The
September
2005
Introduction
I have brought this issue of Notes forward
because I want to urge all members to make representations to the Deputy Prime
Minister's Office in connection with the new draft Town and Country Planning
(Green Belt) Direction, 2005. I
believe that members should support the Government's Direction. The reasons
require some explanation and background. The deadline is 14th October. But
before I turn to that subject it is worth quoting some other pronouncements.
Green Belt Areas and other recent
Ministerial and non-government statements
On 7th June Mr. Frisk (Hertford and
Stortford) asked a PQ about changes in
green belt in Eastern Region between 1997 and 2004. The answer related to 1997
- 2003, and said that figures updated to 2004 will be published in the autumn.
The figures given, in hectares, were
1997
2003 Change
Herts 83,660 83,610 - 50
Beds and
Cambridgeshire 26,690 26,690 0
(The question also mentioned
Another
Member asked on 25th May what measures the DPM was taking to protect
Hertfordshire green belt from further development. The answer was-
“The Government place great
importance on safeguarding the purposes and functions of the green belt.
Government policy, set out in PPG2, Green Belts, requires that once the extent
of green belt boundaries have been established they should only be altered by
development plans in exceptional circumstances. The Government's representations
on the East of England plan advise that the panel set up to conduct the
Examination in Public will need to rigorously test whether these exceptional
circumstances exist”.
Other similar statements about green belt
have been made in the context of comment on the alleged national housing need
following Kate Barker's notorious report last year. For instance, in response
to allegations that the report would suck life out of town centres in favour of
Turning to non-governmental
pronouncements, I think it worth quoting from 'Planning' to show, yet again,
the RTPI opinion of green belts:
- In an item on 12th August it was stated ‘there is a growing feeling in professional
circles that modifications to green belt boundaries are not a matter of concreting
over the countryside but simply a fact of life in an ever-changing society’. It
goes on to say that the RTPI President ‘wants to see regular checks on green
belt boundaries to stop growth from being sterilised’. [‘Sterilised’ is a
rather odd word to use in this context. Does it mean that building, once
started, will not be stopped from getting bigger and better than ever?]
- Another rosy view of green
belts comes in an
editorial of 5th August. It ends: ‘Green belts can provide many features of sustainable
communities, such as fresh food, local energy generation, nature
conservation and waste recycling. Planners have a key role in making
sure that these areas are used effectively. The interpretation of
‘inappropriate development’ and ‘very special circumstances’, the key catch
phrases that govern government planning control in them needs to be kept under review just as much as their
boundaries’.
So we know what we could look forward to if the RTPI gets its way -
green(ish) areas interspersed with nice sustainable waste recycling sites,
sports centres and power generation sites, all regarded as appropriate
development under a new definition of ‘appropriate’; and all subject to
frequent review in case other development ideas come along in what can be described (also under a new and
more flexible definition) as 'very special circumstances'. I am sure that many
distinguished planning professionals would regard this prospect with as much
horror as we do. So what can we do about it? Read on.
New draft Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Direction 2005
This is about tidying up the arrangements for dealing with proposals for
development that is inappropriate in green belt. ‘Tidying up’ is my expression
which is not very precise. ODPM seems to
want two things, and it wants to get them without increasing work for itself.
The first is to replace the rules about what local authorities must do when
they are thinking of approving development which is inappropriate in green belt
from the present situation in which they are part of wider regulations, to a
new situation in which new
freestanding regulations apply only to green belt. The second is to ensure
greater consistency over how planning authorities interpret the guidance.
In setting out this background, the consultation paper contains many welcome assurances about
the Government's attitude to green belt, e.g.
‘4. The Government has made it clear that it remains committed to the
principles of the green belt. It has no plans to review national planning
policies on the green belt, or to relax planning controls on green belt land…’
‘6. Green Belt policies in development plans should ensure that any
planning applications for inappropriate development would not be in accord with
the plan. These exceptional eases would thus be treated as departures from the
development plan, to be referred to the Secretary of State...’
‘11. Under the current Departures Direction around 500 - 400
applications involving development in the green belt, have been referred...
each year during the past four years (although impact on the green belt was not
necessarily the only reason for referral in these cases). Of these referred applications, only a small
proportion, between 3% and 6% were subsequently called in by the Secretary of
State for his own determination. The remainder were left for determination by
the appropriate local planning authority.’
‘12. The Government believes that existing planning policies and
controls afford a high level of protection for green belts. The most recent
statistics show that the total amount of green belt land changing from
undeveloped to developed uses between 2000 and 2003 was less than 700 hectares
a year, which represents a little over 0.04% of the total area of designated
green belt as in 2003. Nevertheless the Government recognises that there is
widespread concern about the threats to the green belt from development
pressures. It wants to ensure that inappropriate development in the green belt
remains an exception.’
‘13. The Government therefore proposes to introduce a new Green Belt
Direction requiring planning applications for inappropriate development of
certain types and scale in the green belt, which local planning authorities are
minded to approve, to be referred to the Secretary of State...’
The paper then consults about three slightly different ways of attaining
these ends. (i) is to refer all relevant applications to the S/S; (ii) would transfer existing measures from
guidance with general application to specifically
green belt
guidance adding ‘where a planning application in the green belt which a planning authority is not proposing to
refuse is for any inappropriate development which by reason of its scale,
nature, or location would significantly prejudice the implementation of the
development plans’ green belt policies and proposals, that application should
be referred to the Secretary of State', (iii) is described as a compromise
between (i) and (ii). So far as
applications for buildings is concerned
it sets a threshold of 1000 sq.m. of floor space, below which applications need
not be sent to the S/S; but applications for any other development which is
inappropriate for the same reasons do need to be sent.
I must admit that the subtleties of the
above distinctions escape me, particularly why (iii) is a compromise between
(i) and (ii). The Government prefers (iii) and, though some members might
prefer a lower threshold, it is not really very large and it has been operating in London for the last five
years without, so far as I know, creating problems. The Government also
proposes to accompany the Direction with a circular setting out the type and
nature of the other inappropriate development which the S/S would expect to be
referred to him.
So I turn to the draft circular. It starts
by reiterating the Government' s support for green belt, citing the key
provisions of PPG2 etc. It explains the purpose and nature of the new green
belt planning Direction, and goes on to give guidance as to what should be
regarded as inappropriate development. This covers seven potentially useful and
significant paragraphs, which I have condensed below.
- ‘Regard should be had to the degree of sensitivity of the land
to harm from new development. The magnitude of impact is likely to be
heightened if the green belt is narrow, or partly confined by existing (or planned development, or if it
is prominent in the landscape at the development site. Potential adverse
effects will also be greater if the development site is overlooked by, or is
close to, residential development, or if the area of land is a particularly
valued resource (e.g. for recreational purposes), if it forms part of, or has
the potential to enhance, a particularly attractive area of open countryside or
landscape, or if it is important to the preservation of the setting and special
character of a historic town’.
- (bulk, form, and height of
buildings)....'...for example,
a large single-storey warehouse or a slender multi-storey block of flats or
offices with a total floor space of 1000 sq.m. or less may have a significant
adverse impact on the openness of the green belt due to the height and/or the
bulk of the building.'....Where the nature of a development ‘will involve
intensive on-site activity, large numbers of parked vehicles, considerable
transport movements to, from, or around the site, or require prominent,
security facilities, it will have a potentially significant impact on the green
belt, even if any building constructed is below the floorspace threshold in
paragraph 3(b) of the Direction’.
- attention is also drawn to the situation
where a proposal for inappropriate development need not be referred to the S/S
because of the 1000 sq.m. threshold but nevertheless ‘may be part of a more substantial
subsequent development which, as a whole, would significantly impact on the
openness of the green belt. In such circumstances the local authority should
refer to the S/S under a different sub-paragraph of the Direction.
The consultation paper ends by asking for
comments on five specific questions, covering the Government's preference for
option (iii), the criteria for reference to the S/S, and the guidance in the
draft circular, including whether you would like to see more or different
guidance.
How should we react to these proposals?
They do not introduce much that is new, but they are an emphatic reaffirmation
of existing green belt policy with some useful additions like spelling out some
of the criteria for reaching judgements. Overall it is an encouraging document,
but the most important thing is that it is issued in the face of intense and
sustained pressure by the building and some professional interests to weaken
green belts. That in itself is worth quite a lot.
The question why the Government has chosen
to take this action at this particular time is interesting. A CPRE Press
Release issued in July, and primarily about Government plans for housing,
described the green belt Direction as a fig leaf to cover the effect of a
prospective free-for-all in development in the countryside generally. There may
be something in that, but that is no reason for not welcoming the reaffirmation
of green belt policy and the proposed embodiment of it in a separate Direction.
Improving the protection of green belt is what we are here for.
Not only must the LGBC support the
proposals but it would be very helpful if our individual member organisations
do so too, to show ODPM that local societies are alert to what is going on and
are anxious to have existing policy reaffirmed. Members may want to query some
details, e.g. the 1000 sq.m. threshold, or make some suggestions in response to
the specific invitation to do so. But their support overall should be clear.
The paper can he obtained free by ringing
ODPM publications, Wetherby, on 0870 1226 256 or on-line via the ODPM website
at www.odpm.gov.uk
One final thought. Could there be any
connection between the Government's clear reaffirmation of green belt policy in
this document and the sudden emergence in the editorial in Planning of the comment quoted above: ‘The
interpretation of inappropriate development and very special circumstances ....needs to be kept under review
just as much as their boundaries’. Could they be shifting their ground for an
attack from a different direction?
East of
The East of England regional plan is
working its convoluted way to its examination in public later this year. The
following is a summary of its history to date. Public consultation started in
2004 but the Regional Assembly (EERA) suspended endorsement of the plan because
of the lack of government funding for the infrastructure. However by that time
the plan was ‘owned’ by the Deputy Prime Minister's office, which carried on with
the consultation process. As part of that I was invited to take part in a
public debate on the plan last February. This debate related primarily to
Hertfordshire. After several subsequent internal debates the Herts County
Council, on 8th March, in
effect rejected the plan, on other grounds as well as green belt ones; but as county councils now have
little influence in planning that
may not count for very much.
The EIP was then set to start at The
Maltings, Ely, on 14th September. A draft list of participants for each Item
was circulated on 1st June. We were invited to two topics. Several preliminary
meetings were also planned at Ely to cover procedural etc matters. These were
apparently open to all comers. The first took place on 14th June. About 100
organisations attended, but not many like ours, which is hardly surprising
given the location. We did not attend. The second preliminary meeting was held
at Ely on 19th July. By then, such had been the volume of comment emerging from
the original consultation that EERA and the Govt. Office for
Regional plans are intended to be broad in
approach and this is well illustrated by the three sections of the first item
to which we were invited. It reads “(i) To what extent should the plan specify
broad development locations rather than leaving growth locations to be
identified through locally based Local Development Documents after further
public consultation? If there is a case for identifying regionally-strategic
locations how should the term strategic be understood in this context? Would this
lead to the plan referring to fewer broad locations or more... (iii) Does the
plan take the right approach to the green belt and the need for reviews? In
particular are the proposals for green belt reviews at the right level of
locational specificity and does the plan provide a sufficient policy framework
to enable green belt reviews in Local Development Documents to look well beyond
2021?
The other topic to which we have been invited is one of 14 sub-regional
discussions, all of which the EIP panel wishes to conduct at a strategic level.
Ours is the western part of the London Arc in Herts, to include Dacorum,
Hertsmere,
It seems to me that a new art form is emerging from all this waffle, and
remember that it is to help the examination for the benefit of ODPM of a huge
report produced by a non-elected assembly. Still, participants will be relieved
to know that, though supplementary papers are invited (but not essential) on
certain aspects, they must not exceed 2000 words in each submission.
Planning Decisions
1. Worms are
allowed in green belt, and they do not interfere with its openness. A
2. There was
an appeal against the continued use of a paddock in
3. The question of how the Government's general policy of
increasing density in housing land impinges on green belt (whether the site
itself is in green belt or bordering it) is one of those where marginal
considerations can weigh either way. In
4. In another case adjoining but not in green belt in Bucks, the
developer wanted to demolish 3 houses and build 14 detached dwellings instead.
He argued that the existing density was well below the 30 - 50 dwellings per
hectare (dph) recommended in PPG3 and that only part of the rear boundary of
the site overlooked green belt. Rejecting the appeal the inspector said:
‘While
PPG3 aims to make the best use of land, with densities between 30 and 50 dph, I
do not consider that this is intended to be at any cost. I am also mindful that while a density
of 30 dph is sought in this proposal it is with quite large detached 3 and 4
bedroom houses. This would result in these houses not only being close to the
site boundaries in places but also very close together in some of the
relationships within the site... I have come to the conclusion that this would
be out of character with the immediate locality contrary to policies [in the
local plan]’.
The same developer has been expressing a kindly interest in my own home
in Potters Bar.