THE LONDON GREEN BELT COUNCIL                               Minutes 373 - 378

 

Minutes of the Meeting held in the Wilson Room, Portcullis House, 17 July 2006.

 

Present            Mr R Smith, Vice-President  (Potters Bar Society)

              Mr T Simpson, Chairman (Elstree & Borehamwood G B Soc.)

              Mr L Holt (Secretary) (Chislehurst Society)

              Mr S Smith, Treasurer (Enfield Preservation Society)

  Mr R Liffen, Assistant Secretary (Carshalton-on-the-Hill Residents Association)

 

Mrs J Habib, Chiltern Society

Mr C Pohl, CPREssex

Mr C Hancock, CPRE London

Mr G Myers, Croydon Society

Mr H Gluck, Friern Barnet & Whetstone Residents Assoc.

Mr H Davidson, Headstone Residents Association

 

Mr C Hoptroff, Leighton Buzzard Society

Mr P Ward-Lee, Old Coulsdon Residents Association

Mr C Beney, Open Spaces Society

Mrs H Lane, Ottershaw Society

Mr M Hull, St Albans Community Forest Assoc.

Mr C Huntley, Tewin Society

 

Apologies for Absence   The President, Mr Atkinson (Education Liaison Officer), Beaconsfield Town Council, Denham Parish Council, East Coulsdon Residents Association, Epping Society, Ickenham Society, Kent Federation of Amenity Societies, Mill Hill Society, Pinner Association, Radlett Society and Green Belt Association, Sevenoaks Society, Stanmore Society, Stoke Poges Parish Council and YHA South Region

 

Matters arising from previous minutes

 

347(4)  Sale of field strips in Green Belt  Mr Huntley had received a letter from the Minister saying that the Government understood the problem of sale of plots in fields and reaffirming their commitment to the Green Belt.  The subject had been discussed in Committee the previous week and Mr Huntley said he would send the Vice-President a copy of the Hansard report for the next issue of ‘Notes’.  The Chairman understood that 10 minute Bill on the subject introduced by Greg Mulholland , MP for Leeds North west, had been debated in the Commons.  An Early Day Motion sponsored by Mr Mulholland, together with Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North east) and David Drew (Stroud) was now open for signature.

 

353      50th Birthday celebrations  It was decided that a reception or the like following the AGM would be a good idea. 

 

355(4)  Green Arcs      Mrs Habib handed round a paper setting out the principles and possible location of a Green Arc for north west London.  This initiative is sponsored by Bucks CC, The City of London, English Nature and the Environment Agency. More information about it can be had by contacting Mike Woods at Bucks CC. (01296 383756 or mwoods@buckscc.gov.uk)

 

363(2)  East of England Plan  Mr Pohl referred to reports in the Essex Chronicle and Enquirer that following the Examination in Public there had been a proposal to increase the housing allocation by 20,000, spread across the region.  He will pass the reports, together with a letter he wrote in response, to the Vice-President for the next issue of ‘Notes’.

 

369(3)  Education  The Chairman said that Mr York of the Kent Federation of Amenity Societies had written to him proposing that LGBC produce a leaflet setting out the reasons for having Green Belt in order to dispel common misconceptions about it.

 

371(2)  LGBC Website                        The Chairman and Mr Beney had discussed the website with Mr Horrocks of the North Mymms Society, who currently maintains it.  One of the issues which had arisen was whether the LGBC should have a logo on the site.  Mr Beney suggested that the logo might be in the form of a stylised map of London with a green ring around it.  There was general support for the idea of producing such a logo.  Mrs Habib said that the shape of London and the line of the river Thames needed to be sufficiently accurate to be readily recognisable.   Mr Liffen said that the logo needed to be suitable to be used in all LGBC contexts, e.g. letterheads and leaflets, and be recognisable in black and white.  The Chairman said he would ask his sister, who was skilled in graphic design, to come up with a logo.  It was agreed that it would be good if the logo and the leaflet referred to above could be launched at the same time as the 50th birthday reception.

 

372(4)  Bentley Priory  The Chairman reported that he had met the President on the previous Friday and she was going to take up the issue of the future of Bentley Priory.

 

Item 373 Treasurer’s report                        The Treasurer said that subscriptions continued to trickle in and he would follow up the remainder as the LGBC financial year ends at the end of August.  The funds currently stand at £7,760.

 

Item 374  Appointments       The Chairman reminded members that Mr Smith would not be offering himself for re-election as Treasurer at the next AGM and asked for volunteers.  He said he had a possibility in mind but the person concerned would be away for the next two months. 

 

Item 375  Adam Smith Institute paper on Land Economy   Members expressed their appreciation of the Vice-president’s robust analysis of this paper.  The President had written to Ministers enclosing a letter from the Vice-President criticising the paper as being completely ungrounded in the real world.  The reply, from Baroness Andrews, pointed out that the paper put the views of an organisation dedicated to the free market; and not the Government’s view.  She went on to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the Green Belt and said they had no intention of relaxing Green Belt policy.  The Vice-President will include the full text of Lady Andrews’ reply in the next issue of ‘Notes’.  Mrs Habib said that she intended to write to the Adam Smith Institute and was assembling case studies of instances from around the world where developers, allowed a free hand, had destroyed those very places.

 

Item 376  Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Direction 2005

 

This Direction specifies the circumstances in which a planning authority, which is intending to approve inappropriate development in the Green Belt, must give the Secretary of State the opportunity to call in and determine the application.  The direction is available, price £6.00 from TSO (The Stationery Office), PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN. Telephone 08457 023 474, or visit www.tsoshop.co.uk to buy online.  Alternatively it can be viewed on and downloaded from the website of the Department of Communities and Local Government www.odpm.gov.uk .  It appears as Circular No.11/05.   Mrs Lane wondered whether developments on Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt.  She had in mind particularly a hospital site at Chertsey.  The Vice-President observed that Major Developed Sites had special rules of their own, but presumably, if these were not adhered to, the Direction would apply.  Mr Myers commented that English Partnerships, a government agency, was now responsible for the redevelopment of NHS hospitals like Cane Hill.

 

Item 377 Officers’ reports on new business since the last meeting

                    

1.      The Chairman referred to a proposal for a waste disposal site at Chobham.  Mrs Lane explained that although Surrey County Council is the waste disposal authority for the area, Woking District Council wanted to put a composting facility on a former factory site surrounded by Halsall Common SSSI. They were supposed to have produced a study of the effects of the proposal by the end of last year but it had still not appeared.  Nevertheless, Surrey have amended the latest draft of their waste plan to include the proposal.  She added that only 2 miles away, at Marcus Lane, there was a proposal for a waste incinerator.  This was, however, some way down the list of possibilities.  Another incinerator proposal at Kitts Mead Lane was more likely to go ahead.

 

2.      The Vice-President said that he had attended the Annual General Meting of the Society for the Protection of Ascot and the Environs where he had learnt of a new ruling on European Law which could have considerable significance.  Certain heathland areas (including Chobham Common) are given special protection because of their significance for birds.  It had now been established that intensive residential development must not be allowed on any land (Green Belt or not) which is within 3 miles of such a protected area unless more open space is provided for recreation.  This is because of a recognition that more dwellings will mean more walkers, and especially dog walkers, who would disturb the birds.  Mrs Lane said that both Woking and Runnymede had put a complete stop to development while they sought more open space for recreation.  Woking had now decided that they had sufficient open space and were beginning to allow development again but there was still an embargo in Runnymede.

 

3.      The Secretary said he did not have a lot to report.  He had:

(i)                  commented on a proposal for a multi-purpose driving centre at  St Mary’s Lane and The Chase, in Cranham, Upminster.

(ii)                commented on a residential development at Lake View Park, Noak Hill, Romford.

(iii)               corresponded and responded to questionnaires etc. relating to Framework Papers from a number of councils, including Thurrock and Kent County in relation to their Minerals Plan.

(iv)              commented on a proposed wind turbine at Wennington Fire Station, Rainham.

 

4.      Mr Liffen said he had:

(i)                  considered a document on open spaces produced by Sutton Council.  It was a shabby document, with poor diagrams and full of padding.  It took scant account of Green Belt, considering that Sutton contains so much of it.  He had written and put some Green Belt points.

(ii)                looked at the draft Mole Valley Framework but considered that no LGBC response was called for.

 

5.      Mr Liffen also drew attention to reports in the media about gardens being treated as brownfield sites and therefore open to development.  The Vice-President observed that this was nothing new; gardens had been the subject of development for many years.  Mr Hoptroff said that it all depended on what the local plan said.  In the past, Milton Keynes had drawn the limits of development in some villages so that only the parts of some long gardens near the houses were within it.

 

Item 378  Other matters raised by members

 

1.               Mr Beney said that a petition had been delivered to the European Commission urging regulation of the noise from light aircraft.  If that idea were taken up, some airfields might close leaving them open to possible redevelopment.  He invited members to contact him if they wanted more information.

 

2.               Mrs Lane reported that the Runnymede LDF, which is currently in draft, will extend forward to 2026.  It was therefore a matter of guesswork whether the housing provision will be adequate.  The Council asked anyone who wanted a site considered for housing development to put it forward.  This had resulted in many Green Belt sites being proposed.  The draft makes clear that Green Belt sites are at the bottom of the list, but Mrs Lane was concerned that being on the list at all could give them some sort of status.  Mr Beney said that St Albans had done something similar and he had written arguing that Green Belt status is firm constraint and such sites should not be on the list at all.

 

3.               Mr Hull said that the St Albans development framework provides that any existing development over 7000 sq. m. would be treated as a Major Developed Site (MDS).  The Vice-President said this was a gloss on PPG2 which did not have a specific numerical definition.  Mr Hancock pointed out that the boundary of an MDS had to be drawn tightly round the developed part of site.  This was of considerable importance in relation to airfields.

 

THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING   It is intended to hold the next meeting in the first or second week in November 2006.  The date will be announced in due course.