Minutes of the Meeting held on 16 May 2000. (slightly edited)
Represented organisations:
Potters Bar Society,Enfield Preservation Society, East Barnet Parish RA, Old Coulsdon RA,Rochford Hundred Amenities Society, Bexley Civic Society, Mill Hill Residents Association Brindley Wood RA, Open Spaces Society, Carshalton-on-the,-Hill RA, Otford Parish Council,Chiltern Society, Pembury Society, Claygate Village RA, Pinner Association,CPRE National Office, Cyclists' Touring Club, Denham Parish Council, St Albans Community Forest Association, East Coulsdon Residents Association, Sevenoaks Society, Evergreen Elmbridge, South Ruislip Residents Association, Friem Barnet & Whetstone RA, Stanmore Society, Gerrards Cross Parish Council, Stoke Poges Parish Council, Leighton Buzzard Preservation Society, Youth Hostels Association (South Region) Mill Hill Preservation Societ, Rettenden Parish Council,
Apologies for absence:- Chislehurst Society, Croydon Society, Elstree and Borchamwood Society, Havering Residents Association, Ottershaw Society and Sane Planning in the South East
Matters arising from the previous minutes:
Cane Hill Hospital,Croydon- 2500-3000 people had joined the march organised by local parents protesting at the relocation and enlargement of the medium secure unit. It is rumoured that the planning application will be considered by the Council in July. Vandals had set to part of the hospital building causing extensive damage. Speeding up Delivery of Development Plans. The Secretary had received a confusing reply from DETR on the meaning to be given to the expression "base date" of a plan. It seems that it can be different in different situations but is probably irrelevant to the review of Green Belt boundaries as there's to be nothing to stop planning authorities reviewing thern in any plan review if they consider that there is a good reason to do so. Local Government Reform in London The Chairman reported that the only one of the five main candidates for London Mayor who had replied to his letter asking for their position on the Green Belt was Darren Johnson, who was positive. As Mr Johnson had now been appointed to lead the environment part of the Mayor's administration, it was agreed that it would be appropriate to send him copies of LGBC papers. A membert wondered why the other candidates had not responded. The Chairman presumed that Green Belt was not as controversial an issue as some others like transport and the President added that they were more concerned about media opportunities, particularly television.
Major Develpped Sites This time the Secretary had received a clear answer from DETR. When an institution such as a school or hospital (or especially an airfield) is being designated as a major site, it is perfectly proper to draw the boundary of the major developed site closely around the built up parts leaving any large open areas as normal Green Belt.
SERPLAN: Regional Planning Guidance for the South East The Chairman referred to the Government response to the Crow report. The part on housing projections was difficult to compare as it took a different time frame, but appeared to lie somewhere between the figures proposed by SERPLAN and those proposed by the Crow report. SERPLAN is still considering how the required housing should be divided among local authorities. More encouraging is the statement in the Govermnent's response that there is no regional case for using Green Belt land to satisfy the need for housing - for which credit must go to the House of Commons Select Committee for obtaining this admission from Prof. Crow. The response does, however, accept that there may be local exceptional circumstances which justify a review of Green Belt boundaries but such reviews must take place in accordance with PPG2.
Members will need to stress to planning authorities preparing plans that this is exceptional and the Regional PIanning Guidance does not require a review of boundaries. The response gives priority to preserving countryside with intrinsic nature conservation or landscape quality designations. LGBC needs to try to ensure that this is not used to devalue the importance of other p arts of the Green Belt and, to this end, it was agreed that a meeting with Ministers should be sought. A member was concerned about the emphasis on planning development where there was existing public transport. He considered that this would put pressure on certain parts of the Green Belt, such as the area south of St Albans.
Central Railways A member said that recently Central Railway had not had a high profile but they had certainly not gone away. Consultants acting on behalf of a member society had had discussions with Surrey County Council, Bucks County Council and South Bucks District Council about a new route round the south west of London, running just inside the M25. It would go through some of the finest parts of Bucks and Surrey. Surrey County C ouncil are anxious to avoid any suggestion that they support the proposals, which include various alternatives, in order to avoid unnecessary blight. In response to questions, it was explained that the newly proposed route would depart from the previously proposed route around Gerrards Cross. From there, the original route would have gone partly underground through central London. Little, if any, change was proposed for the part of the route through Kent.
A member observed that Ken Livingstone had expressed support for a London orbital railway but that would be a different proposition - a passenger link of use to Londoners. Mr Livingstone voted against the previous Central Railway proposal and was unlikely to support it in the future. Central Railways are s till some way from applying for their scheme under the Transport and Works Act - an application was unlikely before the end of the year.
Golf courses at Edgwarebury.It was reported that the application for two golf courses at Edgwarebury had been withdrawn.
Revision of PPO 3 - Housing The Chairman said that the new version was now definitive and would not be changed. Members therefore needed to be in a position to stress the exceptional nature of paragraph 68, which suggests that it may be more sustainable to extend an urban area into Green Belt than to develop a green field site elsewhere. For this purpose, members could rely on a letter he had received from the DETR, which makes it clear that such an option should be pursued 'only once all alternatives have been explored'.
Use by inspectors of the PPG2 criteria for Major Developed Sites on sites which have not been so designed in local plans The Secretary had details of two cases in which inspectors' decisions had been overruled by the Secretary of State for this reason. In one the Secretary of State had rejected the appeal. In the other, the SoS allowed the appeal on the basis of very special circumstances but made it clear that the inspector should not have treated the site as a major developed site.
Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan. The Chairman said he would write again to Essex/Southend, whose draft was produced before the Government response to the Crow report, pointing out that there was now no suggestion that planning authorities 'should review' Green Belt boundaries. He said that he had also written a letter to Essex CPRE objecting strongly to the fact that they had accepted that a review of Green Belt boundaries in the Plan review was necessary. Essex CPRE's position did not reflect national CPRE policy.
Government co-ordination of Green Belt Policy The Chairman said that the Government had not accepted LGBC's contention that the Cabinet Office needed to be involved in Green Belt issues to ensure that different departmental positions, particularly that of the Countryside Agency, did not undermine the Green Belt. The response was, in effect that Green Belt policy is a matter for DETR.
RAF Northolt The President said that RAF Northolt is to remain an RAF station. There may be some in-filling to accommodate RAF facilities from other places around London but RAF Northolt will not become available for redevelopment.
Preparing Regional Sustainable Development Frameworks The Chairman reported that Government had published a paper (whilst not inviting comments) requiring each region to produce sustainable development frameworks by the end of the year. The paper deals in vague generalities and contains nothing of real inter est to LGBC, though it does include a commitment to 60% of housing being on previously developed land and conversions.
Appraisal Frameworks for Airports in SE England The Chairman said that this paper sets out a formula and the factors to be taken account in South E ast's airport provision. Much of it is semi-technical operational matters. It does refer to environmental considerations including the Green Belt. The Secretary had objected to the statement that national policy precludes "significant" development in the Green Belt, pointing out that it is not the significance of a development but rather the appropriateness of the type of development, which determines whether it should be allowed in the Green Belt.
Treasurer's Report The Treasurer said that 42 subscriptions had not yet been paid and that reminders would issue shortly. The bank balance stood at £5,680.
Officers' reports on new business since the last meeting.
The President said that there is a major risk that DoH will close Harefield Hospital and want to sell it for development. A petition against closure had been submitted to the Prime Minister and consultation will continue through the summer and into the early autumn.
The Chairman had attended a meeting about a proposed development at Stoke Park, Stoke Poges, which is currently home to a golf club. They want to add a large conservatory, an open air swimming pool, a gatehouse and a temple. The plans for the pool do not include chang ing facilities, but if were allows these would surely follow. The gatehouse appears to be part of a one way traffic scheme within the Park to cope with the increased number of visitors resulting from the development. The Chairma n said he had written objecting to all of the development apart from the temple which appeared to be on the site of an existing similarly sized building. He considered that this could be a useful test of the unacceptability of inappropriate development in the Green Belt even where it could not be seen from a public place.
The Secretary had taken the following actions:
(a) Objected to a racecourse, hotel and supporting facilities at Fairlop Plain, Forest Road, Hainult
(b) Objected to residential development at Holwood Estate, Westerham Road, Keston.
(c) Supported, on appeal, a decision to refuse residential development at Hockenden Lane, Swanley
(d) Commented on the following draft plans - Redbridge UDP, Dartford local plan, Bromley UDP
(e) Corresponded with Bromley, Sevenoaks and Dartford Councils on Major Developed Sites.
(f) Objected to extended operating hours and expansion at Biggin Hill Airport.
A member reported that the Issues Papers preparatory to the revision of the Chelmsford local plan had virtually scrapped the Green Belt around Battlesbridge and Margaretting leaving only a few green wedges and strategic gaps. They want to be able to build, not a few, but thousands of houses around Battlesbridge. They had given no justifica tion for abandoning Green Belt except to say that they thought their way was a better way to achieve the same objective. It was agreed that the Chairman should write a strong letter to Chelmsford pointing out that their proposal would be contrary to national policy and copy it to the Government Office for the East Region.
A member said that when an application for an inappropriate development on Green Belt had been allowed near Bexley, a council official had been heard to try to justify this on the grounds that the Green Belt is expensive to manage.
The member also reported that an application for housing on a disused brickfield at Cherry Orchard Way, Rochford had been refused. There may be an appeal.
Other matters raised by members
A member said there was a case in the High Court with implications for the Green Belt. There is a possibility that a small unit for disabled people at Orchard Hill will close and the land will be sold for development. Friends of Orchard Hill have gone to court to challenge closure on the grounds that the residents are better off at Orchard Hill than they would be in the Community.
Attention was drawn to the rejection of permission for a communications aerial tower at South Ruislip. A member added that one of the problems with commu nications towers was the difficulty of enforcing mast sharing; companies could easily come with all sorts of technical arguments which Councils were not well equipped to counter. At present masts less than 1 5 metres high do not require planning permission and that the 15 metres must include any plinth on which the mast stands. Attention was drawn to the recent report on mobile telephones by Sir William Stewart's committee which called inter alia for stronger planning controls on mobile telephone masts. If that were implements he foresaw a rush to put up masts with the intention of beating the new rules.
THE NEXT MEETING will be on 9 August 2000