Matters arising from previous minutes

317(1)(a) Essex/Southend Replacement Structure Plan The Vice-Chairman said that LGBC had objected to statements in a consultants’ report that Green Belt is not an environmental asset and that respect for green belt policy is not necessarily beneficial from the point of view of achieving greater sustainability. On the other hand, LGBC had supported the Council’s own technical committee who had stressed the importance of permanence of the Green Belt but said that the committee should not assume that escalating degrees of development necessarily mean escalating threat to the Green Belt. Ms Hargreaves said that Brindles Wood Residents Association had put forward views to the Council and heard informally that the Planning Department considers the report ‘maverick’

322(3)(f) Expansion of Biggin Hill Airport The Secretary reported that Government in the person of the Deputy Prime Minister had overruled Bromley Council’s refusal of permission for a hangar at Biggin Hill and that the Council intended to seek a review in the High Court.

330(1) RTPI’s Anti-Green Belt campaign The Vice-Chairman reported that the unsatisfactory RTPI paper had been endorsed by a majority of RTPI members at its Convention. He had sent LGBC comments to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and received several Government assurances of its devotion to Green Belt policy. However, it would be necessary to watch that the Government’s references to increasing Green Belt do not mask trading off designation of some new sites against the surrender of others.

332 Select Committee on DEFRA The Vice-Chairman recalled his comments at the AGM and in Notes No. 134, and said that the Committee had decided that though there was nothing necessarily unworkable about separating planning from environment issues, it was essential that DEFRA had a input into planning policy. The Committee considered that DEFRA could do this more effectively than it had hitherto and indicated that they would continue to monitor the situation.

340 Green Papers on Changes to the Planning System Mr Selwyn said that little progress had so far been made on the Bill to amend the planning system. The Bill had had its Committee stage in the Commons where there had been only one Government amendment. The Bill seemed to have lost its priority in the Government’s eyes since no date had yet been fixed for the report stage. He expected that most of the work would be done in the Lords.

344(2)(d) Aquila (Ex-MoD) site at Bickley The Secretary reported that the original application for 280 houses had been scaled down to 212. He had written suggesting that more suitable uses than housing (such as a school) could be found for the site.

345(4) Rail Terminal at Radlett Airfield Miss Pudsey said that there had been a report in the Estates Gazette of negotiations with the owners for the use of part of the old Radlett Airfield site as a rail freight terminal. This appeared not to be the main part of the site, which it had been agreed would be used as a country park, but the smaller part cut off by the M25. There was still no planning application and she understood that the Council would not be sympathetic to this use in the Green Belt.

347(1) Regional Government Mr Hancock recalled the concern expressed at the previous meeting and argued that LGBC should oppose the proposals in general. The fact that LGBC’s expertise was on Green Belt subjects was no reason not to take a position on the general principle. He considered that County Structure Plans had served well in the past and felt that the best planning brains were at county level. Mr Pohl said he was not necessarily opposed to the idea of regional government; it could have advantages but the present proposals were unsatisfactory and would require amendment. Regional government did not necessarily imply the end of structure plans. Regional governments could negotiate inter-regional population policy. This would be better than having OPCS population figures imposed from above.

Rather than outright opposition, Mr Pohl recommended trying to influence the debate in the Lords to achieve desirable aims. Mrs Habib was opposed to regional government which would be an added expense and so was Mr Butler who considered that issues about Green Belt sites would be lost in all the business of a large regional organisation. Mr Liffen, too, thought that the most effective protection of the Green Belt was at local level with councillors and officers.

Miss Pudsey considered that whether or not to adopt regional government was a constitutional question which was beyond LGBC’s remit. In practical terms its effect on Green Belt issues could go either way and LGBC should concentrate on working within whatever system currently prevailed. Mr Nixon agreed. The Green Belt round London was a regional concept and could benefit from coming under a single regional authority. In any event LGBC should accept whatever system was there and work within it to preserve the Green Belt. He noted, as Mr Selwyn had already pointed out, that Berkshire is already effectively under the regional system since it comprises only unitary authorities. The Vice-Chairman noted the wide range of views expressed. Given that and the fact that the desirability or otherwise of regional government went way beyond LGBC’s area of concern, he concluded that it would be inappropriate for LGBC to take a position on the general issue. It would be important, however, to speak out against any aspects of the proposals which looked like being detrimental to the Green Belt.

347(2) Regional Airports in the South East The Vice-Chairman said that SERAS had now published a revised report which also took into account Gatwick. The Secretary added that he had written particularly about Cliffe, which, though not in the Green Belt, would have implications for it and in respect of Gatwick where the different scenarios would involve different amounts of Green Belt loss. Mr Liffen doubted whether the rationale for expanding capacity still applied given the difficulties airlines were getting into. The Vice-Chairman concluded that there was no reason to change the LGBC position that there should be no expansion of air traffic in the South-East

347(4) Sale of field strips in Green Belt The Vice-Chairman said that James Clappison, the Hertsmere MP was interested in the subject and Oliver Heald MP had arranged a meeting on 6 May. He said that he would attend and that he hoped the Open Spaces Society would also be there. Mr Selwyn suggested that the Countryside Agency should be involved. It was considered, however, that this rural matter was outside the remit of the Civic Trust. The Vice-Chairman said that an order made under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 to take away general development rights was not retrospective. To be any use, the local authority had to have good intelligence and be quick on its feet. Mr Huntley agreed. He said that in the case at Tewin which he had mentioned at the last meeting 3 months had gone by and there was still no order; the local authority was still talking to the department.

The Vice-Chairman said that the Minister, Lord Rooker, had replied to Mr Heald with a letter which sought to be helpful. The Minister had suggested that the practice of fencing off small plots of agricultural land might prevent it being used for agriculture and that this might amount to a material change of use against which enforcement action could be taken. Mr Lord said that this idea had been put his local council and they did not think the argument would run. First, they were not convinced that staking out the plots would prevent agricultural grazing. Second, even if agriculture were prevented, this would simply mean that the land had gone out of use, not that a new use needing planning permission had been established. Third, even though the plots might not be viable holdings, the owners could form of collective organisation to run them. Mr Liffen thought that the procedure could be cumbersome if there had been an outright sale of the individual plots since there would then be a multiplicity of owner-occupiers to deal with.

Mr Smyth suggested that LGBC should take Counsel’s opinion on whether the law as it stood offered a way to deal with the problem. It could then be decided whether LGBC should be tackling local authorities on applying the law or the government on changing it. Mr Huntley said he had approached CPRE Herts but they had fought shy of taking Counsel’s opinion on the grounds of cost and Mrs M Smith added that CPRE had said at a meeting that there was nothing that could be done apart from publicity. Mr Hancock said he would take the issue up with CPRE. Mrs Habib said that a Californian law under which agricultural land could only be sold in plots of 4 acres or more might provide a model. Mr Myers observed, however, that this had merely resulted in the erection of many large houses on 4 acre plots.

Mr Myers said that the right way was to prevent the sales by educating the potential purchasers about the value (or lack of it) of their purchase. He suggested that this was something that the Land Registry might be able to do. Mr Holcombe said that Kenley had involved their MP, Richard Ottaway, and tried various methods of education, including advertisements and talking to people on the land. They had succeeded in slowing the rate of sales but not stopping them altogether. Croydon BC was not prepared to act on the issue. Mr Huntley said that several national newspapers had printed articles and he had been interviewed in a ‘You and Yours’ programme on Radio 4. The trouble was that people read or listened to these stories but by the next day they had forgotten about them.

Item 349 New Consultation Papers

1. Herts Structure Plan alterations 2001 to 2006 The Vice-Chairman reported that this is a good document. It clearly states that in the Green Belt affordable housing will be within villages not ‘bordering’ or ‘adjoining’ or anything like that.

2. PPG21 on Tourism The Vice-Chairman said that this paper, on which comments are required by 23May, was rather odd. It was not so much proposals for the review of the PPG, more an essay on what the PPG should be like. It says that PPG21 was not much use because the planning policies affecting tourism are in other PPGs anyway. It argues that it should be abolished and replaced by guidance notes on any necessary points. He said that this appeared to be an early expression of the Government’s desire to simplify national planning guidance. He added that as far as Green Belt is concerned, the existing PPG21 was good and its replacement appeared to be harmless.

3. Minerals Planning Guidance The Secretary there had also been a consultation paper on revision of the Minerals Planning Guidance. LGBC had drawn attention to the omission of PPG2 from the list of relevant PPGs.

Item 351 Officers reports on new business

1. The Vice-Chairman said that a housing development at Old Hall Barns, Rettenden Common, Chelmsford, which was supported by the Parish Council apparently on the grounds that it might produce pupils for a new primary school, had been turned down by Chelmsford Council.

2. The Secretary reported taking the following actions:

(a) Objected to the change of use of land at Hall Wood, Middle Road, Ingrave, Brentwood for war gaming. The application has been refused.

(b) Objected to housing development and crematoria at Mabledon Hospital, Gore Road, Darenth.

(c) Commented on proposals for a cemetery at Chiddingstone, Edenbridge.

(d) Made submissions on an appeal against enforcement on a variety of uses on a number of plots at Walden’s Farm, Crockenhill, Swanley.

(e) Commented on residential redevelopment at Woodfield Hill/Hollymeoak Road, Coulsdon.

(f) Commented on agricultural and horse-related buildings at Maylands Way, Harold Park, Romford.

(g) Corresponded with Bromley, Hounslow, Redbridge and Dartford Councils on their respective plans.

(h) Objected to demolition of buildings with larger replacements at Farringtons School, Perry Street, Chislehurst.

(i) Objected to residential development including close care centre for the elderly at Sevenoaks Wildfowl Trust, Brabourne Vale Road, Sevenoaks.

3 The Vice-Chairman said on Mrs Oliver’s behalf that she had been helping local groups with the Harrow UDP in the context of which a sports club was seeking to take land out of the Green Belt. Mrs Swinson expressed thanks for Mrs Oliver’s help.

Item 352 Other matters raised by members

1. Mr Parsons expressed concern about a proposal to finance a new swimming pool from the development of 2ha of adjacent land. It was proposed to develop the land at a density of 30-50 units per hectare as recommended in PPG3. The land in question was not in Green Belt but close to it and it was difficult to see how a development at that density could be made to merge into the Green Belt. The Vice-Chairman suggested that the best way to tackle the problem was to rely on paragraph 3.15 of PPG2 which states that developments conspicuous from the Green Belt should not be visually detrimental to it by reason of their siting, materials or design.

2. Mr Smyth sought advice on how to deal with a possible application soon to build a school in Green Belt at Radlett. This was a private venture and the Council would not necessarily be in favour of it. The Vice-Chairman said he had a recollection that something similar had happened at Romford or Hornchurch and would look it up to see whether it offered a useful precedent.

3. Mr Quantock reported that Hillingdon Council plans to build a new 900 pupil secondary school on land designated in the UDP as ‘green chain’ land. Outline planning permission has been given but the Mayor of London has denied permission on the grounds that it could go on a brownfield site instead. The matter will now go to a public inquiry.

THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING will be notified in due course.