The London Green Belt Council Notes: Issue 142 January 2006

The first three items in these Notes concern Government consultation papers, all of which ask for comments by dates from 22^nd to 28^th February. I am sorry that this leaves members little time, but a paper issued in December, with the long Christmas/New Year break, does not help organisations like ours to digest it and circulate comments to members in time for them also to obtain, digest and comment.

Consultation Paper on new PPS3: Housing

This paper outlines what regional planning bodies should do as regards the size and distribution of housing in their region for the next 15 to 20 years, and what the local planning authorities should do to bring this about in their own areas. Government policy on housing types, densities, affordable housing, location and other aspects are covered. Advice on ‘the policy approach and practical implementation’ will appear in supplementary guidance which is still being drafted. Its content is not clear, but an early draft will be shown on the ODPM website. Presumably those who do not use the web will not be privileged to know this, and in any case useful comment on the PPS is handicapped by not knowing what is in the supplementary guidance.

Nevertheless the PPS leaves a nasty impression. Although it is made quite clear that the greater part of development should be on brownfield land, the overwhelming impression is that the figures have got to be achieved come what may. Environmental concerns for the safeguarding of countryside (I am speaking generally, let alone as regards green belt) are barely mentioned. For instance, the nine specific questions on which the ODPM asks for comments are (a) working in sub-regional markets, (b) determining regional levels and distribution, (c) allocating and releasing land, (d) efficient use of land, (e) mixed communities, (f) rural housing, (g) designing for quality, (h) greening the residential development, and (i) managing delivery and development. No mention of any concern for the countryside generally.

Another highly questionable feature occurs in the Regulatory Impact Assessment (a wordy feature of current documents which I have never found of much use). One of the benefits claimed for the policy of identifying and allocating land is that it will allow more firms access to land for housing and hence improve affordability. It also claims that the gap between north and south not only prevents home owners in the north from moving south but also restricts labour mobility “by deterring home-owners in the south from moving to the north if they anticipate they may wish to return to the south, if equity does not grow as fast in the north as in the south”.

In other words, whereas we may think it desirable to encourage work, housing, and people to go north so as to relieve pressure on the south, the line here is to stand the idea on its head and argue that there should be so much housing in the south that prices will go down and the people who have gone north can come south again if they want to. This surely is lunacy.

The whole paper gives the impression of being driven by the housing industry. There are only two references to green belt. One concerns releasing small sites adjoining small rural communities which may be subject to policies of restraint such as green belt; and the other, in the section about development on brownfield land, says that it “does not supersede or in any way change the policy in respect of the redevelopment of major developed sites in the green belt set out in annex C to PPG2. There is no reference to green belt policy overall (or to any other countryside protection policies), or to the forthcoming green belt Order on which we commented recently. I note, however, that an ODPM spokesman was reported in July as saying in response to criticism of the policy “it does not and will not negate existing planning policy which protects green belt and focuses development on brownfield sites.”

Members should read the paper and may wish to object to its apparent desire to solve housing problems by building so much everywhere that prices will go down. They might also wish to protest about comments being sought when the policy documentation is in such an incomplete state that it is difficult to know whether one’s comments are justified or not.

Copies can be obtained from ODPM publications PO Box 236, Wetherby, W. Yorkshire, LS23 7NB, Phone 0870 1226 236 or from the ODPM website, http://www.odpm.gov.uk. Comments should be sent by 27^th February to Alex Lessware, ODPM, Planning Policies Division 2, Zone 4/J5 Eland House, Bressenden Place, SW1E 5DU. Phone 0207 944 6288.

Consultation Paper on the Government’s proposals for Additional Powers and Responsibilities for the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London.

The overall theme is that “The creation of the GLA has been a real boost for London”, so it is now right to consider whether strategic planning etc, could be improved by devolving greater powers to the Mayor and Assembly. The proposals cover many matters besides planning, but I cover only planning (excluding waste planning).

In my view the Mayor’s present position is somewhat anomalous in that, though the boroughs determine planning applications (and there can be appeals to the S/S in the same way as elsewhere), they consult the Mayor on applications which may raise strategic matters, the Mayor can direct refusal of such applications, but the applicant can appeal to the S/S. So the Mayor’s position is rather weak and he would like it strengthened. In addition the S/S has call-in powers in the same way as elsewhere, and the Mayor is proposing no change in that. The powers he would like are

- having a wider range of matters referred to him as strategic;

- being able to require boroughs to grant planning permission for strategic applications;

- having powers of direction on existing development plans and some documents;

- encouraging a rethink of the Government’s role in the planning of London;

- becoming a statutory consultee for cases outside London which have implications for it.

The Government’s options are to offer significant additional powers, to offer more limited powers (both these options would require legislation), or to make minimal changes. The significant additions amount effectively to making the Mayor instead of the Boroughs the planning authority for some kinds of application: he would do the consultations etc. The changes are against the background of an expected population increase of 800,000 by 2016. There is no reference in any of this to the countryside within the London Boroughs, or indeed to the built-up areas as part of the general environment, the emphasis being simply on planning powers. My view is that there is no realistic prospect of doing without a Mayor and a GLA, nor would it make sense to do so; and that the present position is something and nothing. As regards the defence of green belt, the GLA’s record has been pretty good - better than some of the boroughs.

Copies of the paper are available from the ODPM as above or on the website at www.odpm.gov.uk/gla/review Comments by 22^nd February to The GLA review, ODPM, 10^th Floor, Riverwalk House, 157 - 161 Millbank, SW1P 4RR.

Consultation Paper on new PPS25, Development and Flood Risk

This paper does not mention green belt and there is no reason why it should. I include it for the general information of members whose areas contain land that is subject to flood risk. The Government’s proposal is to extend the role of the Environment Agency to make it a statutory consultee for planning applications involving development in flood risk areas. The paper contains a draft Order, and appendices about climate change and managing different kinds of flood risk. What our members in affected areas might bear in mind is that it is possibly only a matter on time before someone has the brainwave of using the inability of building on non-green-belt land that has a flood risk as an excuse for trying to develop green belt land that is not subject to flood risk instead.

Copies from ODPM publications as above. Comments by 28^th February to Deborah Lewis, ODPM, Minerals and Waste Planning Division, Zone 4/A2, Eland House, address as above.

Planning Inspectorate Guidelines: A guide to the Process of Assessing the Soundness of Statements of Commnuity Involvement.

By way of light relief I now offer you notes on two papers recently received from the planning inspectorate. They are not consultation papers, but are “practical advice and guidance to all those involved in the new local development framework process”. That implies that local societies must learn to be more alert to the processes involved in drawing up documents than they have been in the past.

A. Development Plans Examination - A guide to the Processes of Assessing the Soundness of Statements of Community Involvement.

This wordy and esoteric document seems unlikely to appeal to anyone except academics - and the inspectorate which has to pretend to understand it. One must start by realising that ‘soundness’ does not mean that the policies concerned are sound; it means that the process by which the policies, which might themselves be sound or unsound, is given the imprimatur of soundness is itself sound according to the criteria set out in the document. The document, to clarify the situation, says “The term ‘sound’ is not defined in the 2004 Act. It may be considered in this context within the ordinary meaning of ‘able to be trusted’ and “showing good judgement’ and within the context of fulfilling the expectations of legislation”. So now you know. I suspect that it is the last five words that count most.

B. Development Plans Examination - A guide to the process of assessing the soundness of development plan documents.

This one is 57 pages long, but is likely to be more useful to our members. This is because the whole gingered-up process of examining plans places much more emphasis on local involvement from the outset, so that attempts to add new points later, e.g. at the examination-in-public stage, may be met by questions like ‘why didn’t you take this up in earlier round-table discussions?’ For instance, para 1.5.8 of the document, under the heading ‘the community and other stakeholders’ says -

‘It is vital that the community and other stakeholders become involved at the earliest stages of the preparation of the Development Plan Documents (DPD), i.e. at the issues and options stages....Raising new representations at the submission stage, on issues which have not been considered by the Local Planning Authority earlier in the DPD preparation process will cause serious difficulties for the Inspector because of the need for the Inspector to ensure that any changes made lead to a sound DPD in terms of the procedural tests. Representations which request substantial changes to a DPD at submission stage should therefore be avoided as alternative policy options and proposals should be aired during the early consultation stages. Further advice on early involvement and securing input from the community and other stakeholders is given in Chapter 4 of PPS12 and Chapter 7 of Creating Local Development Frameworks, a companion guide to PPS12.’

I imagine that the inspectorate has always had documents like these - and many more - and though the intention may be to increase local democracy and all that the effect may be the opposite if local people feel (a natural but unjustified feeling) that they will be smothered by representatives of development interests and professional bodies.

Both documents can be obtained from Martin Smith, The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN. Phone 0117 372 6313 or the website: www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

Greening the Green Belt ,

Last October the Surrey County Council held a conference with the above title to celebrate the 50^th birthday of the Green Belt. It was supported by the South-East Regional Development Agency, the South-East Regional Assembly and the Countryside Agency and was attended by 160 delegates from all over the UK and 11 European regions. They discussed problems of urban fringes round Paris, Frankfurt, Warsaw, Brussels, Barcelona, London, Birmingham, Grenoble, Lyon, and the towns and cities of The Netherlands and Flanders. Comments by speakers included:

- from the NFU representative. A survey from 2000 urban fringe farmers showed that two thirds were affected by fly tipping, nearly half by vandalism and joy riding and a third by poaching and illegal encampments. But with farmshops and ‘pick your own’ becoming popular and successful, public access should be encouraged.

- A Spanish representative described a scheme for agriculture implanted into a city (Barcelona) and run by a consortium. He described it as ‘...a sustainable future where farmers are the key players’.

- A Dutch representative described the problems of the Dutch landscape, and said that EU funding is essential to support a fit between rural enterprising and maintaining historic landscapes.

- Hertfordshire County Council’s representative described the green belt as ‘visible, tangible, comforting, but.....a battleground, a repository, a nightmare’. It is not ‘a tool for environmental management or a block to urbanisation...too many people can deny responsibility, so it is time to rethink our defensive strategy and integrate our plans and priorities’.

We expect to get a copy of the conference report in due course.

Legal Aid for Travellers

Writing in a private capacity our Secretary asked the Lord Chancellor whether legal aid is available to travellers in connection with planning matters. The reply from the Legal Aid Strategy Directorate of the Department for Constitutional Affairs gave considerable detail of the financial and other criteria that have to be met, and added, almost as an afterthought, that ‘exceptional funding will be authorised if… the case is of overwhelming importance to the client’. Overwhelming importance can arise because ‘the case concerns the life, liberty or physical safety of the client or his or her family, or a roof over their heads. Travellers can therefore use this avenue to apply for legal aid (via a solicitor) for representation at planning inquiries’.

Do travellers have a roof over their heads? I suppose that there soon will be, if there have not already been, long legal disputations over what constitutes a roof.

Other Planning Applications

1. Job creation at a site in Berkshire green belt was argued in favour of the replacement of a workshop and storage buildings in a scrapyard by a building for an existing crane hire business and twelve units for light industry, storage and distribution uses. The application was rejected on appeal because, though it would clear the site of scrap and spoil, that would not outweigh the reduction in openness; and the additional employment opportunities did not carry significant weight.

2. Another case which is similar yet different arose at a quarry in Beaconsfield where sand and gravel worked at the quarry under a permission granted in 1995 was bagged, stored, and distributed. The company proposed to undertake also the importation, storage, distribution and sale of decorative stone. On visiting the site the inspector found that this was already going on, so the case became one of carrying out development without planning permission.

The inspector said that PPG2 recognised that minerals had to be worked where they were found, and that justified the past works at the quarry. But the operation at issue concerned importing and handling stone from elsewhere, and that was inappropriate in green belt. It had an adverse effect on the openness and, though “the use is inconspicuous from public viewpoints and has little or no impact on the surrounding landscape, that does not make it appropriate or acceptable. The same argument could be used too often in relation to other development in the green belt, with cumulative harm to its generally undeveloped character”. The appellants’ claims about closure, loss of employment etc were little more than assertions. He dismissed the appeal.

3. When is a boat mast not a boat mast? Answer: when it is a telecoms mast. An applicant wished to site a 47 foot telecoms mast in a boat yard in Essex green belt because, he claimed, no suitable alternative site was available. The mast was to be disguised as a boat mast, with a gaff, yardarm, and halyard rigging; and the three panel antennae were to be mounted at the top of the mast with the dish shrouded with an imitation radar equipment cover.

On his visit the inspector found about 40 boats (presumably with masts) on the site but thought that the fake mast surrounded by real ones would still be an incongruous feature, quite different from the slender form of most yacht masts. It would therefore be inappropriate in green belt. Moreover he was not convinced that the applicant had shown that no alternative site was available. He therefore dismissed the appeal.

4. A scheme for a leisure development on a racecourse in the West Midlands green belt proposed 52 additional hotel bedrooms, a restaurant extension, casino, and an extension to a grandstand. The applicants claimed that very special circumstances outweighed the limited harm to the green belt. These were that the scheme would enhance the quality of existing facilities and create a regionally important leisure destination in an area in need of regeneration. The application was called in by the Deputy Prime Minister.

The DPM concluded that the substantial built development would adversely affect the openness of the green belt, and that the synergy claimed by the applicants between the various components of the scheme was based on market and financial considerations, and could not amount to very special circumstances. He refused planning permission because of the conflict with green belt policies.

5. In another called-in application the Deputy Prime Minister refused permission for a Christian meeting room in the Derbyshire green belt, situated on part of a vacant farm which contained a two-storey farmhouse, some farm buildings and pig-rearing sheds. The local council supported the application on the grounds that very special circumstances outweighed the harm to the green belt. The DPM said that the scheme would not lead to any significant visual enhancement of the openness of the area but would introduce urban development in a rural area. It would also be on a site which was not accessible by a choice of means of transport.

6. Car parking at a farm in the green belt near Bristol airport has been declared an inappropriate form of development that harmed the landscape and encouraged car travel. All four main agricultural buildings and hard standing around them were being used to park 120 vehicles in the buildings and another 180 in the open. The inspector considered that, even if parking were restricted to inside the buildings, it would still be inappropriate, and creating a fenced compound containing densely packed cars represented a highly unsympathetic addition to the landscape. It also opposed policies seeking to encourage the use of public transport to the airport.