The London Green Belt Council Notes: Issue 147

May 2007

This issue of Notes consists largely of reports of planning decisions and the like. In a way I feel that on policy we are in a lull between storms. We have a newly framed planning system which I think is quite daft, but we have yet to see how it will work in practice. We also have Kate Barker's report on planning and we have commented on its severe flaws so far as green belt is concerned. We now have to await the Government's response to the report: it was promised ‘in the spring’ but has not, at the end of April, emerged. Meanwhile the ordinary world of planning applications, appeals, etc. goes on.

The ‘New’ Planning System

‘New’ is in inverted commas because, having become law in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004, it is already three years old. But criticism from many quarters with widely differing interests is getting more pungent as more people seem to be realising what we could have told them in the beginning, that the system produces more paper work and more verbosity than anything that went before it. Regional Spatial Strategies (produced by non-elected bodies), local development schemes and frameworks, local development documents, core strategies, statements of community involvement, etc, must all lead to the submission by the local planning authority to the Secretary of State of ‘every development plan document’ [S. 20(1) of the Act]. He will arrange for an independent examination, the purpose of which is to determine ‘...in respect of the development plan document ....whether it is sound’ [S. 20(5)(b)]. No-one really knows what ‘soundness’ is - see also Notes 140, June 2005.

A recent letter from a Buckinghamshire authority comments that the first two core strategies submitted by local authorities (Stafford and Lichfield) to the S/S under the new system were rejected as unsound, and as a result both plans have had to be withdrawn and started again from scratch. This will delay the authorities’ work by several years. The Council which wrote to me is therefore reviewing its core strategy and ‘producing a revised Core Strategy Preferred Options document in due course for further consultation’. Among the reasons for unsoundness were blandness and a lack of local distinctiveness, insufficient detail in the housing proposals and insufficient flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. The Lichfield core strategy was criticized for not setting the extent of the Green Belt and specifying the exceptional circumstances required for amendments. It also put forward proposals for green belt changes which were not justified.

Another aspect of the discontent is that the East of England Regional Plan may be rejected by some authorities in the region. As regards the South-East regional plan, the inquiry has been completed and we await results.

In all this there seems to be a growing desire for expounding generalities as frameworks for detailed planning. Within limits that is, of course, sensible, but there are limits. In another of my fields of interest a highly respected body is producing what is likely to be a first class statement of its aims and detailed management plans in a particular field but they are somewhat confused by other concepts described as missions, visions, aspirational goals, and overriding objectives.

The Barker Report

This report is more down-to-earth but it is out of touch with reality, if one can be both at the same time. On the economic level the proposals are comprehensible but on the level of what communities want and what is good for the countryside they lack feeling and are very dangerous. We have made our views quite clear and our President has passed them to the Chancellor's office (because he commissioned the review) and to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The former hastily passed them to the latter. For the latter Yvette Cooper, Minister for Housing and Planning, replied to our President in a letter which included -

‘....with regard to the London Green Belt Council's concerns about green belt land, the Government has made clear we believe strongly in the key principles of the green belt. There remains a presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt and I would like to make clear that the Government has no intention of weakening this high level of protection…’

So we must await the Government's public response to the report, try to discover what is meant by 'key principles', and be ready to take further action if necessary. The following may, or may not, be straws in the wind:

- from an item in Planning, reporting a speech by the Secretary of State at an RTPI event:: ‘[she] complained that Barker had been misrepresented as well as misunderstood in claims that green belt protection would be rolled back. The White Paper is expected to take a cautious line on opening up the green belt. "It is seen as a political issue and ministers cannot be bothered with it at present", says one insider.’

- from remarks by the RTPI President ‘….CPRE and the national media have to take a more intelligent approach to the issue of green belts, taking into account the whole picture rather than scaremongering.’

Planning Decisions

1). Welfare services for horses or vets? Six horses were stalled on a green belt site in Somerset and the appellant wanted another seven. The proposed building also included a welfare room, a changing room, shower and toilet for use by vets - essential for the proper care of horses and riders. The inspector said that it was not essential to the business and was inappropriate in green belt. He dismissed the appeal.

2). There is no end to the animals wanting accommodation in green belt nowadays, A wooden shelter was wanted for alpacas in the Cheshire green belt. The inspector said that it was not inappropriate in the green belt but would be incongruous in the area of special landscape value, so he dismissed the appeal. Whether the alpacas have gone back to the Andes is not reported.

3). Still in Cheshire, proposals to use green belt land as a 'natural burial ground' (I am not sure what that means) were refused because of the size of the accompanying building. It would have several rooms for commemorative services, gatherings of mourners viewing bodies, provision of refreshments» and administrative functions. The inspector agreed that it might be desirable to do all these things in one place but it was not essential.. She saw no reason why wakes should not take place in pubs, hotels or community centres. Her view was not altered by offers of extra tree planting because the site was already an attractive part of the landscape.

4). A proposed leisure centre in Warwickshire green belt included a 120-berth marina, a 72 bed hotel with banqueting suite and conference facilities, fitness centre, swimming pool, restaurant, and bar, golf course facilities including shop and 36-booth driving range. The scheme was called in.The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector that all this was more than was necessary to serve the golf course. I am inclined to agree. She held that the proposal conflicted with PPG17’s advice that development in the green belt should be the minimum necessary to modernise essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. Moreover, since the boats at the 120 mooring berths would be there for much of the year the impact would not be that of a transient use of the land.

5). Proposals for building an indoor sports pitch at a college in Essex were rejected. The building (80m x 52m x 20m high) would be accompanied by a parking area and coach drop-off spaces. The college said that the scheme was necessary to allow them to increase their range of courses. Refusing permission, the inspector said that the chosen site was a very narrow neck of open land between two developments, effectively merging them and there were better sites on the campus.

6). A site comprising two large fields adjoining a roundabout, connecting the A38 and A5 and close to the M6 in Staffordshire green belt was proposed for a 24 hour service area with overnight lorry parking, amenity building, petrol station, picnic and play areas, and car and coach parking. The applicants claimed that gaps between existing facilities meant that drivers became fatigued. The Secretary of State accepted that there was no government policy on roadside service areas for non-motorway roads, but based on a notional 30-minute drive time from the site she concluded that there was no proven need. The scheme would involve unacceptable loss of agricultural land and create harmful urban development in the green belt.

7). A cottage in the Chilterns AONB and green belt had been extended without permission, and the local authority had served an enforcement notice. The owner appealed and the inspector allowed the appeal on the grounds that, though the development was inappropriate in green belt, it had no material impact on the openness of the area and this amounted to very special circumstances. The Council appealed to the High Court, which upheld the appeal and overturned the inspector's decision, saying that he had failed to take previous extensions into account or “properly identify the special circumstances that justified keeping the conservatory”.

I do not follow the words in “ ” above, and wonder if the brief summary I have was too condensed. It perhaps should have read “the special circumstances which might have justified keeping the conservatory”.

8). A waste disposal firm had had a lawful development certificate since 1994 to use part of a disused railway cutting in the green belt. The use had expanded into adjoining land, and the operator claimed that that was used only for service, storage and machinery. The Council refused to renew the certificate and there was an appeal. The inspector rejected the appeal saying that a discordant, dusty, noisy industrial use had been created which was inappropriate and obtrusive. The support for local waste recycling set out in national and local planning documents did not outweigh this harm.

9). A similar kind of problem occurred in Essex green belt and was also refused permission. A barn was used for the sale and fitting of tyres and a second barn was used for storage. Two others existed and the applicant wanted to use them so that the first two had more fitting bays and a shop and the other two sold specialist accessories and became the base for a mobile service. The inspector noted that there would be no material change in the overall view of the buildings, but there would be up to 15 employees, 100 vehicle movements a day, and a 38-space car park. The scheme would materially affect the openness of the area and be inappropriate in green belt.

10). Industrial buildings on a former brownfield employment site in Greater Manchester had been demolished in 2003/4 leaving an extensive area of hard surface and piles of rubble. The site was a Major Developed Site in the green belt. Following a call-in inquiry the Secretary of State granted permission for its use for housing, saying that it would lead to significant benefits by reclaiming damaged land whilst reducing the overall amount of built development.

John Ward's Prayer

At our reception on 29th March I recited John Ward’s prayer, and I thought that members, particularly those who were not present, might like to have the text and be able to use it themselves, suitably amended, occasionally. John Ward was Member of Parliament for Dagenham and Hackney until he was expelled from Parliament and imprisoned in the Fleet prison in 1730. This prayer was found among his papers.

O Lord, though knowest that I have mine estates in the City of London, and likewise that I have lately purchased an estate in fee simple in the county of Essex. I beseech thee to preserve the two counties of Middlesex and Essex from fire and earthquake, and as I have a mortgage in Hertfordshire I beg thee likewise to have an eye of compassion on that county. For the rest of the counties, Thou mayest deal with them as Thou art pleased….

Complied by R Smith.