THE LONDON GREEN BELT COUNCIL                               Minutes 389 - 392

 

 

Minutes of the meeting held in the Wilson Room, Portcullis House, Westminster on 4 July 2007

 

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

                         Mr C Hoptroff, Vice-Chairman (Leighton Buzzard Society)

            Mrs J Habib, Treasurer (Chiltern Society)

             

Mr J Mercer, Bexley Civic Society

Mr C Hancock, CPRE London

Mrs G Oliver, East Barnet Parish Residents Asscoiation

Mr P Barker, East Coulsdon Rsidents Association

Mr S Smith, Enfield Preservation Society

Mr A Walker, Epping Society

Mr H Bitten, Friends of Epping Forest & CPREssex

Mr P Stone, Harefield Residents Association

 

Mrs A Swinson, Hatch End Association

Mrs H Stainer, Hedgerley Parish Council

Mr P Ward-Lee, Old Coulsdon Residents Association

Mr C Beney, Open Spaces Society

Mr M Maurice, Pinner Society

Mr P Rogers, Sevenoaks Society

Mr J Archer, Youth Hostels Association (South Region)

 

Apologies for Absence    Mrs T Villiers (President), Mr T Simpson (Chairman), Mr L Holt (Secretary), Mr R Liffen (Assistant Secretary), Brindles Wood Residents Association,  Carshalton-on-the-Hill Residents Association, Mill Hill Preservation Society, Mill Hill Residents Association, South Ruislip Residents Association and Stanmore Society.

 

In the Chairman’s absence, the Vice-Chairman took the chair.

 

 

Matters arising from previous minutes

 

371(2)  LGBC Website   Mr Beney was pleased to note that there are now many more of member’s websites referred to in the list on the LGBC website.

 

372(4)  Bentley Priory   Mrs Swinson said that a draft planning document setting out the future use of the Bentley site had been published by Harrow Borough Council.  The proposal is to use at least part of the house for an exhibition but other uses for the site will be needed to make the proposal viable.  This may include a hotel and/or housing, which will raise Green Belt and nature conservations issues.  Overall, Mrs Swinson considered the draft document encouraging.  Comments are sought by the Council by 30 July.

 

388(2)  Fort Halstead  In response to a question by the Vice-President, Mr Rogers said that he understood that the Fort Halstead site was now owned by an American company which wanted to develop it for housing but the company was keeping its cards close to its chest.  The site lies on the brow of the North Downs and development has the potential to be very unsightly.

 

388(3)  Gaynes Park  Mr Bitten said that he had been misinformed.  Epping Forest District Council have not given permission for the development referred to in this minute.

 

Item 389 Treasurer’s Report

 

The Treasurer reported that 103 members have paid up for the year. The net cost of the reception after taking account of members’ contributions was £642.  The balance in the LGBC bank account stands at  £7267.  The Treasurer added that Nationwide were being difficult about changing the signatories for the account having just returned the forms for signature a third time.

 

 

Item 390 White Paper on changes to the Planning System

 

The Vice-President said that LGBC could have reason to be pleased with the White Paper.  While it is always possible to imagine loopholes in the wording, the parts of the paper dealing with the Green Belt are firmer than we might have feared.  No-one has taken up Kate Barker’s assertion that the Green Belt might last another 10 years or so.  The Government show little sign of falling for the developers’ arguments and a measure of this is the RTPI’s response that the Government is ‘going soft’ on the Green Belt fight.  Mrs Oliver was concerned that although ostensibly the Government supported Green Belt, other policies were being strengthened to the extent that PPG2 was becoming an irrelevance. The Vice-Chairman said that LGBC would have to keep the effects of policy under review and be ready to pounce on breaches of green Belt policy.

 

Mr Hancock was concerned that most local government planners are members of the RTPI and therefore might have a conflict of loyalties.  The Vice-President said that there was a range of views among RTPI members; Richard Bate, for example is a member and he is firmly in support of the Green Belt. He added that he had been to a meeting in Ascot which was largely made up of local authority planners and they had been overwhelmingly on the side of the Green Belt.  The Treasurer suggested that LGBC should encourage planners who were on our side to challenge the RTPI line.  She also wondered whether LGBC could challenge the RTPI on climate change grounds, arguing against developing on green sites because of water shortages, for example.  The Vice-President, however, felt that this was not a specifically Green Belt point.

 

Mr Bitten agreed that the White Paper was generally encouraging but, nevertheless, the East of England Plan contains many weasel words.

 

Mrs Oliver asked whether RTPI were correct when they referred in their criticism of the White Paper to the Green Belt being ‘up to 30 miles wide’.  PPG2 directs that where possible Green Belts should be several miles wide.  The Vice-President thought that 20 to 25 miles was a normal figure for the London Green Belt.

 

Mr Maurice was concerned that the response of the CPRE to the White Paper was unduly alarmist.  The Vice-president was inclined to agree, though he did point out that other organisations looked at the issue from a different, and in some ways broader perspective than did LGBC.

 

There was some discussion on whether the transfer of planning powers to the Regional Assemblies was a good thing from a Green Belt point of view or not.  The Vice-President said that LGBC had criticised it in the past and generally members seemed to think this was right.  The Vice-chairman pointed out that it was difficult to criticise the regional assemblies on the ground that they were not elected when they were composed mainly of representatives of elected local authorities.  In the East of England RA, for example, there is at least one member from each of the local authorities in the area.

Comments on the White Paper are required by the Department of Communities and Local Government by 17 August. Either by E-mail  to planningreformconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk or by post to: Planning Reform Team,  Communities and Local Government, Zone 3/J2. Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU

Item 391   Officers’ reports on new business since the last meeting

 

1.         The Secretary reported in writing that he had objected to six different planning applications for residential development for travellers in the Green Belt. These were at:

            (a)        Wickford Farm, Pinstone Way, Tatling End, Gerrards Cross

            (b)        Mead Green, Layhams Road, Keston

(c)        Eagles Farm, Crowhurst Lane, West Kingsdown

            (d)        Green Court Road/ Godsel Road, Swanley

            (e)        Park Lane, Swanley, and

            (f)         Hazeldene Farm, Old Lane, Ightam

He had also submitted comments on three other applications, namely

            (g)        Range Rover driving circuit at Green Court Road/ Godsel Road, Swanley

            (h)        Residential care home extension at The Lodge, Lodge Lane, Collier Row, Romford, and

            (i)         Polytunnels, warehouse and packhouse at Egerton Nurseries, Hextable, Swanley

.

 

Item 392  Other matters raised by members

 

1.         Mr Mercer reported that Pro Logis had sought permission for a Road/Rail interchange near the rail depot at Slade Green, much of it on Green Belt.  The application has gone to appeal and is being opposed by Bexley and Dartford Councils.  A member of the Bexley Civic Society who has attended the inquiry is pessimistic and thinks that the appeal will be allowed.  He said that the Secretary was aware of the application.

 

2.         Mr Walker said he had attended meeting of the North East London Green Arc.  He considered that there was a significant overlap of interest between that organisation and the LGBC and suggested that a representative of the Green Arc could be invited to attend a meeting of the LGBC.  The Vice-Chairman added that it might be appropriate for the Green Arcs to be members of LGBC and said he would follow it up.

 

3.         In conclusion, Mr Hancock said it would be the last meeting he would attend on behalf of London CPRE.  He thanked LGBC, and the Vice-President in particular, for the enlightenment he had received over the years.  The Vice-Chairman expressed the meeting’s regret and wished Mr Hancock well for the future.

 

THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING   The next meeting, which will be the AGM, will be on Wednesday 24th October.     6th February was earmarked for the following meeting.