THE LONDON GREEN BELT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Meeting held in the Abbey Community Centre, Westminster on 9 August 2000.

Present - Mr R W G Smith, Chairman (Potters Bar Society) Mr L G Holt, Secretary (Chislehurst Society), Mr S R Smith, Treasurer (Enfield Preservation Society) Miss G Oliver, Assistant Secretary (East Barnet Parish RA) Mr M Hencke, Assistant Secretary (Old Coulsdon RA) . Representatives of Bexley Civic Society, Carshalton-on-the-Hill RA, Chislehurst Society, CPRE National Office, CPRE Surrey, Denham Parish Council, East Coulsdon Residents Association, Friends of Epping Forest, Friern Barnet & Whetstone RA, Gerrards Cross Parish Council, Leighton Buzzard Preservation Society, Mill Hill Preservation Society, Mill Hill Residents Asso ciation, Oak Farm Residents Association, Otford Parish Council, Pinner Association, Potters Bar Soc., Roding Residents Association, Sevenoaks Society, Youth Hostels Association

Apologies for absence Mr J Wilkinson (President), Miss Webb (Assistant Secretary), Brindles Wood RA, Cyclists' Touring Club, Harefield RA, lckenham RA, Ottershaw Society, St Lawrence Cowley RA, Stanmore Society, Sane Planning in the South East

Matters arising from previous minutes

Cane Hill Hospital, Croydon- Mr Hencke said that it would n ow be September at least before the Council considered the application. The Secretary recalled the letter he had received from DETR indicating that it was perfectly proper to draw the boundary of a major developed site tightly round the built part; it did not have to include open land associated with it.

Belmont Riding School Miss Dewing reported that the latest proposal was to build 5 houses on the corner of the site where the stables were. This is both Green Belt and in a conservation area. The local pl anning officer has suggested that it might be a good idea to allow the application subject to a Section 106 agreement which would prevent any further applications in respect of the site. Miss Dewing's society had rejected that idea. The Chairman agreed th at it was a bad idea; inappropriate development should not be allowed at all. Mr Waiter added that the applicants were arguing that the houses would have a smaller footprint than the stables they replaced. The Secretary observed that this was only a relev ant consideration on a major developed site and in any case the houses would be higher than the stables and would therefore detract more from the openness of the Green Belt.

Claybury Hospital -The Secretary reported that he had written objecting to the latest proposal for this site which was for three 5-storey blocks of 27 apartments. As the original hospital building were only single storey, the proposal would significantly detract from the op enness of the area.

Local Government Reform in London The Chairman drew attention to two documents:

(i) The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 [51 2000 No. 14931 which was made on 5 June 2000 and came into force on 5 July. This formally confers on the Mayor his powers in the planning field. (ii) Government Office for the South East Circular No. 112000. This deals with strategic planning in London, setting out the respective roles of the Mayor, the London Boroughs and the Secretary of State. It explains the Spatial Development Strategy for London, which replaces existing strategic guidance in RPG9. It covers about 40 topics, including housing, the built environment, the open environment, waste, transport, town centres, cultural and community facilities, the River Thames, road hierarchy and the Mayor's role in matters outside his area. While it does not raise any Green Belt concerns, the Chairman considered that London members of LGBC would want to have a copy. It costs £13.50.

Park and Ride Scheme at Hadley - Mr Phipps mentioned that this scheme is still being referred to in literature available on GNER trains, but members were not aware of any recent developments. Mr Phipps added that he had written to the local paper objecting to the scheme on the grounds that it would increase journey times.

SERPLAN: Regional Planning Guidance for the South East - The Chairman reported that he had not had the meeting with Ministers to object to Prof. Crow's statement about the Green Belt and intrinsic quality envisaged at the last LGBC meeting. It had not be en possible to fit it in before he went away on holiday in June and since then matters had moved on. The Crow report had been thoroughly discredited by the House of Commons Select Committee and the Government had produced their own revised draft of RPG9, which had been rejected by SERPLAN. It is not clear whether the Secretary of State will step in and impose his version, but to do so would go against his expressed intention to give 'ownership' of regional planning to local people.

Central Railway and London International Freight Interchange (LIFE) - Mr Turner said that the line 302(1) of the Central railway proposal was now available and agreed to let the Secretary have the appropriate contact from whom to obtain a copy. Mrs Temple added that Central Railways were still looking for a site for a west London interchange. They had their eyes on three sites, one at Iver, the LIFE site and another to the south of that site, but everything was still quite vague.

Brands Hatch Motor Racing Circuit - The Secretary reported that he had been in correspondence with the

Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan Copies of recent correspondence with CPRE and CPRE -Essex were circulated (copies enclosed for members not represented at the meeting) and the Chairman invited comments. Ms Stainton explained that at the last meeting she had not said that there was a diff erence between the policy of CPRE-Essex and CPRE nationally as she was not fully appraised of the Essex position In fact there is no conflict. The CPRE-Essex response to the EIP panel was not intended to suggest that Green Belt boundaries in Essex should be altered. They accepted that Green Belt boundaries could be altered in accordance with PPG2 and were seeking to ensure that such alterations took place only to make the boundaries more defensible and not in order to respond to pressure for more housing. Mr Turner said that there had been some cases in Surrey where the Secretary of State had allowed substantial developments in the Green Belt; it was necessary to take such areas out of the Green Belt. Mr Backhouse agreed. The Chairman observed that Councils would do that anyway. Mr Turner also wanted to avoid being too circumscribed in arguing for extensions to the Green Belt.

Several members considered it unwise to present policy in this way. P Smith said it would be better to object to the alteration of Green Belt boundaries in principle but acknowledge that for exceptional reasons it does sometimes have to happen. Mr Bitten thought it better not to say it at all. He was of the view that some members of CPRE-Essex from the north and east of the county we re unhappy that their areas were being forced to accommodate substantial development while the Green Belt remained sacrosanct. The Chairman understood that Miss Webb would concur with that view.

It was agreed that the Chairman should write again and perhaps have a meeting with CPRE National Office to press LGBC, concerns about the way policy on Green Belt boundar ies is presented. The subject should be discussed again at the next LGBC meeting.

Hillingdon Sports Facilities - Mr Crow said that the plans for Hillingdon House Farm involved only a small grandstand , no larger than the existing facilities. The local society had therefore decided not to object.

Harefield Hospital The Chairman said that the NHS want to close the hospital and combine it in a new hospital in Paddington. Mr Crow said that the campaign to save the hospital was continuing.

Chelmsford Local Plan The Chairman had written criticising the plan on similar grounds to the Essex/Southend plan and mentioning Prof. Crow's evidence to the Select Committee, Chelmsford 's reversion to a predict and provide approach and the fact that DETR's draft of RPG9 does not require a review of inner Green Belt. He understood that Chelmsford are no longer proposing Margaretting for development.

Item 324 - Best Value Indicators for Planning

The Chairman drew attention to this document which he had referred to in Issue 120 of 'Notes' No action by LGBC was needed.

Item 325 - DETR consulation paper on the demolition of sports facilities

The Chairman explained that this paper was the upshot of events at Thames Ditton Tennis Club which started in 1990. The landlord had refused the club a new lease on the tennis courts and when they applied to the County Court for renewal he said that he intended to demolish the courts and redevelop. The Secretary of State refused permission for housing on the site because of the loss of recreational open space. The landlord said he would demolish anyway as this did not require planning permission.

While the County Court agree with this, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that digging up the tennis courts was an engineer ing operation which amounted to 'development' for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning legislation (though demolishing ancillary buildings would not). Other complicated consequences are dealt with in the paper. For example, Outside conservation a reas planning permission is not required for the demolition of buildings such as sports facilities unless they are attached to a dwelling whereas within a conservation area planning control applies only to the demolition of the whole or part of a gate, fence, wall or other mans of enclosure but not for the demolition of sports buildings as such. There is no speacial Green Belt slant which would require LGBC action, but if members want a copies of the paper, they may be had from DETR Free Literature at Wetherby (Telephone 0870 1226 236)

Item 326 - Treasurer's Report

The Treasurer said that 10 final reminders had been sent out and 6 subscriptions remained unpaid. They were Barnet Residents Association, Binfield Village Resid ents Association, the Cyclists' Touring Club, Hersham Village Society, the Northern Parishes Action Group and the Surrey Ramblers. If these subscriptions are not paid, the Annual General Meeting will be invited to remove the organisations from the list of members. The Treasurer added that the bank balance stood at £5,900.

Item 327 - Officers' reports on new business since the last meeting.

1. The Secretary reported that:

(a) An appeal against refusal of permission for residential development at Hockenden Lane, Swanley had been dismissed in the course of which the inspector had said some useful things about PPG3 not overriding PPG2. LGBC had objected also a new application following the dismissed appeal.

(b) An application for a racecourse at Fairlop Waters, Redbridge had been refused and gone to appeal.

(c) He had commented on consultation paper on MPGI 1 dealing with minerals extraction in England.

(d) He had objected to proposals for showmen's winter quarters, vehicle storage and various changes of use at Holwood House, Keston.

In addition he had written in support of local objection to:

(e) Animal centre, at Highway Farm Hamill Road, Harefield. Mr Crow added that when objecting to this for his Association he had tried unsuccessfully to interest the Local Govern ment Office but they only seem to be interested in big schemes or those which have generated a big outcry.

(f) Crematorium and Cemetery at Oaks Farm Croydon Lane, Woodmansterne

(g) Residential development at Roding Lane South, Redbridge

2 Mr Hencke reported writing objecting to an energy waste plant in Green Belt near Redhill, asking whether a case for the existence of very special circumst ances had been made. Surrey County Council said there was a heavy onus on the applicants; they had to show there was no alternative. So far this onus had not been discharged.

3 Mrs Oliver drew attention to a large area of garden centres and other retail activities at Crew's Hill Enfield. Some time ago, an inspector took this land out its designation as Green Belt and Heritage Land so that these activities could continue. She understood that the leases under which these businesses operated, would not be renewed. It would therefore be necessary to monitor proposals for the future of the site carefully.

Item 328 - Other matters raised by members

1. Mrs M Smith described an instance in Potters Bar where Green Belt was in danger of being lost by mistake. The mistake had occurred in the transfusing the defined Grew Belt from one mapping system to another. A boundary of the Green Belt which should have been drawn along the bottom of a row of gardens was pushed some distance back. The alteration only came to light when a developer applied for permission to build on the land no longer included in the Green Belt. When the change was pointed out to the Council they acknowledged that it was a mistake but said that it could not be corrected because it was in the deposit version of the plan, nobody had objected and the inspector had signed it. (The inspector had not been told about the change.)

The officers also sought to rely on paragraph 2.7 of PPG2 which says that boundaries should only be altered when there are exceptional circumstances and on paragraph 2.9 which says that Green Belt boundaries should, whenever practical, use readily recognisable features. However, the latter paragraph applies when Green Belt is first being defined, it is not relevant to the correction of errors in transcription. Efforts to buy off the residents with compensation failed and the Council officers were forced to put the matter before the Environment Committee (together with three other smaller errors). The Committee agreed to rectify the main error which had bought the problem to light but said nothing about the other errors. The Potters Bar Society had taken the matter up with the Regional Office and were considering involving the Local Government Ombudsman.

2. Mr Crow reported that there were moves to build a cycle track on the Minet site on the Hayes which runs from the A40 to Heathrow Airport. Also two stadia are proposed for the Harlington and Hayes football clubs. The scheme has the general support of the local MP, John Mc Donnell, though he does think there should be only one stadium The local wildlife organisation was concerned about the effect on land near the Grand Union Canal, amounting to about one fifth of the site.

THE NEXT MEETING -will be the Annual General Meeting. It is hoped that this will take place in the Palace of Westminster - probably towards the end of November. Details will be announced as soon as they can be finalised