THE LONDON GREEN BELT COUNCIL Minutes 353 - 356

Minutes of the Annual General Meeting held in the Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, Westminster, on 17 December 2003.

Present Mr J Wilkinson MP, President

Mr R W G Smith Vice-Chairman, (Potters Bar Society)

Mr S R Smith, Treasurer (Enfield Preservation Society)

Mrs G Oliver, Assistant Secretary (East Barnet Parish Residents Association)

Mrs A Dettmar, Brindles Wood Residents Association Ms J Hargreaves, Brindles Wood Residents Association Mrs S Habib Chiltern Society Mr C Hancock, CPRE London Mrs J Stainton, CPRE National Office Mr J Cunningham, Croydon Society Mr P Jefferys, Denham Parish Council Dr J Ginn, East Coulsdon Residents Association Mrs A Martin, East Coulsdon Residents Association Mr P Barker, East Coulsdon Residents Association Mr J Simpson, Elstree and Borehamwood Green Belt Soc. Mr H Bitten, Friends of Epping Forest and CPREssex Mrs A Swinson, Hatch End Association Mr P Daymond, Ickenham Residents Association Mr S Scott, Kenley Residents Association

Mr D M^cCarthy, Kenley Residents Association Mr C Hoptroff, Leighton Buzzard Society Miss M Dewing, Mill Hill Preservation Society Mr A Lord, Northlands Area Residents Association Mr E Dilley, Otford Parish Council Mr M Maurice, Pinner Association Ms R Alston, Pembury Society Mrs M Smith, Potters Bar Society Mr G Smyth, Radlett Society - Green Belt Association Mr C Pohl, Rochford Hundred Amenities Society Mr M Hull, St Albans Community Forest Association Mr P Rogers, Sevenoaks Society Mr G Quantock, South Ruislip Residents Association Mr P York, Tonbridge Civic Soc and Kent Fed of Amenity Socs Mr J Archer, Youth Hostels Association (South Region)

Apologies for absence Mr L Holt (Secretary), Carshalton-on-the-Hill Residents Association, Friern Barnet and Whetstone Residents Association, Hedgerley Parish Council, Iver and District Countryside Association, Warlingham Parish Council and Wilmington Parish Council.

Matters arising from previous minutes

317(1)(a) Essex/Southend Replacement Structure Plan The Chairman said it was symptomatic of the Government's desire to eliminate counties that work on this plan had now ceased. Members indicated that the same was true for other counties including Herts and Beds.

347(4) Sale of fields strips in Green Belt The Chairman said that this was now a national problem and the Government was seized of it. He reported that Oliver Heald MP had had convened a meeting of some local authorities on 6 May resulting in a deputation of MPs to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 10 July. This was followed by a meeting of ODPM officials and 11 local planning officers on 31 October where the possible courses of action were explored such as Article 4 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) (preventing intending development); Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (making good loss of amenity) and Section 102 (discontinuance orders). ODPM have obtained a consultants' study of possible amendments to the GDPO (not only on this issue) and are considering the issue of new guidance and possible tweaking of the legislative provisions.

The Chairman said he had sent them the Counsel's Opinion we had obtained and asked them to (a) remove of the requirement for Article 4 orders to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, (b) make them retrospective, (c) permit them to be published by site notice rather than in the press and (d) remove the GPDO right to erect fences. Mrs Stainton said that an amendment to the Compulsory Purchase Bill initiate by CPRE had not succeeded. A brief on the subject was on the CPRE web-site. The Vice-Chairman indicated that he would welcome a copy.

Item 353 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

President’s address The President said that it was a privilege to host the LGBC AGM in Portcullis House. Pressure for development continued to increase and it was a good thing LGBC had the calibre of officers and members it did in order to fight for the open space round London. He said he was no planning expert and in a strange way it was pleasurable to be involved in something he did not know a lot about. The previous day, however, an issue had come to the fore with which he was fully conversant - the Government had published their White Paper on Air Transport, which contained some fundamental decisions to ponder.

The President approved of the Government's general approach which was to make the best use of existing airports throughout the country rather than go for a completely new mega-airport somewhere like Cliffe. He agreed with the decision to build a second runway at Stanstead where there had been considerable expansion of budget airline operations because the land was available and the environmental impact, though significant for people directly affected, was less than with alternative proposals.

The President was against the proposal in the White Paper that there should be a third runway at Heathrow between the M4 and A4 if environmental constraints could be met. It would destroy one of the few remaining green lungs in the area; expansion of the capacity of Heathrow should be achieved within the existing footprint of the airport. He observed that the White Paper proposed safeguarding land for a second runway at Gatwick to be built after 2019 if there were no third runway at Heathrow.

The President said that there were several factors, not often mentioned, which might limit air traffic growth at Heathrow. These were:

(a) completion of the high speed rail link to the channel tunnel would reduce traffic for Paris and Brussels,

(b) the success of budget airlines would reduce BA's European business still further,

(c) introduction of the large A380 towards the end of the decade would allow passenger numbers to increase faster that aircraft movements, and

(d) as the negotiation of air transport agreements was now a matter of EU competence, some of the transatlantic traffic at present using UK airports was likely to find its way to airports on mainland Europe.

Vice-Chairman’s Review of the Year The Vice-Chairman expressed members sympathy with the Secretary on the sudden death of his wife, Mary, in the summer.

He said that ordinary business continued much as usual but the big problems facing LGBC were:

(a) the consequences of population growth generally

(b) airports, where LGBC had to avoid a preference for one site or another as we represented the Green Belt interest all round London

(c) the new planning system, particularly the Government's plans for consultation where it looked as though the public element might be reduced to 2 or 3 voices among many other interests and the squeezing of more housing on to previously developed or partly developed sites in the Green Belt; and

(d) the sale of fields in strips.

The Vice-Chairman concluded by expressing his thanks to all the officers for their efforts.

Treasurer’s Report The Treasurer said that subscriptions were lower than in previous years, partly because the reminder notice missed the January mailing causing some subscriptions to arrive after the end of the account year in August. Donations, too, were down, resulting in an overall reduction of income of about £300. Expenditure was up owing to the need to hire a hall for one meeting and as a result of donating £75 in memory of the late Miss Webb. There was nevertheless still a surplus of £553 over the year. A copy of the accounts is enclosed for members not represented at the meeting.

The Treasurer proposed that the subscription remain at £10 for 2004, rejecting a suggestion by Mrs Habib to increase it to £15 as not justified as LGBC funds totalled £7468 at the year end. This was agreed. The Vice-Chairman observed that next year's accounts would include a substantial expenditure on Counsel's opinion on field division and the question of the subscription could be revisited at the next AGM.

On the Treasurer's proposal, it was agreed that the Cyclists Touring Club, Enfield Friends of the Earth, Gerrards Cross Parish Council, Headstone Residents' Association, Oxford Green Belt Network, Pembury Society and Surrey CPRE (Tandridge Branch) be removed from the membership list, having failed to renew their subscription.

Election of officers Initially there were no nominations for the office of Chairman. The Vice-Chairman said he was prepared to carry on for another year but that would definitely be the last time. He added that if the meeting did want him to carry on he would rather do it as Chairman than Vice-Chairman. Mr Bitten suggested that if the term of the chairmanship were limited to three years, members might be more inclined to take it on. Mr Maurice was concerned that the job involved a learning period and the proposal would remove the Chairman just as he or she had worked themself into the job but Mr Bitten said that the converse advantage of that was that expertise would be spread more widely in the organisation.

Mr Hancock added that it might also help if it were made clear that the Chairman did not have to do everything that the present Vice-Chairman did, like writing 'Notes'. Mr Simpson suggested that there ought to be an expectation that the Vice-Chairman would take over the chairmanship. It was agreed that the term of both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman should be limited to 3 years and there should be an expectation that the Vice-Chairman would take over the chairmanship at the end of the 3 years. On that basis the following officers were elected by acclamation:

Chairman: Mr R W G Smith Vice-Chairman: Mr C Pohl

Secretary: Mr L G Holt Treasurer: Mr S R Smith

Assistant Secretaries: Mr M Hencke and Mrs G Oliver Auditor: Mr A Lim

The Chairman stressed that, notwithstanding the new rule, he was only going to serve one year, not three!

Other AGM Business

It was agreed that LGBC should hold a reception to celebrate its 50th birthday in 2004. The Chairman said he would ask Mr Liffen, who was among those who organised the 40th anniversary event, if he would do so again. Mrs Habib volunteered to help with the organisation.

Item 354 Government Consultation Papers

1. Regional Planning - PPS11 and draft regulations The Chairman said that there was no direct threat to the Green Belt in the proposals but there were indirect threats flowing from the remoteness and unelected nature of regional planning which had the potential to be 'development-led'. Mrs Stainton that the counties' role was still very unclear and there was a risk that they might lose their expertise in the process. It might still be worth members writing to MPs before the final vote on the Bill. CPRE's website included briefing on the unsatisfactory role of the counties. Mr Pohl thought that if sufficient amendments could be stimulated in the Lords, the Government would have to decide whether to give in or risk losing other measures because of lack of time.

The President said it was difficult to mobilise support in the Lords and Mrs Stainton pointed out that it would have to be done by 6 January and doubted that this was realistically possible. Mrs Habib wondered how the regions had been defined as they seemed to bear little relation to identifiable geographical features. No one had any clear answer and Mr Archer thought it strange that there had been no consultation to find out what the public considered to be 'their region'.

2. The proposed new local system The Chairman said the system was crazy and unnecessary but it was no worse for Green Belt than anything else and it was probably too late now to change it. In response to Mr Quantock's question, the Chairman said he was not aware of a time scale for the switch to Local Frameworks but it would be bound to take some time for the change to work through. Mrs Stainton said that the work counties had already done on structure plans was being incorporated in regional planning to get that under way more quickly.

3. Draft amendments to PPG3 (Housing) The Chairman said that there were several matters of detail already commented on. No other points were raised by members.

4. Transport and Works Act processes The Chairman thought that this would not require any comment but he would ask Mr Selwyn whether he had any points.

Item 355 Officers reports on new business

1. Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-regional Strategy The Chairman had submitted some comments on this. Mr Hoptroff observed that this document illustrated the difficulties with the new planning system. The MK & SM 'Sub-region' actually overlapped three regions, the East, the South-east and the East Midlands. It was difficult to work out how the proposals in it would mesh with the broader plans for the regions, especially as the Regional Plan for the East Region was not yet complete. Mrs Habib was concerned that the plan envisaged a road round Luton which would impact on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2. Low density development and PPG3 The Chairman referred to a worrying decision at Welham Green. A proposal for housing on a previously developed but derelict piece of Green Belt was refused on the grounds that it was of too low a density and therefore contrary to the requirement in PPG3 that developments make best use of the land. The President had written to the Minister, Keith Hill, who had replied that the Government was fully committed to the Green Belt and had no plans to relax planning controls on it.

The Deputy Prime Minister had promised to maintain or increase the area of Green Belt in all Regions of England but in the interests of the efficient use of land, low densities, less than 20 per hectare could not be sustained, even in Green Belt locations. Mrs Stainton pointed out that other parts of PPG3 might be used to argue the other way in specific cases. For example, new developments should be located so as not to be too car-dependent. There had been a similar case of a green belt application being turned down on the grounds of too low a density in Tandridge.

3 Transport 2000 Paper on a 'Second M25' The Chairman reported that he had received a paper by Transport 2000 about the way a number of road proposals were combining to form a second London Orbital Road outside the M25. The paper argued against this and further development in the South east generally but offered little by the way of new information and did not call for a specific response from LGBC.

4. Proposed Green Arc for North East London Ms Hargreaves and Mr Bitten described a conference they had attended about the connection of several green areas in North east London to form a continuous arc. Some organisations were in favour but others appeared hostile, wanting to link the idea of a Green Arc to the concept of sustainable communities. Proponents of the scheme want to have it ready in time to feature in RPG14. Apart from themselves, only Dr Dawson of the Greater London Authority referred to the Green Belt. They asked why the Green Belt was not shown on the maps under consideration at the conference and suggested that the Green Arc boundaries should be the same as the present Green Belt. This idea was not well received and did not appear in the conference report. The Thames Chase Forum was afraid that the Countryside Agency was only concerned with the Green Belt to destroy it.

The Chairman observed that that was consistent with suspicions we had had before about the motives of the Agency. Mr Bitten thought there was a hidden agenda. When he asked where the money to create the Green Arc was to come from, the Chairman of the conference waved his hands and made a vague comment indicating that money can be found. When Mr Bitten had put a similar question to the the Superintendent of Epping Forest earlier in the year, he had replied that there was going to be building in the Green Belt and we should get something back for it. Mr Bitten said that one of the speakers at the conference was from Holland where they had created a 12,000 acre nature conservation area on a polder which was not required for industrial development. This was not, however, comparable as the access was strictly controlled by permit.

5. The Secretary supplied a report indicating taking the following actions:

(a) Objected to a cemetery and crematorium at Flamingo Park Club, Sidcup By-pass, Chislehurst

(b) Objected to a caravan site at Knockholt Station, Sevenoaks Road, Halstead

(c) Objected to residential development (and redevelopment) at Nizels Golf Club, Hildenborough

(d) Objected to a caravan park and stabling at Layhams Road, Keston

(e) Commented on equestrian development at Fairtrough Farm, Fairtrough Road, Orpington

(f) Opposed appeal on, and objected to revised plans for, residential redevelopment at Hollymeoak Road and Woodfield Hill, Coulsdon

(g) Opposed appeal against enforcement notice against a Waste Station at Laburnum Avenue, Swanley

(h) Commented on rear boundary wall at Emanuel Cottage, Hall Lane, Upminster

(i) Commented on irrigation development at Willoughby's Hill Carelton Farm, Havering Park.

6. Mrs Oliver reported on the following issues:

(a) The old Grove GEC-Marconi site is up for development following the company's move to Milton Keynes. The proposals seem quite good but she had sent a letter suggesting that site should be returned to Green Belt and used to extend Stanmore Common

(b) Middlesex University had applied to redevelop Trent Park to bring all its operations on to one site. In general this would be an improvement; the present buildings are a mess and the proposals would restore the view of the lake and the original status of the mansion house, stable block and orangery. The proposed accommodation block would go forward of the house and fan out closer to the lake but given the number of students they were seeking to house, it was difficult to see how this could be improved.

(c) An application for a temple at Brookshill had reached an advanced stage without the local residents being aware of what was happening. LGBC had objected, but the application had been allowed.

Item 356 Other matters raised by members

Mrs Martin reported that Croydon Council had sought to auction off two parcels of Green Belt land. The City of London were told because one was next to Farthing Down. As a result, one of the parcels was withdrawn but the other (20 acres) was sold for £133,000. She said that Mr Hencke was aware of the issue.

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