this sequential, plan-led approach is followed, there will
inevitably be some instances where for a variety of reasons development in the
Green Belt or on greenfield land may be a more
sustainable option than on an existing site, with its benefits outweighing any
potential harm to the land.
"One of the
key planks in considering a site's suitability for housing under PPG3 policy is
whether it makes the most efficient use of land. (Average densities over the
1990s have been around 25 dwellings per hectare. Developments at 20dph or less
accounted for a quarter of all dwellings but more than half of all land used
for housing. These low densities represented a level of land take which is
historically very high and which couldn't be sustained. That's why under PPG3 we expect new
development - wherever it may be - to use land more efficiently through higher
densities.
"So,
whilst an application for housing in the Green Belt could meet the 'very
special circumstances' test under PPG2, it also has to be considered against
all of the policies set out in PPG3, including whether that proposal makes the
most efficient use of land. It might be feasible, for instance, for a housing
scheme on a previously developed site to make more efficient use of the site
without exceeding the existing built footprint or harming the openness of the
Green Belt."