THE LONDON GREEN BELT COUNCIL Minutes 346 - 348

Minutes of the Meeting held in the Grand Committee Room, Palace of Westminster, on 11 December 2002.

Present Mr J Wilkinson MP, President, Mr R W G Smith Vice-Chairman, (Potters Bar Society)

Mr S R Smith, Treasurer (Enfield Preservation Society) Mr M Hencke, Assistant Secretary (Old Coulsdon Residents Association) Mrs G Oliver, Assistant Secretary (East Barnet Parish Residents Association)

Ms J Hargreaves, Brindles Wood Residents Association

Mr R Liffen, Carshalton-on-the-Hill Residents Association

Mrs S Habib Chiltern Society

Mrs S Turtle Chiltern Society

Mr C Hancock, CPRE London

Mrs J Stainton, CPRE National Office

Mr G Myers, Croydon Society

Mr P Chapman, Denham Parish Council

Mr J Simpson, Elstree and Borehamwood Green Belt Soc.

Mr H Bitten, Friends of Epping Forest and CPREssex

Mrs M Bitten, Friends of Epping Forest

Mrs A Swinson, Hatch End Society

Mr A Swinson, Hatch End Society

Mr C Hoptroff, Leighton Buzzard Society

Miss M Dewing, Mill Hill Preservation Society

Mr B Selwyn, Open Spaces Society

Mr E Dilley, Otford Parish Council

Mrs M Smith, Potters Bar Society

Mr G Butler, Ramblers Association, Surrey Area

Mr C Pohl, Rochford Hundred Amenities Society

Mr J Dean, Sarratt Parish Council

Miss C Pudsey, St Albans Community Forest Association

Mr P Rogers, Sevenoaks Society

Mr G Quantock, South Ruislip Residents Association

Mr C Huntley, Tewin Society

Mr J Archer, Youth Hostels Association (South Region)

Sir Sydney Chapman MP, Past President

Apologies for absence Mr L Holt (Secretary), Friern Barnet and Whetstone Residents Association, Ottershaw Society, Pinner Society, Ramblers Association (Essex) and Stanmore Society.

Matters arising from previous minutes

330(1) RTPI’s Anti-Green Belt campaign The Vice-Chairman reported that he had written to the RTPI setting out LGBC criticisms of its paper as explained in Notes No.132, and received an acknowledgement with thanks. A copy had gone to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) to get the LGBC position on their files. They replied that they would welcome any further contribution LGBC could make when PPG2 comes up for revision. As PPG2 was not in the Green Paper list of guidance which would be revised first, the Vice-Chairman considered that its revision would be a good two years away. He added that there was some disagreement between the RTPI and the TCPA and, even within the RTPI, the line was not unanimously supported.

332 Select Committee on DEFRA (Previously ‘Break-up of DETR’) The Vice-Chairman said that the Committee had reported and included the LGBC submission as an annex to its report. The Committee shared LGBC view that separation of planning and environment in different departments made it essential that DEFRA make its environmental concerns felt on planning questions. The Committee did not pick up on the LGBC suggestion that this should include DEFRA having an input into planning appeals. The Vice-Chairman asked members to be inform him of any case where DEFRA should have been involved but was not.

334 Effect of the Housing Act 1985 on the 1938 Green Belt Act Mr Hencke reported that the House of Lords had agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Right to Buy legislation overrides the inalienability of 1938 Act land. (The 1938 Act remains effective in other respects.)

335(3) Towards the London Plan Mr Bitten reported on a conference with 300 - 400 participants on the subject ‘ Shall we build on Green Belt?’ Lord Rogers had been sound on the Green Belt; he considered that the capital’s housing requirement could be met by increasing density. Even the RTPI gave qualified support to the Green Belt. Mrs Habib said she did not understand the RTPI attitude since Green Belts had been very successful. Mr Selwyn thought that it might be because the planners viewed Green Belt as a political concept, not a planning one.

340 Green Papers on Changes to the Planning System The Vice-Chairman said that the Select Committee on DTLR had reported very critically on the Government’s proposals and included the LGBC submission in its report. The Government’s response (from the Deputy Prime Minister) was to drop the idea of removing the public’s right to be heard at inquiries into local plans and the proposal that, for major infrastructure projects, Parliament should first decide in principle whether or not a project could go ahead before the normal planning process dealt with the details. The Government, however, intend to keep the proposal for minimum-control Business Planning Zones and also the proposal to abolish County Structure Plans, though there is now more emphasis on a county input into the proposed regional planning. The Vice-Chairman said he would summarise in a future issue of ‘Notes’ where the different aspects of this subject appear in earlier ‘Notes’.

341(3) Barnet Football Stadium The Vice-Chairman reported that the SoS had called in the application to extend the stadium further into Green Belt and a public inquiry was set for 25 February 2003. He added that there were allegations in the press that the Council had sold the land to the applicant for £10,000 instead of £5m. Sir Sydney Chapman said that he had opposed the application for a stadium which was so much bigger than needed for the club’s normal gate, though he would have no objection to rebuilding with a small extension. He added that the club wanted the site taken out of the Green Belt but the present Council was opposed to that. He confirmed that there were rumours about the sale of the land. He understood that should the land be resold within ten years, the Council would received half the proceeds but if it were sold after ten years, the whole of the proceeds would go to a company controlled by the Chairman of the Club.

 

Item 346 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

President’s address The President thanked the Vice-Chairman for all he did for the LGBC, ably supported by his wife. His experience was legendary in an arcane field which it was essential to understand if the Green Belt was to be protected properly. He said that many challenges remained. The shared responsibility of DEFRA and ODPM had its dangers as did the possibility of regional government in the south east taking over planning matters. The planning system itself was in a state of flux and it was important that minority opinions should be heard and listened to. Organisations like LGBC which brought together diverse interests were invaluable in the process and he thanked the officers for their tenacity and expertise. The various interests round London were well served by the LGBC and it was a privilege for him to follow Sir Sydney Chapman and the late Sir Michael Shersby as President.

Vice-Chairman’s Review of the Year After stressing the need to find a new chairman, the Vice-Chairman said that much of the year’s work involved responding to the Government’s proposals for planning changes and contributing to the inquiries by two Select Committees. He added that it was gratifying that LGBC papers were now being reproduced in the Parliamentary papers. In the course of all the departmental changes, LGBC had received four or five specific Government assurances that Green Belt policy was not being changed, which was important in the light of campaigns mounted by builders and professional associations like RTPI. There was as great a need as ever for LGBC to play a part in keeping the Green Belt interest to the fore in a developing situation and the Vice-Chairman was grateful for the help he had from the President and the officers.

The Vice-Chairman recalled gratefully the work of the late Beryl Webb who had been Assistant Secretary for the Essex area for many years. He recalled that Miss Webb had recently received an award for public service which, he understood, included doing something for young motor cyclists. A successor for her as Assistant Secretary needed to be found. The Vice-Chairman concluded by thanking all the other people who contribute to LGBC affairs, hoping they would continue their support.

In discussion of the Vice-Chairman’s review, Mr Pohl expressed concern about the Thames Gateway regeneration project, particularly in relation to West Horndon as there had been reports in the press about public works along the Thames between Upminster and Basildon. There appeared to be a risk of continuous development from London to Southend. The Vice-Chairman said that this reflected a more general problem of the Regional Development Agencies vying with the planners for influence. LGBC has argued that the planning committees should take precedence, a view the Government appears to endorse. Mr Bitten observed that much of the land is in the Thames Chase Forest and Rainham Marshes. Last year the local council took the industrial designation off the last part of the land and it should all now be protected. He added that in general the Thames Chase Forest team seem to respect Green Belt. Ms Hargreaves agreed.

Treasurer’s Report The Treasurer said that it had been necessary to postpone or cancel some meetings during the year, thereby affecting the figures in the Accounts for hall hire and to some extent postage and telephone. Lower interest rates had resulted in lower interest income. Overall, the year showed a surplus of just over £1000 which brought the total LGBC funds up to £6915. (A copy of the accounts is enclosed for members not represented at the meeting.) LGBC started the year with 135 members, one new member joined and two decided not to renew their membership. At the end of the financial year in August, two other members had failed to renew their subscriptions. On the treasurer’s proposal, it was agreed that:

(a) the annual subscription should remain at £10, and

(b) Barkingside, Clayhall & Fulwell Environmental Group and South West London Holiday Fellowship be removed from the membership list, having failed to renew their subscription.

It was also agreed that LGBC should donate £75 to Ashingdon Parish Council towards the cost of a seat to be provided in Miss Webb’s memory.

The Treasurer mentioned that Epping Forest District Council had not, this year, paid to receive LGBC papers. The Vice-Chairman said he would have a word with them about it.

Election of officers There were no nominations for the office of Chairman

The following officers were re-elected by acclamation:

Vice-Chairman: Mr R W G Smith Secretary: Mr L G Holt

Treasurer: Mr S R Smith Auditor: Mr A Lim

Assistant Secretaries: Mr M Hencke and Mrs G Oliver

The Vice-Chairman said that, in addition to a replacement for Miss Webb, it would be useful to have another Assistant Secretary to look after the west side of London. He asked members to consider putting their name forward.

Other AGM Business

The Vice-Chairman asked whether, when it was possible to use the facilities of Parliament for LGBC meetings, members preferred the Palace of Westminster or Portcullis House. It was generally considered that Portcullis House was the more convenient.

Item 347 Officers reports on new business

  1. The Vice-Chairman drew attention to the paper by the Sevenoaks Society on the implications of regional government and asked Mr Rogers for any further comments. He replied that a Bill was now before committee and that members should write to the Deputy Prime Minister to oppose it. At present, it is possible to see off a planning application by lobbying council members to reject an officer’s recommendation to allow. This would not be possible under the proposed system. Mr Rogers thought that the Government would only bring forward referenda on regional government when they thought they would win them, picking off the most supportive regions first and then hoping to pick up the others by relying on a feeling of not wanting to be left out. Mr Pohl shared Mr Rogers concerns. He considered that the Bill was bound to pass the Commons and advocated trying to influence the House of Lords. He suggested preparing amendments which would draw the teeth of the proposals. He was concerned that Regional Assemblies of 25 to 30 members (5 to 7 per county) would overload individual councillors, giving the balance of power to the officers.
  • Mr Pohl also considered that the assemblies should have the power to remit the uniform business rate in certain circumstances in order to stimulate development - particularly in other regions, so as to draw of some of the pressure on the South East. While he feared that abolition of County Structure Plans might be a pretext for absorbing structural issues into Central Government, he recognised that the regions would be better placed to argue issues such as projected population and housing demand figures with the Government and other regions. Mr Myers agreed with the idea of stimulating other regions to take the pressure off the South East. Mr Hancock considered Mr Pohl’s points important and asked that the subject should be on the agenda of the next meeting so that representatives could reflect better the views of their organisations.

    Mrs Stainton pointed out that the housing figures produced at regional level were not totally binding on the Counties; they could be tested at the Examination in Public on the Structure Plans. She added that although there had been assurances that there would be county input to the regional planning process, this was not covered by the Bill which dealt with the referenda for setting up regional government.

    •

    • 2. The Vice-Chairman said that a consultation paper issued by the South East and East Regional Air Service Study (SERAS) identifies Heathrow, Stanstead and an airport at Cliffe as possible sites for expansion. All, except Heathrow are just outside the Green Belt but they have major implications for it. The Vice-Chairman said that he had sent a holding letter but a High Court ruling that Gatwick should also have been included is likely to cause delay while the paper is redrafted. The President explained that SERAS had ignored an undertaking given at the Terminal 5 inquiry that there would be no third runway at Heathrow. The High Court had said that to be even-handed, the agreement with W Sussex CC that Gatwick would not expand should also be ignored. The Vice-Chairman added that now Luton also wanted to be included. Mrs Habib said that expansion at Luton would cause unacceptable noise and overstretch the infrastructure on the ground. It was agreed that LGBC could not support one proposed expansion site against another; the whole of the Green Belt had to be protected; the line should be that the region is full up and LGBC opposes any expansion.

    3 The Vice-Chairman said that the deposit draft of the Bedfordshire Structure Plan to 2016 had been published. Mr Hoptroff said that the most serious thing in the draft from a Green Belt point of view was the proposed extension of Luton and Dunstable northwards into Green Belt somewhere between the A5 and the A6. Apart from that exception, the draft proposed no change to the Green Belt. He will liaise with the Vice-Chairman on a response to the draft.

    1. The Vice-Chairman referred to a growing practice of companies buying up agricultural land in the Green Belt, dividing it up into house sized plots and selling them on at a substantial profit. Mr Huntley described an example near Hertford. He said that the Council had tried to put up notices advising potential purchasers that planning permission would not be forthcoming but these had been pulled down They were in the process of taking Article 4 action (withdrawal of permitted development rights) but this takes time and many of the plots were likely to be sold before a declaration could be made. Several members cited other examples. It was thought that some of the purchasers were foreign and did not understand the significance of the designation ‘Green Belt’ - but others who had visited the sites had been positively misled about the planning situation. Mrs Stainton was concerned that before long structures would start to appear on the plots and Mr Dean confirmed that in Flaunden applications had indeed been made for sheds.
  • Mrs Swinson wondered whether this was a subject for an investigative TV programme but Mr Liffen said that it would be important first to get evidence eg. by filming the removal of notices or by ‘doorstepping’ the companies and putting difficult questions with a video camera. Also suggested were the national and local press. Mr Bitten pointed out the need to be careful in campaigning on this subject. Division into small plots had in the past been a useful tactic in impeding compulsory purchase and it would be a pity to have that possibility closed off. Mr Pohl saw the phenomenon as a resurrection of the ‘champagne auctions’ of derelict agricultural land at the end of the 19th Century which continued to cause planning problems through the inter-war years. He thought the cause might be the same - the unprofitable state of agriculture.
    •

    • 5. Mr Hencke reported that 85 acres of land at Farthing Down which had been owned by a potential developer had now been bought by the Corporation of London.

    6 Mrs Oliver said that LGBC would need to keep an eye on the effects of congestion charging in London; it could well renew pressure for park and ride at Hadley and elsewhere round the M25.

    Item 348 Other matters raised by members

    Mr Dean referred to the purchase of small farms around Sarratt for horse related activities with the result that they were being developed in a way that was inappropriate in the Green Belt. He thought there was a loophole which the officers were not prepared to take on board. The Vice-Chairman said that this ought to be resolvable within the existing guidelines.

     THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING will be notified in due course. It was agreed that the meeting should start at 6.30pm.