THE LONDON GREEN BELT COUNCIL              Minutes  357 - 361

 

Minutes of the Meeting held in the Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, Westminster, on 25 May 2004.

 

Present      Mr J Wilkinson MP, President

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

                   Mr L G Holt, Secretary (Chislehurst 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)

                  

Mr D Ellis, Barnet Society

Miss P Smith, Bexley Civic Society

Ms J Hargreaves, Brindles Wood Residents Association

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

Mr C Hancock, CPRE London

Mrs J Stainton, CPRE National Office

Dr G Lomas, Coulsdon Green Belt Action Group

Mr T Simpson, Elstree and Borehamwood Green Belt Soc.

Mr H Bitten, Friends of Epping Forest and CPREssex

Mrs A Swinson, Hatch End Association

Mr & Mrs H Rader, Ickenham Residents Association

Mr D MCCarthy, Kenley Residents Association

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

Mr M Maurice, Pinner Association

Mr G Butler, Ramblers Association, Surrey Area

Mr M Hull, St Albans Community Forest Association

Mr P Rogers, Sevenoaks Society

Mr G Quantock, South Ruislip Residents Association

Mr C Huntley, Tewin Society

Mr P York, Tonbridge Civic Soc and Kent Fed of Amenity Socs

Mr J Archer, Youth Hostels Association (South Region)

Mr J Templeton, Youth Hostels Association (South Region)

 

Apologies for absence      Mr C Pohl (Vice-Chairman), Chiltern Society, Denham Parish Council; East Coulsdon Residents Association, Mill Hill Residents Association, Stanmore Society

 

Matters arising from previous minutes

 

265(1)        Belmont Riding School, Mill Hill   Mrs Oliver said that a request had been made for the riding school to be taken out of Green Belt so that it might be developed.  Mrs Swinson voiced concern about how the meadows would be managed in the future.

 

293(1)(c)  Central Railway  With his apology for absence, Mr Babler sent an update on the Central Railway proposal.  Early in 2004 the Strategic Rail Authority made it known that it did not favour the scheme.   Then, on 25th March, the Minister, Kim Howells, announced that the Government would not support a hybrid bill to implement the proposal.  They were concerned about (a) financial uncertainty which might leave the Government having to put money in, (b) the effect on the rest of the rail network and (c) the environmental impact.  Central Railway have responded defiantly but the scheme seems unlikely to progress any further.

 

340  Green Papers on Changes to the Planning System     The Chairman reported that the changes to the planning system were embodied in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which received the Royal Assent on 13 May.

 

347(4)        Sale of fields strips in Green Belt   The Chairman referred to the Minister's statement of 19 April reproduced in Notes No.137. Mrs Stainton said that the letter to planning authorities summarising their existing powers had gone out and a copy was available on the ODPM website.  It does not contain anything very exciting.  The Chairman said that there was no sign of the promised consultation on improving Article 4 powers and wondered what was covered by the "review of the planning enforcement system in England".  Mrs Stainton explained that this was a reference to consultation that closed in 2002 and on which the Government had not yet reached a conclusion.  She added that the Kimpton Protection Group had sought permission for a house on one of the sub-divided plots.  The application was refused and they were now publicising the fact as much as they could.

          Mr MCCarthy said that Kenley Green Belt Action Group had more or less stopped the sale of strips by getting an Article 4 direction, commissioning an ecological survey and publicising all the facts to potential purchasers.  They had not, however, prevented the posts dividing up the plots.  Mr Huntley said that some plots in Tewin had acquired huts and East Herts Council had ordered them to be removed.  Hedges were now being planted to divide the plots and nothing could be done about that.  Mr Butler added that, in another instance, maps of the plots were being published with some of the plots marked "sold" to encourage more purchasers.

          Mr Huntley said that the Minister's statement was loose, with its references to 'cooling-off period' and the 'Don't be a Mug' campaign.  The practice needed to be prohibited by the OFT as a scam.  Mr Bitten pointed out however that not all purchasers regarded it as a scam.  He said that they could see that although the Government avowed support for the Green Belt, their housing policy implicitly recognised that some Green Belt would have to be developed - for example the proposal in the draft regional planning guidance for the East of England for 18600 dwellings in the Epping Forest District Council area, which is practically all Green Belt.  In the light of this, the purchasers considered that they were making a long term speculative investment.

          In the course of a wider discussion about the housing proposals and Green Belt, Mr Bitten mentioned the possibility that North Weald airfield might be developed.  The President observed that the airfield was still used for heritage aviation and wondered what the users thought about the possibility of development.  Mrs Stainton said that the time to object to the potential loss of Green Belt to housing was at the Examination in Public (EIP) into the East of England Regional Planning Guidance and it was important to mobilise a large number of objectors.  The EIP into the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy had been urged by the Government not to go into the question of housing figures but resisted the pressure on account of the number of objectors.  She added that the Panel Report on the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Strategy, which was expected in July, would give some useful indications of how to tackle the East of England Region EIP.

 

351(2)(b)   Mabledon Hospital site, Darenth  The Secretary said he written again objecting to a crematorium and residential development of the site.

 

353(1)        Terms of office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman  The Chairman proposed that to give effect to the decision of the AGM, Rule 7 should be amended to read as follows:  "The  Council shall appoint annually at its Annual General Meeting persons to serve as Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Secretaries and Auditor. All appointees except the Auditor are Honorary and have power to act in an emergency.  The term of office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be limited to three years."  Mr Hull pointed out that there was an assumption at the AGM that the Vice-Chairman would succeed the Chairman on his retirement.  Mr York counselled against the imposition of time limit.  The Civic Trust advise their affiliated societies not to have one as it can result in the loss of valuable experience and even the demise of the Society if no new officer can be found. The Chairman pointed out however that the decision had been taken at the AGM and Mr Hull observed that it was the basis on which the Vice-Chairman had agreed to serve.  Mr Hancock thought the wording was satisfactory as drafted; it should be adopted and, if necessary, amended again in the light of experience.  That was agreed. 

 

353(2)        50th Birthday of LGBC  The Chairman observed that planning for the 40th anniversary started 12 months before the event in October 1994.  To be realistic, the President said that we should be looking at early 2005 for the event.  The booking of the room would have to wait until the opening of the new session of Parliament.  The Jubilee Room in the Palace of Westminster, where the 40th anniversary event was held, is a possibility, but since then more possible rooms have become available.  He would liaise with the Secretary of State's office to see if he would attend and for some possible dates.  The Chairman said he would discuss with Mr Liffen and Mrs Habib what more needed to be done.

 

355(5)(d)  Caravans at Keston The application for 5 residential caravans and associated buildings at Mead Green, Layhams Road, Keston has gone to appeal and the Secretary has written opposing the appeal.

 

356  Sale of Land by Croydon Council  Dr Lomas said there was concern in Coulsdon because when the Council sold the Green Belt land, they put in a clause that if it were ever used for development, 25% of its added development value would have to be paid to the Council.  This gave rise to a conflict of interest. The Local Plan ostensibly supported the Green Belt but Coulsdon residents had worked out that Croydon, with the number of dwellings it has to provide, will run out of land before the end of the plan.  When that happens the Council will be tempted to release the sold Green Belt land for development.  Mr Huntley queried what assumptions had been made as to likely density in deducing that Croydon would run out of land.  Dr Lomas said that they had take the figure from the plan.  Mr Hancock agreed with Dr Lomas; if a local authority stood to make money from development on Green Belt land, their commitment to the Green Belt would be completely undermined.  Mrs Stainton observed that the temptation is always there when a local authority owns Green Belt land. Had Croydon taken the land out of Green Belt and zoned it for development before it was sold, they could  have secured 100% of the development value.

        Dr Lomas was glad to report that the Corporation of London have agreed to contribute to the purchase of the area of land adjoining Farthing Down which was withdrawn from sale and to manage it in the future provided the local residents raise £55,000 towards the purchase.  They were well on the way to doing this.

 

Item 357   Treasurer’s Report   

 

The Treasurer said that subscriptions had been coming in steadily.  About two-thirds had been paid and he had sent out 37 reminder letters.  Several of the organisations listed for removal from the membership at the AGM have now paid for 2003 and only the Cyclists Touring Club, Enfield Friends of the Earth, Gerrards Cross Parish Council and Surrey CPRE - Tandridge Branch remain on the list.  LGBC funds stand at £7192.

 

 

Item 358   Government Consultation Papers and Reports

 

1.     Kate Barker's report to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on housing supply.  The Chairman said he had the impression that the Government were not inclined to launch into the free-for-all that the report seemed to favour.  It was likely however that all estimates of future housing would increase and while this would be concentrated in three or four areas, everywhere would be affected.  He said that LGBC needed to continue to oppose the imposition of housing figures on the counties by unelected bodies without public consultation.  The Secretary observed that the report failed to consider the infrastructure implications of the housing increase it proposed. He added that while the report considered in detail the main areas of Milton Keynes, Ashford, Cambridge and the Thames Gateway it would also affect the emerging Eastern Regional Planning Guidance.

 

2.     Draft PPS1 - Creating Sustainable Communities.    The Chairman said that the draft was in general terms and fairly innocuous.  LGBC had made two main comments.  First, the draft put too much emphasis on planning as an agent of change.  It needed to be recognised that it also had a function in maintaining stability. Second, the draft committed the Government to providing communities "where people wish to live".  LGBC had objected to similar wording in an earlier consultation paper and it had been changed to "where people need to live".  Such a commitment would be impossible to achieve and the second form of wording would give rise to endless argument about whether a "need" existed.

 

Item 359   Urban Fringe

 

        The Chairman referred to the RTPI's recent advocacy of a new planning designation "Urban Fringe" which was reported in Notes No. 137.  He was generally optimistic that the campaign was not getting very far for two reasons.  First, Keith Hill's letter to the President (reproduced in Notes No. 137) showed no enthusiasm for the idea.  Second, he and the Vice-Chairman had attended a meeting on the Urban Fringe organised by the Countryside Agency.  It was not, as he feared, a meeting pressing for the 'Urban Fringe' designation or a meeting of developers.  It was mostly attended by local authority representatives wanting to protect the Green Belt.  The Countryside Agency wanted more determined action by the local authorities to improve the urban fringe in a rural sense.

       

         It was agreed that LGBC should oppose the introduction of any 'urban fringe' designation on land in the Green Belt as the two concepts were incompatible.  Mrs Oliver pointed out that urban fringe was often covered by other planning designations as well.  Mr Hancock said that there had never been a problem with urban fringe; he considered that RTPI had only raised the topic to cloud the issue.  He thought there might be a conflict of interest because, to progress, planning officers more or less had to be members of the RTPI and here was their professional organisation pushing a line which was inconsistent with the policy they should be pursuing.

 

        Members could also see little value in the designation in other areas outside the Green Belt.  Mrs Stainton said CPRE had not yet taken a position; they were gathering intelligence prior to publication of a draft revised PPG2 which is where the issue seemed likely to come into the open.  In reply to a question from the Secretary, she said that she thought PPG3 had helped the implementation of PPG2 because it encouraged better use of urban land, avoiding a sprawl out into the countryside.

 

Item 360   Officers reports on new business

 

1.     The Secretary reported that he had

        (a) objected to the use of a portable building as a temporary secondary school at Magpie Hall Lane, Bromley; and

        (b) corresponded with the following councils on Structure, Unitary and Local Plans:  Sevenoaks, Kent, Luton, Havering and Redbridge.

 

2.     Cumulative effect of several developments  Mrs Oliver said she had been to a meeting attended by Tom McNulty MP for people to express their concern about a series of developments in the Harrow/Stanmore area.  As a result of the meeting, a letter was sent to ODPM which, while recognising that every application has to be considered on its merits, argued that an overview was needed to appreciate the combined effect of all the proposals.  The reply had been unhelpful.  She thought that this might be an issue that LGBC might take up.  Mr Maurice thought that the consideration of individual sites was difficult enough and that considering several together would not be feasible. The President agreed to write to the Minister if Mrs Oliver would provide a draft.

 

         

Item 361   Other matters raised by members

 

1.     Rail depot on Crayford Marshes   Miss Smith said that Prologis had plans to site a rail depot on Green Belt land owned by Stoneham Estates on Crayford Marshes near Slade Green.  Previous attempts to develop the land have failed because of its Green Belt status and the fact that it contains two sites of ecological importance.  The developers' consultants say that this is the only possible site in the area and this appears to have been accepted by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London.  They have, however, ignored that there are alternatives at Plumsted and Westcombe Park.  Bexley Council has already set an unfortunate example by allowing building on the Green Belt nearby.  The Secretary will deal with this on behalf of LGBC.

 

2.     Holding of Land in Perpetuity   Dr Lomas said that a small group of Croydon residents wanted to purchase a small amount of land and put it into some form of protective ownership which would prevent a larger area of Green Belt land being developed.  The Corporation of London were reluctant to use their limited funds because the land in question did not adjoin any land they already owned.  He would welcome suggestions of how this might be achieved.

 

3.     Threat to non-MDS site in Sutton  Mr Liffen reported on the latest situation of the site occupied by the BIBRA organisation in Woodmansterne Road, Carshalton.  Despite the fact that the site does not have MDS status in the Sutton UDP, the developers are hoping to get planning permission for housing granted on an exceptional basis. Adjoining the BIBRA site to the north is the former Medical Research Council site which had MDS status and was developed for housing some years ago. Immediately to the east of the MRC site (and to the north-east of BIBRA) is an area formerly part of the Queen Mary's Hospital for Children site which houses the Orchard Hill centre for people with severe learning difficulties.

 

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