The London Green Belt
Council Notes Issue 140 June 2005
Soundness, Sustainability, and Sanity
The first two terms are current favourites of the ODPM, and
consequently must be taken into account by the Planning Inspectorate. The third
is mine and will therefore probably be considered by nobody. It is worth
discussing the first two separately.
Soundness
Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act, 2004, requires a local planning authority to submit every development plan
document to the Secretary of State for independent examination. Subsection 5
says that the purpose of the examination is to determine whether each document
submitted (a) meets certain requirements, and (b )
'whether it is sound'. That is an astonishingly vague and subjective term, and
lawyers will have a wonderful time over it.
The new PPSI2, on Local Development Frameworks, issued last year, says
that the presumption will be that the document is sound unless evidence to the
inquiry shows it to be otherwise. It sets out nine tests which each document
must meet. They fall into three groups. Procedural ( e.g. does it accord with
the local development scheme and with a statement showing how the local
community has been involved); Conformity ( e.g. with national policy and regional
spatial strategy); and Coherence, Consistency and Effectiveness ( e.g.
consistency with plans of neighbouring authorities 'where cross-boundary issues
are relevant' , having clear mecl1aniSlns for implementation and monitoring,
and is 'reasonably flexible to enable it to deal with changing circumstances').
I am sure that the Inspectorate will find all this very difficult, but
it is all part of the new-style planning inquiries which the Government intend
will assess the overall soundness of documents instead of concentrating on
objections and ignoring the rest. There is obviously much to be said for the
broader approach so long as it does not rule out local issues which may be of
great importance locally. The Inspectorate has been sufficiently concerned to
take the unusual step of issuing a consultation paper on the key questions
which an inspector should ask in considering each document, assuming that
'sound' means 'shows good judgement' and 'is able to be trusted'. It lists 35
key questions in 12 groups and suggests what evidence would be required for
each group.
Finally it outlines the role which each of the main participants should
play in assessing soundness. The main participants are the Local Planning
Authority, Government Office, Regional Planning Body, the Planning Inspectorate
and the appointed inspector, and 'The Community and Other Stakeholders'. It
says 'It is vital that the community and other stakeholders become involved at
the earliest stages of the preparation of development plan documents. i.e. at the issues and options stage. [They] need to ensure that any
representations made on the development plan documents focus on the tests of
soundness and demonstrate clearly why the plan is considered unsound'.
This is a major matter which local organisations
should be aware of, as it requires them to get in on the act at local level
much earlier than they have been accustomed to doing. They will also be
required to have much wider horizons, which in itself will be no bad thing, but
the system must not rule out very local issues. An article in 'Planning'
comments that objectors who missed out at the first stage 'are unlikely to be
happy that their representations can be given little or no weight because they
are unable to demonstrate soundness' [ sic: should
this be unsoundness?]
This is all general stuff. of course, with no special treatment for
green belt, though it is useful that PPSl2 does, in discussing the content of
proposals maps, refer to key policy areas, to which the core strategy policies
will apply, as including 'nationally designated areas such as AONBs, SSSIs,
Green Belts, Metropolitan Land, etc'.
But does all this flummery really amount to ensuring
soundness? It ensures internal consistency, conformity with established policies
etc, but does it ensure that the essential policies are sound? And isn't that
what we really want?
Sustainability
We have commented many times on the cynical devotion by Government. planners and developers etc. to the principle of
sustainability .It is cynical because the word can mean whatever you want it to
mean. from 'preserving what you've got' to 'doing on doing what you're doing
now' .The matter has not been made clearer by a masterpiece of verbosity issued
for consultation by ODPM last year -it was enough to send anyone into a
sustained fit of apoplexy , so we did not comment on it. It was supposed to be
about 'Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local
Development Frameworks', so planning authorities must try to introduce into
their plans something which appears to meet whatever they think the Government
requires. It covers 174 pages, including 11 annexes which include between them
35 analytical tables of what should be required at different stages of the
process. Appendices define 16 terms and explain 30 abbreviations.
One of the definitions is of 'scoping' which is defined as 'The process
of deciding the scope and level of detail of an SA, including the
sustainability effects and options which need to be considered, the assessment
methods to be used, and the structure and contents of the SA Report'. Some councils start the sustainability assessment process with a
'scoping report' which provisionally outlines the scope of the process. Our
Secretary finds that he has to write a number of letters to local authorities
commenting on their failure to mention green belt, or giving inadequate mention
of it, in their proposed scope of the assessment. It should be a key factor
where green belt policy applies, and, (if l may risk oversimplifying the
issue), it is left out of the preliminary consideration of the proposed items
for inclusion in the report which will consider the suggested analysis of how
important factors should, or should not, influence each other in a sustainable
way in order to make the overall impact of the suggested plan consistent, then
where are we? You tell me.
I have one simple rule regarding sustainability in
relation to environmental proposals. A document has merit in inverse ratio to
the number of times it uses the word. One may be an accident, two may be suspect
and devious, three probably indicates criminal intent.
Reverting to the Government's sustainability document,
all I can tell you about it is that it says that the documents produced by
regional and local authorities should be objectives-led, iterative,
evidence-based, inclusive, timely, transparent, independent, and useful. Each
term is defined. The only one I understand is the last, and I have my doubts
about that.
As recorded in the last minutes I took part last
February in an all-day discussion of the East of England Regional Plan mounted
by the Hertfordshire County Council. The head of the EERA regional planning
presented his plan. I asked that we should get away from the mentality which assumed
that anything was all right if it contained the word sustainable at least 17
times. The afternoon session included an open public debate chaired by Tom
Heap, BBC rural affairs correspondent. He opened by saying that the one word
that he never used in his reports was sustainability because it was quite
meaningless.
The outcome of the day, following ratification by the
full county council, and with various other aspects covered, is that
effectively Hertfordshire has rejected the plan. But what will that amount to
now that county councils are being squeezed out of the planning system?
The RTPI finally admits its opposition
to green belt
For years we have criticised the RTPI’s two-faced
attitude to green belt, which it has professed to support but with changes
which would destroy it. For instance in 2002 its paper on Modernising Green
Belts contained the following.
-'Green Belts should not be regarded as sacrosanct or
inviolable'.
-' each green belt should have the same life span as
the strategy of which it forms a part.
-'Green belts should be protected from inappropriate
development only to the same extent as rural areas generally'.
- 'the
need for and extent of green belts should be controlled and reviewed at
regionalleve1'.
- 'boundaries
should be settled within a local context so that they make sense on the ground
as well as on the map'.
- 'Green
belt designations need to be combined with positive action for 1he
environmental management of 1he included land, together with explicit
strategies for fanning and foreS1Iy' .
- 'There needs to be
sufficient development value in green belts to fund environmental
enhancements.'
- Green Belt policy...
should adopt a lighter touch, allowing different approaches in different areas’
What would be left of green belts after all this?
A manifesto recently issued by the RTPI, entitled
Planning For Delivery -Let's Push Things Forward,
says that the manifesto 'sets out ideas for pushing
forward spatial planning, promoting sustainability , embracing change, and
recognising that by investing in planners and planning we are investing in
safer streets, healthier places, and more vibrant communities'. The first
section of the Manifesto reads:
'Green Spaces -not green belts: a challenge to the
existing policy.
'Green belt policy needs to be reviewed if we are to
protect our green spaces for the future. By blindly sticking to current green
belt policy rather than allowing for debate and discussion we are in danger of
losing out on both creating integrated sustainable new developments and
preserving our green spaces. A flexible dynamic approach to flexible green
space policy is needed.
'We cannot afford to undermine the creation of
sustainable places in favour of maintaining -at all costs -a belt of green space
that exists on the borders of our towns and cities. In the light of new
thinking on sustainable practices, by maintaining this policy we are simply
trading one set of environmental principles for another. There needs to be a
reassessment of green belt policy where currently there is intransigence.
'A 'sustainable community' fits many descriptions but
the context of the development and its integration with existing practices is
crucial. Existing green belt restrictions distort the potential to strengthen
the links between urban density and public transport; they can stifle
regeneration opportunities, and negatively impact on preserving open green
spaces for recreation.
'Green spaces not green belt is our call. New urban forms that support
sustainable development and the maintenance of green space, for the health and
enjoyment of al1, is crucial to managing growth.
The RTPI calls for open talks based on real evidence'.
So it has dropped its pretences of the past, but its new proposals
would have the same effect as the old ones would have had: they would just be
blessed by new, with-it verbiage. And what, by the way, is the 'real evidence'
envisaged in the last sentence? The popularity of green belt for over sixty
years is real evidence; but perhaps the RTPI has something else in mind? ‘Sustainables’ count: six.
Gordon Brown pledges protection for Green Belt
We exchange copies of our Notes with the London Forum.
The following comes from the London Forum's Newsbriefs
of Spring 2005. 'Following the recommendations by Lord Rogers highlighted by
John Prescott yesterday , the Deputy Prime Minister and I have developed a
series of measures to renew run-down local high streets and urban estates
...showing that our objectives for growth and employment are not at odds with
but complementary to our objectives for environmental care and protection.
...And through building regulations planning guidance, our new code for
Sustainable Buildings and the Community Infrastructure Fund we are determined
to drive up standards of energy and water efficiency, increase housing density
and green space and tackle flood risk. while
protecting and increasing the area of green belt'.
Planning Decisions
1. Two telecoms companies wanted to put masts and compounds on green
belt land in Brentwood which already had two masts on it. In 2003 one of the
companies had wanted to replace one of the masts with a larger one, was refused
permission, and appealed. In rejecting that appeal the inspector remarked as an
aside that a third mast would do less harm than the big replacement, and in
view of this Brentwood Council planners advised the council that it might not
be able to reject both current applications.
Our members, the Brindles Wood Association argued that the inspector's
aside had been just that and should not have any bearing on the current
applications, Brentwood Council rejected both the current applications, and the
inspector agreed and rejected the appeals. At the same time he gave short
shrift to an attempted ploy by one of the applicants who had erected a
'temporary' mast elsewhere without planning permission, saying that it would be
removed if their current application was approved. The inspector said it should
be removed anyway.
2. To show the vertical range of our concerns I now switch from masts
in green belt to an underground house in Surrey green belt and an AONB. The
inspector said that the house was by definition inappropriate and the fact that
the living area was underground did not alter that. Parts were still visible
where windows overlooked a sunken garden, and there would be a long access
drive.
This is good news. I only hope some genius does not decide that foxes
need planning permission for their earths.
3. From foxes earths to polytunnels for
ostriches. I have never envisaged polytunnels as homes for young ostriches, but
planning permission for that use was refused on a green belt site in the Chiltem Hills. The inspector decided that they were not
reasonably necessary to allow the agricultural unit to function, and were
therefore inappropriate.
4. A detached barn was proposed in Bucks to store hay, horse feed and
agricultural equipment. It was near a stable block and the inspector clearly
thought that the facilities could be provided there, and not in a prominent
position at the highest point of the site. He rejected the appeal on green belt
grounds.
5. Caravans were put without planning permission on a
green belt site near Heathrow airport, and the provider argued that they were
needed temporarily to provide accommodation for workers building T ermina1 5.
An enforcement notice for their removal was issued to 2002 and an appeal
against it was rejected in 2003. But 30 caravans remained and the appellant
argued that it was a matter of national importance that the work was completed,
on time. Dismissing the appeal the inspector said that there was little
evidence of shortage of accommodation and BAA's own
caravan park would remain available. The appellant's arguments did not amount
to very special circumstances.
6. The flood of apparently inconsistent rulings about gypsies continues
to confuse me and I imagine everybody else. Here are four more, from different
counties:
a) A site in Beds contained eight caravans and hard
standing areas. The appellants argued that the local plan was flawed because
there was a need for more sites and that removal would interrupt children's
education.
The DPM agreed on those matters but said that the
benefits of a permanent base did not outweigh the harm caused by the site. He
dismissed the appeal.
b) In Kent a green belt site which was also a special
landscape site had been illegally occupied since 2000 by travelling showmen and
no attempt had been made to get planning permission. The High Court judge
said that a sentence was needed which would punish and
deter, and ordered that unless the site was vacated within four weeks twenty of
the showmen would receive prison sentences of up to ten weeks each.
c) in another High Court
ruling, in Surrey, a gypsy was living without planning consent on land he had
bought from his father. Mole Valley Council ordered his removal but the appeal
inspector ruled that his
family housing needs amounted to very special circumstances.
The Council argued that this decision was
perverse
and would create a bad precedent. The High Court supported the inspector,
ruling that individual , applicants must prove special
circumstances, and had a high threshold to pass. If they do, said the judge, .1
"so be it'.
d) In a case in Cambridgeshire the High Court did rule that the
inspector's approach was perverse and irrational. The .gypsies had abandoned
their nomadic lifestyle .and had consequently surrendered gypsy status, but :the Inspector had accepted that the nomadic way of life
and its strong family ties justified granting personal permission. Following
appeal by the South Cambs District Council, the High
Court said that the inspector had adapted a flawed approach by giving undue
weight to an immaterial consideration when local I planning policies set out a
clear presumption against the development.
7. Developments which would not themselves be on green belt land but
would adjoin it are always
difficult but it seems that where a local plan contains provision that
housing density should diminish on the edge of green belt, that will still be a
relevant consideration, though probably not a great deal of weight will be
given to it It has to be weighed against the pressure
for higher density on housing land. Where the outcome is the dismissal of an
appeal on the grounds that the housing proposed is not dense enough, and is
therefore an inefficient use of land, the future will remain uncertain, In a
case at Gerrards Cross, Hefts, on previously
developed land bordering but not in green belt, the application was to build
seven houses on about four acres.
The Council supported the scheme. The Deputy Prime Minister called it
in for his own decision. The inspector recommended and the D PM agreed that
planning permission should be refused because inefficient use of land was less
than thirty dwellings per hectare, and this was only about four. He accepted
considerations relating to green belt and a neighbouring historic park but
thought that the density of dwellings could nevertheless be substantially
increased. He then went on, rather oddly in my view, to describe the site as
unsustainable because residents would need cars for most journeys. But that did
not override the benefits of housing on the site because it had previously been
developed and was earmarked for housing in the local plan.
So now, amid all the double-talk about substantiality, the D PM
suddenly produces unsustainabilty as a consideration which does not rule out
development.
8. A case in the West Midlands was similar except that
the land there was green belt The proposal was to
convert a barn and farmhouse to 12 dwellings. The Council supported the scheme,
and it was called in by the D PM. The inspector recommended allowing the
proposal, but the D PM rejected it because the density was much too low. Here
also he de6lared the scheme unsustainable because residents would tbe largely dependent on cars. What puzzles me is whether, if a new scheme
were submitted at twice the density, would that make
it sustainable? Does 2 X unsustainable =
sustainable or doubly unsustainable? Perhaps we need another 174 pages of
explanation to sort that out.
Death of Douglas Brown
I am very sorry to report the recent death of Douglas Brown who was our
Treasurer from 1985 to 1995, and represented the Wraysbury
Association. He had a massive stroke, having shown no particular signs of
illness. He was a great help to us, and to me in particular, during our
formative years.
RWG Smith