The London Green Belt Council - Notes issue 127 dated November 2001(abridged)
Major Infrastructure Proposals for Schemes of National Importance
In July there was mainly press speculation about Government proposals for new legislation on the above matter which would limit the opportunities for local bodies etc. to have their views heard. Members should understand that there are two related matters:
We received this reply from Sally Keeble, Parly. US of S, Dept. for Transport Local Government and the Regions:
"The proposals will not prevent anyone, including environmental bodies, from objecting to these projects. The proposals are specifically framed to ensure that adequate opportunity remains for the public to make their views known, while at the same time reducing the scope for unnecessary delays and costs in the overall process. People may be involved at three different points in the process. Firstly through consultation on up-to-date statements of Government policy to be put in place before major projects are even considered in the planning system. Thus the public could have their say in the siting of major projects at this early stage. Secondly new Parliamentary procedures are proposed which will enable anyone to make representations when the Sec.of State puts a project of national significance to Parliament for debate and agreement on the broad principles ahead of a more detailed inquiry. This would allow the issues, including proposed sites for major projects, to he fully debated in public. Finally, if Parliament were to agree a proposal in principle, people would be able to make their views known at a public inquiry to consider matters of detail.
"Consultation on the proposed new Parliamentary procedures will take place shortly and there will also be a separate consultation on the proposed new inquiry rules for major projects. I will ensure The London Green Belt Council is included in the lists of consultees.
"Alongside developing these measures for streamlining the handling of major infrastructure projects, we are also carrying out a fundamental review of the TWAct itself, as part of the overall modernising planning agenda- A contract has now been let to MVA Ltd and they will shortly be embarking on consultations. We have asked them to include The London Green Belt Council in their list of consultees.'
I have had and responded to the consultation about the operation of the TWA, i.e. the last one referred to above. The trouble is that there is no answer to any of these questions to fit all situations.
Thames Region.. State of the Environment Report.. First Update 2001
This excellent report by the Thames region of the Environment Agency offers clear presentations on the wide range of environmental issues which are the Agency's concern. These include water resources, quality, and flood defences; pollution control, air quality, radioactive substances and waste management; conservation, landscape and archaeology; and others. The region covers the basin of the Thames and its tributaries, and thus extends from the Cotswolds to the North Sea It is obviously vastly greater than our area. Green Belt is, quite reasonably, mentioned only as one among a number of constraints. I am writing to ask the Agency to define the criteria it says it will increasingly use when consulted about planning applications. If it refers to green belt as a possible constraint we ought to encourage the Agency to mention it where it applies.
The phone number of the regional office in Reading if you want to enquire about seeing the report is 0118 953 5000. It does not bear a price but the Agency could tell you where you could see it. It is excellent if your interests involve that range of environmental protection measures.
Telecommunications: the new PPG8
Members may like to note what the new PPG8, issued August 200 1, says about installations in the green belt:
'Protection from visual intrusion and the implications, for subsequent network development will be important considerations in determining applications .......
"In green belts, telecommunications development is likely to be inappropriate unless it maintains openness. Inappropriate development may proceed only if very special circumstances are demonstrated which outweigh the degree of ham to the green belt. The lack of a suitable alternative site that would meet the needs of network coverage or capacity might be considered as very special circumstances'.
It is thus not sufficient for someone to say 'This is a convenient site'. He must show that he has looked for and failed to find an alternative non-green belt site.
More on the RTPI attitude to Green Belts
Previous issues of Notes have commented on the RTPI's hostility to grew belts (at present thinly disguised as gathering information to enable an informed view to be taken). Here, unabridged is a report in 'Pianning' of 20th July of a discussion on green belts in the July Council meeting of the RTPI.
"A draft paper on modernising green belt was presented by Planning Policy Committee chair Ron Tate.
"No-one denied the need for review and modernisation. Everyone agreed that green belt was not working.
'Jim Colley described his valiant efforts to secure appropriate planning permission for several areas of derelict green belt surrounding his home, all owned by speculators whose inappropriate proposals had been refused.
"Richard Cowley wondered whether the paper was sufficiently radical. Why not abandon green belt in favour of locally-based solutions to local issues?
'But Pat Castledine pointed out that green belts are regarded by the public as a real achievement. Planners wouldn't be thanked for proposing their abandonment. The approach had to be more subtle, accepting and using the 'myth' (as Trevor Roberts put it) of green belts.
"Rob Lane thought more research was needed into the effects of green belts -and more use, of existing research - before the RTPI could commit itself publicly.
"Kevin Murray wanted to see green belt put in a wider policy context, a point echoed by other members. The issue, Mike Hayes said, is the future of the countryside - not just the future of green belt".
Compare the above with the following item printed in 'Planing a year ago, by a local authority Planning and Transportation Policy Manager (shortened):
'The emerging position of the RTPI, judging by its recent discussion paper on grew belt policy, appears to be that the green belt concept is now out of date and that it would benefit from modernisation. I fundamentall disagree. In my,view the principle and operation of the policy is sound and it does not need to be fixed ..... It is important to acknowledge that there have always been pressures to review development on green belt land, for the same socio-economic reasons as are being advocated today. Thle only difference is that the current arguments are tagged with the sustainability 1label. How I wish the term had remained stillborn.
The issue remains one of judgement: whether the benefits of openness are worth the primary economic costs associated with planned containment and disperal of development... once you move away from the idea of an inviolable green belt and begm to weigh the balance of the sustainability arguments; once you permit development in one area because it cannot be seen from an adjounng area, once you tidy green belt boundaries by inevitably drawing them back to features which themselves may be challenged in 10 to 15 years; once you step onto this slippery slope, the advantage will be lost - for ever. More open land adjacent to our cities will be developed and the perception of openness at the fringe of our major urban settlements will change.... The risk is simply not worth it. Mistakes made with grew belt policies are not reversible and we will all have to live with the consequences - permanently. The RTPI should take a long hard look before supporting change and any of the associated silly notions like 'replacement green belt' ".
The RTPI has for many years been making noises about the need to review green without apparently realising that (to mix colours) green belt policy must be a matter of black and white,, not shades of grey, even if the actual application of policy allows for exceptions. The political parties seem to realise that however much the professional bodies - which would benefit considerably if the whole notion were opened up and guidelines were loosened - may wish it were otherwise,. Green belt is a very widely valued concept, not only (or even perhaps mainly) by those living in it but by those in urban areas who do not want to see it receding steadily further and finiher over the horizon. All member organisations must do their bit to keep up the pressure to ensure that politicians