Minutes of meeting held on 9 February 2000 (slightly edited)
Matters arising front previous minutes
Cane Hill Hospital, Croydon -Croydon Council have not yet reached a decision because of objections by the parents group to moving the secure unit. Ri chard Ottaway MP had raised the issue in the Commons adjournment debate on 23 December with a view to persuading the SoS to call the application in.
Speeding up Delivery of Development Plans The Chairman explained that the revised PPG12 resulting from this exercise replaces the consultation draft and deposit draft by two deposit drafts, possibly preceded by discussion papers on specific issues the planning authority wishes to address. It also removes the need for statutory consultation before the first deposit draft. The Chairman doubted that the new procedure would do much to speed up the delivery of plans. The new PPG12 provides that Structure Plans should look 15 years ahead from the base date of the plan - more for Green Belts. It was agreed that LGBC should ask DETR what the 'base date' of a plan is.
Ex-MoD Land at Stanmore There was now a proposal to put up houses on the old MoD site at Stanmore on the grounds that single storey offices erected by the Government had made the site a major developed site. The Chairman of the Stanmore Society had written seeking clarification of the current status of the site. The Chairman observed that the site could only be treated as a major developed site if it was listed as such in the local plan. A member said t hat there are five major developed sites in the UDP and he thought the part of Brockley Hill was one of them.
Regional Development Agencies The Chairman was concerned at the hopelessly idealistic and generalised nature of the Regional Development Plans be ing produced by the agencies. He thought there was a danger that some planners would feel they must facilitate their implementation to the possible detriment of the Green Belt. The President however considered that it was sufficiently clear that the Regio nal Development Plans were not binding on local planning authorities. The Secretary observed that while the South East Regional Development Plan was rather like Prof. Crow's report in tone, it did recognise that Green Belt policies were a constraint withi n which the plan had to operate.
Local Government Reform in london The Chairman circulated a note (copy attached for those members not represented at the meeting) on three drafts on which DETR were inviting comments:
(i) DETR Circular: "Strategic Planning in London'
(ii) London Spatial Development Strategy Regulations 2000
(iii) Mayor of London Order 2000
He drew attention particularly to the multiplicity of ways London was referred to in the draft circular without clear definitions. It was ag reed that LGBC should ask for the terms to be defined. There was also concern that some parts of the documents seemed to give the Mayor power to determine policy in the counties immediately outside London. It was agreed that the counties would not take ki ndly to this and it needed to be made clear that the co-ordination of policy between London and the rest of the South East would be by consultation and agreement. A member considered that the list in the draft circular of bodies which the mayor must consu lt was too limited. He said that the London Forum was seeking to be added to the list and suggested that LGBC should do likewise. At least it should be possible to ask to be advised directly when consultation issues were advertised in the press; otherwise i t was so easy to miss then
Park and Ride Scheme at Hadley Wood, The secretary said that this looked like raising its head once more. She was awaiting some reports from the Hadley Residents Association.
Major Development Sites A member drew attention t o a situation where designation of an area as Green Belt could be disadvantageous. On the site of Cane Hill Hospital, mod of the building is on the northern part of the site adjoining built up London and the southern part is open. As the whole of the site is designated as Green Belt and a Major Developed Site, it is possible for redevelopment to extend into the southern open part, subject to an overall footprint area limitation. Had the northern part of the site been excluded from the Green Belt, there wo uld have been no question of the remainder being a major developed site and redevelopment would have been confined to the northern part.
SERPLAN: Regional Planning Guidance for the South East The Chairman said that he now had a copy of Prof. Crow's evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee and would include extracts in the next edition of 'Notes'. Prof Crow's evidence was much more in favour of the Green Belt than was his report and wo uld be useful to rebut developers' arguments based on the report. The President said that there was a clear impression at Westminster that the Government were trying to distance themselves from the Crow report.
London International Freight Interchange The Chairman reported that a public inquiry would start on 4 April. This would, in fact, be two inquiries combined; one under the Transport and Works Act and one under the Town and Country Planning Act into Slough Council's refusal of planning permission
The Chairman said that LGBC had submitted comments and he did not c onsider it necessary to be represented at the inquiry but asked whether any member which was attending would like to have a letter of authority to speak on LGBC's behalf. A member said someone from lver might want to attend
Major Developed Sites at Sutton A member reported that a new Major Developed Site had now been designated. This would have the effect of extending the boundary of London outwards. He said there was a footprint requirement and there would be no encroachment on to the part of the s ite which was not previously built upon.
Revision of PPG13 (Transport The Chairman reported that he had written opposing the suggestion that, if special circumstances made it essential to locate a Park and Ride site on Green Belt land , the land should be removed from the Green Belt and querying what was meant by applying a 'restoration' condition in the event the site ceased to be used for Park and Ride; restoration to what?
Use of PPG Criteria in RPGs before definitive publication of the PPG The Secretary s aid that in response to his letter about the use of parts of the draft PPGI 1 in the SERPLAN review of RPG9 he had a received a muffled response which seemed to rely on the fact that the revised PPGI 1 was shortly to come out. In the event, the point had been dwarfed by the Crow report and the adverse reaction to it.
Use by inspectors of the PPG2 criteria for Major Developed Sites on sites which have not been so designated in local plans The Secretary reported that he had not yet had a reply but he had su pplied DETR with further examples including one in which the SoS had clearly stated that unless a site has been designated, the criteria cannot be used.
Millennium Park and Ride, Padham Farm, Famingham The Secretary reported that he had written a further letter objecting to this application, which had since been refused.
New items:
Improving Enforcement Appeal ProceduresThe Chairman reported that DETR had published a consultation paper on which views were sought by 18 February. It contained some 30 relatively minor and technical changes to procedures and regulations to clarify information needs timetables &c. It was agreed that there was no need for LGBC to comment.
Officers, reports on new business since the last meeting.
1. The Chairman reported the following matters:
Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan The report of the Examination in Public Panel, which was held in June and July of last year had been published by the Councils without comment. They intend to prepare mod ifications which will be subject to public consultation for 6 weeks from mid-March. He drew attention to the following particular points:
(i) The Government Office for the East of England told the panel that, though Green Belt boundaries should only be amended in exceptional circumstances, they are not sacrosanct but are a strategic planning tool. They said that current housing requi rement could be met but a review of Green Belt boundaries would be needed before 2011.
(ii) The Countryside Ag ency said that it would not oppose review of the Green Belt if it supported sustainable development, policies should reflect the quality and character of the countryside and landscape assessment should be used to judge acceptable development.
(iii) In the result, the panel called for a comprehensive review of GB boundaries.
Kate Ashbrook's attention had been to the Countryside Agency's evidence to the Panel. The Council for National Parks also disapproved of the attitude of the Countryside Agency to Green Belt. LGBC would write to Essex and Southend, complaining about the treatment of the Green Belt in the report, without waiting for their proposals for amendments and at the same time renew correspondence with Ewen Cameron, the Chairman of the Agenc y. It was suggested also that LGBC should complain to the Government at the way the Agency was propagating policies contrary to those in Planning Policy Guidance.
White Papers on Urban and Rural Matters The Chairman referred to various rumours that had be en in circulation about the creation of a Department of Rural Affairs and the possible break up of DETR. He had written via the President to the Prime Minister urging that whatever happens planning must remain with DETR. The reply was essentially "Wait for the rural and urban white papers." It now looked less likely that DETR would be broken up and more likely that the Cabinet Office Minister, Mo Mowlem would have the task of co-ordinating rural policy. The President agreed that DETR would probably not be b roken up and thought that Dr Mowlem would be receptive to an initiative to ensure that Green Belt does not fall between different stools of government. A member said that Government regarded all Green Belts as the same in policy terms and suggested that L GBC ought to stress the unique nature of the London Green Belt. Other disagreed, considering that it would be dangerous to start making such distinctions. It was agreed that the Chairman should write to DR Mowlem via the President arguing that planning sh ould remain with DETR and that the quality of scenery should not be a criterion from the Green Belt point of view. The President would then refer the letter to Dr Mowlem adding his support.
A member pointed out that, as had happened in Mill Hill, attractive 18th century landscape in the Green Belt could be destroyed by a landowner putting down roads and undertaking inappropriate planting and there was nothing that the planning authority coul d do about it. The Secretary asked whether the land in question had any quality designation in addition to its status as Green Belt. The member replied that it did not; this was a deficiency in the Barnet Plan which the Mill Hill Preservation Society would address in the current review of the Plan.
The Secretary reported that
(a) North Kent Success, to which LGBC is affiliated is to be wound up at the end of March. It seems that it has achieved many of its objectives and any remaining would be taken over by other bodies.
(b) The current revision of Havering Borough's UDP looks set to add substantial areas of Rainham Marshes to the Green Belt.
In addition he reported taking the following actions.
(c) Objected to residential development at Hockenden Lane, Swanley
(d) Objected to a 12 room hotel at Scratchers Lane, Brands Hatch Park. This application, which was not connected with the motor racing circuit was subsequently refused
(e) Responded to an Environment Agency query that LGBC would not object to a reservoir in the Green Belt, provided it was not accompanied by substantial buildings like water towers.
(f) Corresponded concerning Biggin Hill Airport Expansion Strategy, from which it appears that the 3 Bromley MPs are opposed to it.
A member reported a rumoured plan for adding to the 400 houses already approved for a redundant hospital site in Reigate which, it was believing would involve going into Green Belt.
Other matters raised by members
A member asked what was the position with communication masts in the Green Belt. The Chairman said that some applications had been rejected on the grounds that the masts would interfere with the openness of the Green Belt, but others had been allowed where there was no alternative location. Members should lodge objections if they wished to.
A member asked what the LGBC attitude to the removal of Green Belt in one place and the creation of new Green Belt in another place, which he considered to be a dangerous process. The Chairman agreed; while there may be occasions where it is justifying LG BC would normally object, especially where the process amounted to 'rolling back' the Green Belt.
A member drew attention to proposals for sports facilities in the Hillingdon area. First, the local authority were considering reinstating the running track at Hillingdon House Farm which is in the Green Belt. There is already a moderate changing room on the site but they envisage building another big clubhouse. He could not see why, given that there was another big sports centre envisaged only 100 yards away on non-Green Belt land. There have also been suggestions of a large international stadium on land to the cast of the 'Master Brewer'. The President added that other people have an eye on RAF Northolt for athletics; there have been many ideas going round. A mem ber said that there had been a problem with the UDP map of the area which did not show the Green Belt correctly.