THE LONDON GREEN BELT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Meeting held in the Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, Westminster, on 2 July 2002.

Present

Mr J Wilkinson MP, President

Mr R W Smith Vice-Chairman, (Potters Bar Society) Mr L G Holt Secretary (Chislehurst Society)

Mr S R Smith, Treasurer (Enfield Preservation Society)

Miss B Webb, Assistant Secretary (Rochford Hundred Amenities Soc and CPRE Essex)

Mr M Hencke, Assistant Secretary (Old Coulsdon Residents Association)

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

Representatives from The Barnet Society, Battlesbridge Protection Group, Brindles Wood Residents Association, Chislehurst Society, CPRE London, CPRE National Office, Croydon Society, East Coulsdon Residents Association, Havering Residents Association, Harefield Tenants and Residents Association, Ickenham Residents Association, Leighton Buzzard Society, London Society, Mill Hill Preservation Society, North Uxbridge Residents Association, Open spaces Society, Otford Parish Council, Ottershaw Society, Pembury Society, Potters Bar Society, Radlett society, St Albans Community Forest Association, Stanmore Society, Sevenoaks society, South Ruislip Residents Association, Youth Hostels Association (South region)

Apologies for absence Bexley Civic Soc., Carshalton-on-the-Hill Residents Assoc., Friern Barnet & Whetstone RA, Hatch End Soc., Mill Hill Residents Assoc. and North Mymms District Green Belt Society.

Matters arising from previous minutes

200(4) Cane Hill Hospital Croydon The Vice Chairman observed that this topic had been more or less continuously on the Agenda for 16 years and wondered whether it needed to stay there. Mr Hancock said it was currently in abeyance but might well return in the future. There were three dangers stemming from unfortunate decisions of the local planning authority. These were:

(a) the allocation of 8 acres of Green Belt for a proposed secure unit which had now dropped though a further application might be forthcoming;

(h) the invasion (on paper at least) of 6 acres of Green Belt for an extension of the built up area of the hospital proper,

(c) the inclusion of the whole of the 200 acre hospital grounds as a Major Developed Site instead of just the built part.

293(1)(c) Central Railway Mr Babler reported that in April 2002, Ministers said that they needed more information before they could approve the Central Railway bid for a hybrid bill to promote its scheme and that the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) had been asked to report again in September. Also in April the SRA published last year's report by their consultants The text is available in the internet at http://nc-2004.web.dircon.net/sra/publications/other/2002-04-23. It is already out of date and inadequate in various ways. The National Central Rail Action Group was not consulted in the preparation of the report but they have sent a detailed commentary on it to the SRA as well as a series of detailed criticisms on Central Railways published data.

 On 11 June 2002, Reigate MP, Crispin Blunt secured an Adjournment debate on Central Railways(CR). 15 members look part; 11 spoke against the proposals and only two (Kelvin Hopkins and David Tredinnick) in favour. Speakers against argued, amongst other things, that CR's market and revenue forecasts are unrealistic, there will be insufficient Channel Tunnel capacity to support CR's plans and that their trains would not pass through existing tunnels and would conflict with Chiltern Line stations and operations. The Minister (David Jamieson) spoke neutrally but appeared to hope that Chiltern Railways would succeed. He said that if the Government approved the scheme the Bill would have the usual Government support (presumably including whipping). The Hansard report is available on the Internet at

www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cmO2O611/halltext/2061h01.Htm. The President added that Kelvin Hopkins had raised the CR issue in Transport Questions earlier in the day. The Minister (Alistair Darling) stuck to a non-committal line but was not as dismissive of the scheme as he might have been.

Mrs Lane said she understood that CR were negotiating with Thames Water to be able to take their route via Wraysbury Reservoir. Mr Babler mentioned that Crispin Blunt MP has two press releases about CR on his web site: www. crispinbluntmp.com and invited members opposed to CR to write to Mr Richard Bowker, Chairman, Strategic Rail Authority, 55 Victoria Street London SW IH 0EU and/or Mr John Spellar MP, Minister for Transport DfT, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SWI E 5DU.

329(2) Registering a domain name for the LGBC The Vice Chairman said that the name www.londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk had been registered for LGBC, which would cost £10 for two years. Over the last two years, Mr Horrocks has been putting some LGBC information on the North Mymms District Belt Society website and it is to this that the LGBC domain name points.

330(1) RTPI's Anti-Green Belt Campaign The Vice-Chairman said that the RTPI and the TCPA have taken the opportunity of the Planning green papers to call for a review of Green Belt Policy, a summary of their arguments being in 'Notes'No.130. Since then the Vice-Chairman had received a full version of the RTPI paper 'Modernising Green Belts' asking for comments by the end of August 2002. He said that the paper sounds slightly less confident than its summary suggested. It says 'An important step towards a new consensus would be an agreement that green belt policy, as it has existed for almost 50 years, is in need of modernisation to bring it into line with the remainder of the planning policy agenda. If that stage can be reached........'. In a television interview on 8 May, Lord Falconer said that the Government were not going to alter Green Belt Policy and the Secretary has ascertained from ODPM, following the departmental reorganisation, that the line put forward by Lord Falconer remains the Government policy.

The Vice-Chairman said he would comment on the RTPI paper, rejecting their argument that Green Belts are 'inherently unsustainable' because they lead to new development leapfrogging Green Belt and to lengthening journeys. The right solution, if development has to go beyond the Green Belt, is for housing to go too. [See also minute 334(1)(b) below]

332 Break up of the DETR The Vice-Chairman reported that the Select Committee on DEFRA was looking into how the department had fared since the DETR had been split up and DEFRA was created from bits of it plus the former MAFF. He said that after several fruitless attempts to contact the Committee Secretariat, he had put in a four page submission for LGBC. 'The main points were

(a) the Green Belt is both an urban and rural protection tool

(b) the principle that landscape quality is not a consideration in Green Belt Policy should remain

(c) splitting planning from rural policy was unwise but if it cannot be reversed liaison between DEFRA and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) on planning and rural issues must be close - not only on major policy matters with rural implications but also on things like planning appeals.

(d) LGBC would like the Select Committee to consider on what scale consultation with DEFRA takes place, on what principles it is based and whether they are the right ones.

The Vice-Chairman said that while we must maintain the principle in (b), we do not want ODPM to look at Green Belt appeals too exclusively through urban eyes. In reply to a question by Mr Wells he added that LGBC has a good number of rural members who regard Green Belt as a protection for them as much as it is for towns.

335(3) The London Plan. The Vice-Chairman said he had just received a copy of the draft London Plan, which comprised 400 pages. Comments are sought by the 30 September. The Secretary added that the draft was the outcome of consultation on the earlier paper 'Towards a London Plan'. It costs £10 but a 12-15 page summary is available free. He considered the most alarming thing about the plan was the assumptions on population growth. There could be anything between 0.7 million and 1.15 million extra people in London above the present 7.5 million population by 2016. The draft recognises that the estimates are rather mechanical projections but cautious that most estimates of London's population growth in recent years have been underestimates. Mr Myers said that the figures were even worse when translated into housing requirements and noted that in addition to developer, organisations such as Greenpeace were putting pressure on the Green Belt.

Mrs Stainton however, pointed out that Shelter have given evidence that they do not think it is necessary to take Green Belt to satisfy London's needs. The President observed that the Mayor had emphasised the need for more social housing for London.

The Vice-Chairman said that 'Towards a London Plan' had dealt insufficiently with the Green Belt but from a quick look the new paper did not appear to contain any problems for the Green Belt. The Secretary said that the Mayor seems firm on Green Belt; he had come to its aid in some specific cases in Bromley.

337(2Xd) Palms Hotel. Hornchurch The Secretary reported that the application for a leisure complex at Palms Hotel on the Southend Arterial Road had bean refused and he had submitted comments on a revised application which had been lodged.

340 DTLR [now the ODPM] Green papers on changes to the planning system The Vice-Chairman reported that LGBC had responded to the Green Papers, the text of the responses being in 'Notes' No. 129. He had sent a slightly shorter version to the select committee on DTLR and the President had sent a copy to Stephen Byers which was acknowledged by Sally Keeble. There have been many and varied comments in the press. Mr Hancock congratulated the Vice-Chairman on the excellent responses he had prepared on behalf of LGBC.

341(1) Slough Draft Local Plan The Vice-Chairman said that the Inspector's report had been a muddle. The Inspector had said that a piece of land, which the Council proposed to keep as Green Belt should remain as Green Belt but should be considered for residential development. Slough Council therefore proposed a post-inquiry amendment to remove the site from the Green Belt. As there have been 800 objections to the amendment, a new inquiry under a different inspector has been arranged for 1 October to cover that site only. LGBC put in an objection but it was out of time and not accepted. However, the local residents group has it and will he able to make use of it at the inquiry.

341(3) Barnet Football Stadium The Vice-Chairman said the position was confused. Originally Barnet FC wanted a Iarger stadium that would be suitable for first division football. Although they had been relegated and were now further away from the first division, they still wanted to build the larger stadium taking Green Belt which is currently used by a cricket club and by locals for recreation. The Council had been minded to allow the application and notified the SoS as it was a departure from the local plan. LGBC wrote to the SoS asking him to call the application in but, before he made a decision, the May local elections changed the complexion of the Council and they no longer want to allow it. Mr Lee said that it appeared that before the election the Council was negotiating to sell the freehold of the site to the current lessee. Whether it had actually been sold was unclear. Miss Dewing noted that in the draft revised UDP, it was proposed to remove the land from the Green Belt but it was Mr Lee's understanding from speaking to the planning department that the new Council did not agree with this and would remove the proposal from the deposit version.

341(4)(h) Residential development at Swaylands School Penshurst The Secretary reported that the application had been refused and he had now objected to a revised application which had been lodged in its place.

Item 343 Treasurer's Report

The Treasurer reported that subscriptions had been coming in steadily. Only 5 remained unpaid and final reminders will go out later in July. He said that before paying some expenses to Officers at the meeting, the funds stood at £7119.

Item 344 Officers' reports on new business

1 The Vice-Chairman reported that

(a) he had sent an objection to a massive extension of Shenley Cricket Centre which is in Green Belt and in a Conservation Area

(b) he had received a paper from the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) entitled 'A Living Working Green Belt'. It was generally a much more acceptable document than the RTPI's, though he could not accept the CLA's suggestion that affordable housing should be an appropriate use in the Green Belt, or their wider proposal that the list of 'appropriate' developments in the Green Belt should be dropped and control in Green Belt exercised mainly by PPG7.

2. The Secretary reported that he had:

(a) objected to a crematorium and cemetery at Flamingo Park Club, Chislehurst

(h) commented on touring caravans and tents at Woods Caravan Site, Botsom Lane, West Kingsdown

(c) objected on appeal to 2 sites for a secondary school and housing along the A21 in Bromley. He had corresponded generally with Bromley Council about the effects on the Borough of the 'Greenwich judgement' which gives children the right to choose a school in a different borough from where they live

(d) objected to an application for 280 houses on the Aquila (ex-MoD) site in Golf Road, Bickley. In Bromley's revised UDP the site has in turn been recommended by officers for removal from the Green Belt maintained in Green Belt by Councillors and designated as a major developed site. LGBC has suggested the site could solve the need for a school referred to in (c) above

(e) objected to proposals to expand the 'War Memorial Junction' on Chislehurst Common, taking Green Belt (this is a repeat of previous attempts in the early 1990s)

(f) objected on appeal to expansion of the Darul Uloom Boys Secondary School, Foxbury Avenue, Chislehurst

3. Mr Hencke said he had objected to a large nursing home complex at Farthing Down, south of Coulsdon, party on the grounds of the views from the Green Belt. The Council also relied on this point in refusing the application-

4 Miss Webb said that she:

(a) had objected to 29 houses in green Belt grounds of a house not itself in Green Belt. The application had been withdrawn

(b) would object to an application for a DIY warehouse on a site adjacent to Garrons Park, Southend, which is in Green Belt.

Item 345 Other matters arising by members

Mr Belsman drew attention to a farm in Green Belt in the Borough of Harrow. The Council owns the freehold and the lease has been acquired from the farmer by a developer. The farmer had permission to dump topsoil on the land but it appeared that building waste had also been dumped. The developers had had discussions with the planners and been told that any application would need to have a contamination Survey and a drainage survey because of the risk of a possible landslip. There has so far been no consultation with environmental or ecological interests. The site is currently used as a County Park and is adjacent to a Health Club owned by the same lessee. The UDP shows an intent to de-list the farm from nature conservation. Mr Belsman said LGBC action may well be needed when a formal application is made.

Mrs Lane said that Surrey was proposing to meet its targets for new residential building by three new settlements one of which near Woking is in Green Belt. She was not sure whether the other two, respectively north and south of Guildford, were in Green Belt or not. Mr Hencke will look into the proposals. Mrs Stainton said that Surrey University also has plans to extend into Green Belt.

Mrs Rogers asked whether LGBC was going to comment on the White Paper on Regional Government. The Vice-Chairman was not aware of the paper but will look into it.

Mr Hull said there were proposals for a rail freight terminal at the old Radlett airfield. He added that it was not designated as a major developed site and the Vice-Chairman said the Government had been firm that Councils should not treat sites as major developed sites unless identified as such in the approved local plan. The Vice-Chairman noted that the deposit draft of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan had identified the whole of Whipsnade Zoo as a major developed site but, in response to an LGBC objection, the Council had confined it only referred to the built up part; the Inspector had strongly approved of the change. Mr Hull said that at Radlett the buildings had been cut off from the rest of the site by the M25 and as the part in question had been used for mineral excavation most of the runways had disappeared. Mr Lee mentioned that the Hadley Wood road/rail interchange was slumbering but might wake up at any time.

Mr Lee said that the Green Belt Land on which Barnet stadium stands is more like a green appendix extending into the built up area. There is also a green area along the A1000 which the Barnet Society would like to connect with it to provide a green walk right up to the edge of town. The Secretary suggested that designation as Metropolitan Open Land or Urban Open Space might be appropriate.

Miss Dewing reported that about a year ago Barnet Council started a consultation on ways of 'improving' Copthall Open Space which is in Green Belt. The result was that everyone wanted the Green Belt protected and them is now a strong, organised group ready to fight any proposals.

Mr Oke said that since his new Council was applying a rule that any councillor who had contact with an amenity organisation about an application was deemed to have an interest and could not take put in the debate. Miss Lane said that in Runnymede there was a rule that if you lived in a ward you could not take part in debate on applications relating to that ward. It was agreed that the rules were not being interpreted correctly and the Secretary suggested that members with problems should take them up with the ODPM, possibly through their MP. Mr Myers cautioned that this should be done carefully as the rules wear intended to prevent councillors being swayed by lavish entertaining by developers - something members would support

THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING will be the Annual General Meeting towards the end of October. The time and Place will be notified in due course.