The London Green Belt Council Notes: Issue 131 - July 2002

Select Committee on DEFRA

The last issue of Notes referred to the fact that the Select Committee on the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) was inquiring into the role of the Department. It was essential for the LGBC to make a contribution because green belt could suffer as a result of the split created between planning which was left in the DTLR, and the environment which was transferred to DEFRA. We must ensure that green belt interests do not somehow slip down the crack between them. It is right for green belt policy to be in the department that has planning, but green belt is a matter that spans both urban and rural interests, so the proper working of the interface between the two is important to us, and seems to lie squarely in the area that the Select Committee is looking into.

Another aspect of the same matter is that the Royal Town Planning Institute has taken the opportunity of the Government's drive for 'fundamental change' in the planning system to urge changes in green belt policy which effectively (though the RTPI pretends otherwise) abolish green belts. They argue (as they have done for years) that green belt is an urban planning tool and its future should be looked at accordingly. We know that, though it started as that it has evolved into something much wider and is as valued now by rural interests as a measure protecting them from the towns as it is by town dwellers as a measure for stopping the spread of towns.

So the first effort was to find out the closing date for submissions to the Select Committee. This was less easy than one might suppose. Our knowledge of the Committee's inquiry reached me about 17th May. We rang the Committee Office on 23rd May, but a recorded voice said the office was not operating until after the recess. The Jubilee weekend then intervened. We rang again on 6th June and got the same recorded reply. Ditto on 10th June. The phone was at last answered on 13th June and we were told the closing date had been 31st May but that replies were still coming in. We wrote the LGBC submission on 14th June and posted it on 15th June. The Committee office has confirmed that it has been accepted and circulated to members.

Click here for our submission, which excludes a note about the LGBC

================

Report of the DTLR Select Committee on the Planning Green Papers

Meanwhile, another select committee, that on the DTLR, has published a report which is extremely critical of the four consultation papers on fundamental changes in the planning system, our comments on which were reproduced in Notes 129. The 44 recommendations include the following:

The regional spatial strategies should take precedence over and guide the land-use aspects of all other regional strategies drawn up by other regional agencies including the Regional Development Agencies' regional economic strategies'. [LGBC specifically recommended this, as the RDAs, whose interest is business not the environment, have been jockeying for primacy]

The proposals for Local Development Frameworks have many failings and lack many of the advantages of Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans. The new Local Development Frameworks may be quicker to draw up but they are unlikely to be as clear.

• They would be more complex than the simplicity offered by Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans and would provide less certainty;
• A complex array of plans at local level would be created which would be fragmented and difficult to understand and co-ordinate;
• The frequent review of frameworks is also unlikely to provide the clarity and certainty sought by the Government and all parties;
• A plan-led system without a comprehensive land-use map would give rise to a great deal of uncertainty, delay in determining planning applications and a significant increase in planning appeals
• The proposed local Development frameworks may not gain the confidence of local people. The new forms of community consultation for local Development Frameworks are welcome as is the linking of the frameworks to Community Strategies but they will not be an adequate replacement for the rights to appear at a public inquiry which are required for Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans'.

There is a 'business' agenda running through much of the Green Paper. It largely ignores the environment while supporting business development. The planning system is the key bulwark in preventing urban sprawl and restraining unsustainable development and should not be subservient to the requirements of business. The reforms should stress the need for the planning system:

• to protect the countryside and improve the quality of the built environment,
• to minimise the use of natural resources; and
• to reduce the need to travel'.

[Recommendations abbreviated by LGBC]

- The Green Paper does not adequately consider the need for third party rights of appeal

- 'The existing right of third parties to object to draft policies in Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans, and to pursue these at inquiry in front of an independent inspector if unresolved by the local authority, is a vital third party right. We recommend that it should not be watered down .....

- 'The proposal for Business Planning Zones appears to be based on the misconceived idea that the planning system is stopping desirable development rather than helping to enable it. There is no evidence of this....

- 'The Government's proposals for tariffs would replace one form of complexity with another.... The proposal ..... requires considerable further development before the Committee can take a view on whether it is workable.

- 'The Secretary of State... should only select Major Infrastructure Projects of trully national significance for authorisation .... . Based on the evidence received, there is unlikely to be any time saving by adopting the proposed Parliamentary process .... If the Government were to go ahead with its Parliamentary proposals, the public would also lose confidence in the inquiry system since long-established rights of hearing would be restricted ... It will be very difficult for Parliament to give a fair consideration to Major Infrastructure Projects as required by the Human Rights Act .... It is not appropriate for MPs to be asked to consider the issues raised in Major Infrastructure Proposals, given the likely length of hearings and the probable need to sit part of the time away from the House ... Worse, the partial consideration suggested would add a highly undesirable complication that would almost certainly increase the likelihood of delay, thus defeating the main object of the proposal'

Our own submission to the Select Committee is reproduced in an appendix. The main report is House of Commons paper HC 476-1, published by HMSO on 3rd July 2002, £11.

Planning Decisions

(Three were already included in the appeals section of this website. the fourth is given below and is now also in the appeals section)

The inspector rejected an appeal in Keston, Bromley, against refusal of planning permission for 4 gypsy families and 4 caravans with two washhouses and hard-standing in green belt. He said the need for accommodation was not materially different from what had been considered in previous appeals and did not justify the present proposals.

 The situation relating to arguments based on the educational needs of the children seemed to be confused. Such arguments had been considered in 1992 and 1996. The seven children now involved had been out of school since 1998, but it was not clear what contact had been made with the education service since then. The appellant claimed that the circumstances of two of the children had worsened, but supporting letters he produced referred to different children and he could not give specific details of those to whom he referred. The Inspector said that in any event there was no proof that this was the only site from which the educational need could be met. Though educational needs can be a very special circumstance, it does not follow that they can justify development on any green belt land, and in his view they did not do so in this case.

Arguments were also put forward citing the European Convention on Human Rights. The inspector dismissed one because the word 'home' did not include a property on which one wished to locate a home; and he dismissed the other because it had not been demonstrated that the right to education was dependent on residence at the appeal site. He dismissed the appeal awarding costs to the Council noting that the dismissal would not result in a violation of the rights of the intended residents under the Convention.