Natural
The last issue of Notes
includes my protest to the Chairman of Natural England at his organisation’s
outrageous attempt to rewrite green belt principles ‘to see if and how they can
evolve to fit 21st century circumstances’. This might involve surrendering some
green belt in order to enable Natural England save other land elsewhere. I now
bring you up to date on that correspondence.
1. Sir Martin Doughty’s reply of
Thank you for your
thoughtful letter of
I think that the key to our ideas remains in the statement
that any review of green belt policy should not lead to ‘accusations of
dismantling [the green belt] or concreting over the countryside’. I accept that
you have concerns with other parts of our Board Paper that seem to imply
otherwise so perhaps I might explain our standpoint in another way.
It is based on a sequence of factors.
If the nation is to accommodate substantial housing growth,
the new houses will need to be built in the most sustainable locations. Indeed,
under current planning legislation, that must be the case. Many new homes can be built in urban areas, on
previously used land and perhaps to higher densities that hitherto. But even in
these circumstances, some brownfield land will not be suitable for
redevelopment. We also urge that a generous supply of green space accompanies
any new homes.
This leaves a substantial number of houses to be sustainably
located elsewhere. There will certainly be debates about the capacity (if any)
of protected landscapes, areas of natural conservation importance, and
floodplains to accommodate development and, alongside that, we argue that the
capacity (again, if any) of green belt land should be considered too.
This does not mean that we are seeking to abandon a firm planning policy
for urban containment. Rather, in particular places at particular times, and
through rigorous testing in the regional and local planning processes, it might
serve sustainability better to identify specific areas of green belt land for
development rather than forcing housing to less sustainable locations
elsewhere.
We would envisage this as highly regulated process - as it
is already through the current boundary review procedures. We would seek to
retain the best of green belt policy while allowing consideration of more
recent factors - vital factors - such as sustainable development, mitigating
the effects of climate change, and biodiversity loss.
You will also see that an essential part of our ideas would
be to improve the environmental quality of green belt land - greening the green
belt. This, as you say, is not fundamental to the definition of green belts per se but we think it should be
given more prominence. We see urban containment and good access to a
high quality natural environment as a prize worth seeking.
I hope that allays
your fears.
2) My
reply of
Thank you for your letter of 22nd November about
Green Belt.
While I am grateful for your assurance of support for the
Green Belt, I remain concerned that the policy adopted by Natural
We accept that it has always been possible within existing
policy to redefine the boundaries of Green Belt land, though this should only
happen in exceptional circumstances and not be a matter for consideration at
each and every plan review. But Natural
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
- to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one
another;
- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment;
- to preserve the setting and special character of historic
towns; and
- to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the
recycling of derelict and
other urban land.
There is nothing in this about the quality of the scenery;
indeed para, 1.7 of PPG2 says
explicitly that that is irrelevant in the designation of land as green belt or
in its continued protection. This approach has been upheld by successive
governments and in many planning appeal decisions,
Your paper refers to improving the quality of green belt
land, and we have no problem
supporting the idea of improving the environmental quality of Green Belt, or
indeed of any other parts of the countryside. But your letter also says “We
would seek to retain the best of green belt policy”. There is no best or worst
of green belt policy, and it appears that Natural
If taking land out of green belt becomes
unavoidable within the proper operation of the existing planning system, the
approach should be to identify land which is least important for achieving the
stated purposes of green belt policy. However, this should not be seen as the price for retaining
other areas of green belt land which have an important part to play in achieving those purposes. Green belt
protection and environmental enhancement are both valuable policies in their
respective contexts. In places the policies may overlap, but they are not to be
traded off against each other, whether to enable Natural
We hope that English Nature will take
account of these points in future.
3) Sir Martin Doughty's reply of
Thank you for your letter of 4 January setting out your
further reflections on Green Belt policy.
Natural
The Board paper will confirm our support for the valuable
role that Green Belts play, particularly in containing urban development and
supporting urban renaissance. We will, however, make the case for a strategic
review of Green Belt as part of the Regional Spatial Strategy process with the
objective of finding the most environmentally sustainable locations for
necessary future development.
The paper will also set out our view that we should press
Government for a refresh of Green Belt policy, not to abandon the valuable
purposes of the Green Belt as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2. We
will concentrate on how they might be expanded to address new imperatives such
as climate change adaptation and delivering greater benefits for biodiversity,
landscape and for people's enjoyment of the countryside.
I hope this reassures you that Natural
You will see that 3) does
seem to indicate a slight
change of emphasis, but of course we must be no less vigilant in future, and we
urge all our members to express their views to Natural England in no uncertain
terms when the issue next comes to notice, as it surely will.
The change may after all
be just a diplomatic change of language. I say this because an enthusiastic
article about Sir Martin in the RTPI’s journal Planning is headed ‘A Natural
Diplomat’. The article is mainly about his diplomacy in merging diverse
organisations, but it records that last October he asked ‘How do we build three
million homes without looking at green belt as part of the equation?’; and said
‘Natural England has a role in making decisions about where and how you build
and how you get green infrastructure. We have to look at possible trade-offs’.
It is not Natural
Delegation of Regional Planning Powers to Regional
Development Authorities.
This is a matter of
great importance to the planning system generally. It is not primarily a green
belt matter, or even a countryside matter, though it could have very serious
implications for them generally. It could affect built-up areas, too. To quote
from a CPRE document appealing for funds to help fight the proposal ‘In the
next few weeks the Government will be holding a public consultation on its
proposal to hand regional planning powers over to the Regional Development
Agencies. The message they will receive from the CPRE is that the proposal is
undemocratic, unworkable, and deeply damaging to the countryside ....This is
not just about protecting the countryside, but about people's right to a say in
decisions that affect them’.... It ‘may sound like replacing one faceless
organisation with another, but it is more serious than that. The RDAs are
quangos appointed by the Government. They are much less representative of local
people than the Regional Assemblies, 70% of whose members are elected
councillors. They lack the experience and expertise to deal with major planning
matters. And because their whole purpose is to promote economic development they
are unlikely to give adequate weight to protecting the environment. Yet they
will be in the dangerous position of being able to grant planning permission
for their own pet schemes, including major housing developments, road projects,
business parks, warehousing, retail parks, and other developments...’
We have been through
this before and survived and we must try to ensure that we do so again. Notes
117 (August 1999) lists at least half a dozen partly overlapping and partly
competing organisations in the new linguistic art of interpreting and manipulating
the concept of sustainability. I mentioned that RDAs are primarily economic and
business orientated, and said of the East of England one that, though like
others it sought to turn its region into a world class economy, it did not
consider constraints. It made me think
of King Lear’s words ‘I shall do things – what they are yet I know not – but
they shall be the terror of the earth’.
The subject was followed
up in Notes 125 (May 2001), as follows
‘When in 1997 the
Government started preparing to set up a more regional style of government it
soon became obvious that an important matter would be where the planning powers
lay... The Government's first proposal
was to give RDAs planning powers, but there was so much objection to this,
including from us, on the grounds that it would lead to the subordination of
environmental and other planning considerations to the economic growth which
was the prime objective of the RDAs that the Government had dropped the idea.
‘Since then one of the
lesser joys of trying to keep abreast of these matters has been reading the
documents produced by the RDAs. Each envisages its region as a world leader in
some aspect of white-hot technological progress. For instance the East of
England Development Authority strategy document has 11 chapters, 4 of which are
headed Innovation Capital of Europe, World-Class Business, World-Class Skills,
and World-Class Profile, respectively.
Notes 125 goes on to
record that when the EEDA produced its strategy the East of England Regional
Assembly (EERA) criticised it, and the EEDA agreed to amend it. The EERA
refused to approve the revised version, but the EEDA refused to amend it again,
and published it nevertheless. The EERA thought that too little weight was
given to environmental and social matters, its secretary saying that the EEDA
was ‘playing to a
business-driven audience that may not fully understand the implications of
harmonising regional planning and economic guidance’. The DETR (as it was then)
eventually issued a consultation paper entitled ‘Strengthening Regional
Accountability’, which said ‘Although the RDAs remain accountability to
Ministers and to parliament, it is crucial that they also respect the views and
needs of the regions they serve’.
All this shows, I
suggest, that the last thing that anyone needs is to give excessive powers to
unelected bodies with an overweening sense of their own economic expertise and
importance.
Planning Decisions
It may be a relief to
turn to rather humbler matters, which can nevertheless often be of considerable
concern locally, and each of which may be a precedent, for good or ill, for
decisions elsewhere.
1. An hotel in green
belt at Wexford, Bucks erected a timber office and storage building
in the grounds on land where there had once been a chalet. The council ordered
the demolition of the timber office building, and there was an appeal. The
inspector said that an undated aerial photograph showed the chalet to be so
small and so far from the main buildings that he was not persuaded that it
could ever have been used for long as an office. In any case there was no proof
that it had ever had planning permission. The proposed building failed to
recognise the value of the site and its landscaped surroundings, and was
inappropriate in green belt. Appeal dismissed.
2. Planning permission
was given in 1999 for a farm building in Hertfordshire on condition that
it should be used only for agricultural purposes, but it had been converted to
provide stalls for horses and to operate a ‘DIY Livery Service’ (I am not sure
what that is.) An enforcement notice to cease this use was issued, and there
was an appeal. The inspector was surprised that the building was said to be
unsuitable for agricultural use, and he ruled that the livery use, involving up
to 12 horses, horse boxes, transporters, and parking would damage the openness
of the green belt.
3. Cemeteries have long been
listed as appropriate uses of green belt, but a case in the
4. Rail/Freight Interchange,
Bexley. Dartford and Bexley Councils
refused (or in the case of Bexley did not decide within the prescribed period)
an application for a major interchange facility, with warehousing, on land
adjacent to a South-Eastern Trains depot at Slade Green, Bexley. The inquiry was called in and the appeals
were allowed by the Secretary of State. The 44 paragraph decision letter is
remarkable not so much for the decision, which one gets the impression was
pre-ordained, but by the amount of space devoted to saying how much the
Secretary of State agreed with the inspector on details and aspects of the
inquiry. No fewer than 21 paragraphs start with expressions of her agreement
with him. Her overall conclusion is that ‘the proposal is inappropriate
development in the green belt, and would cause substantial harm to it. To
comply with green belt policy the proposal cannot overcome the conflict with
both local and national green belt policies unless very special circumstances
exist. Having carefully considered the proposal the Secretary of State
considers that, in this particular ease, the benefits of the proposal
constitute very special circumstances and are sufficient to clearly outweigh
the harm to the green belt and other harm. She therefore considers that the
proposal complies with green belt policies of the development plan…. and with
the development plan in other respects’.
Detailed matters on
which the S/S records agreement with the inspector include harm to the
countryside; urban sprawl; that noise would not result in material harm to
nearby residents; that ‘development should not be constrained by concerns
regarding the impact on air
quality’ and that the London Plan supports the provision of three or four
strategic rail freight interchanges in the south-east. I cannot believe that the bit about impact on
air quality is intended, but it is what the decision letter dated
5. Another remarkable statement in a decision
letter, which may in this instance be due to condensing the argument in
reporting, arises in Bromley, where the S/S is reported as having approved a mixed
development scheme after finding very special circumstances sufficient to
outweigh harm to the green belt. The council had not allocated the site for
housing though there was not a clearly demonstrated five-year supply of sites.
The inspector was surprised that it had not taken the advice of the unitary
development plan inspector, its consultants, or its chief planning officer and
concluded that its continued resistance represented very special circumstances
sufficient to outweigh harm to the green belt.
Even the Secretary of State could not swallow that extraordinary
conclusion which seems to undermine the whole basis of government. The S/S
noted that the council was entitled to disagree with the advice it was given,
but she said she would have expected it to take early steps to meet the need.
It was its failure to develop an implementation strategy that constituted the
very special circumstances.
6. At a time when the
RTPI are giving repeated publicity to any argument they can think of (e.g.
reducing vehicle mileage to reduce pollution) to justify developing green belt,
it is refreshing to read a letter in Planning standing the argument on its head
on behalf of farming interests – and its to the RTPI’s credit that it
prints it. The letter from a writer in Morecambe begins by pointing out that at
a time when pressure for a review of green belts is growing another aspect of
the policy mix needs more attention. This is ensuring the continuity of our
food supplies in the face of climate change etc. ‘The point is that
agricultural land in the green belt is closer to markets, with fewer food miles
and potentially greater sustainability. In some cases the land is high
quality... What better location for growing more food in the face of upward
pressures on food prices! If we are to have a review of the green belt before a
fresh
7. A group of
householders secured retrospective planning permission to extend their gardens
into Staffordshire green belt after an inspector agreed that very special
circumstances had been demonstrated. The site, between a housing estate and the
Tailpiece:
Keeping Planning Staff Fit for Purpose (?).
Congratulations to
twelve planning staff in my own district of Hertsmere. They are raising funds
for a medical charity by climbing the stairs of their five-storey office block
553 times in their own time - the equivalent of climbing Everest. I am sure
they will be well on top of their jobs by the time they have finished.
R.W.G. Smith