Untitled Normal Page

London Green Belt Council

National issues

Home

About LGBC

Updated 25-May-07. Latest items first

Please note - none of these items necessarily reflect the views of the London Green Belt Council. We are merely reporting for your information, giving you chance to see the views of others.

Major planning reforms for a sustainable future On 21 May 2007 Communities and Local Government Secretary Ruth Kelly unveiled major reforms of the country’s planning system to make it fit to tackle new challenges in the 21st century - speeding up the system alongside improved community consultation. Consultation on this White Paper is Friday 17^th August 2007. Further details and downloads of the White Paper and Consultation Paper are on www.communities.gov.uk.

The wide-ranging White Paper has four key pillars:

· A better, quicker system to decide major infrastructure projects with enhanced community engagement and an improved level of expertise.

· Simplifying the local planning system for householders to make it far easier to make home improvements like extensions and conservatories, where there is little or no impact on neighbours.

· Planning playing a bigger role in tackling climate change.

· Ensuring the planning system continues to support vibrant town centres.

The Government also pledged a new commitment to protect the green belt. The White Paper makes clear previously developed brown field land must remain the clear priority for housing development with our parks and green spaces protected

Kate Barker report on Planning. December 2006. See the LGBC Notes for comments – click on January 2007

Woodlands may be destroyed. May 2006. The Woodland Trust claims that proposed airport expansion could destroy some of England’s finest woodlands. At least 6 irreplaceable ancient bluebell woods across Essex and Herts face being felled to make room for Stansted and Luton airport expansion. Luton threatens Withstocks, Winchill, Hurst and Sewetts woods. Stansted threatens Priory Wood and Round Coppice woods.

Stansted delays? May 2006. The second runway may be delayed by at least two years, BAA announced. In its 10-year plan this work is scheduled for 2015 and 2016 due to expected delays in getting planning permission and other regulatory issues outside its control.

Brownfield site % increases. 73% of new developments in 2005 were on brownfield sites, 1% up on 2004. In 1997 it was 57%.

GB under threat in South West. The South West Regional Assembly said 23,000 homes a year were needed to 2026 to keep up with demand. The extra homes should go in the larger towns and cities to reduce travel. The Strategy argued that there were not enough brown field sites and GB revisions would be needed around Bristol, SE Diorset, Cheltenham and Gloucester. The docuemnt said the GB will be extended in other areas to compensate for this loss.

50 years of Green Belts – CPRE celebrate. To mark the 50^th anniversary of Green Belts the CPRE is mounting a campaign to preserve Green Belts. This includes a ‘post a postcard’ campaign whereby individuals can write to the CPRE giving their comments as to why the Green Belt is important to them. These postcards will be forwarded to the government. See www.cpre.org.uk/support_us

NIMBY claim for South East. A MORI poll for the SE England Regional assembly found that more than half of South East England residents accept the need for more housing to tackle the region’s affordability crisis. Almost 4/5^th specifically were worried about the cost of housing. However they are reluctant to see higher building rates across the region. They were also less likely to feel that shortages are a problem in their own town or district than across the region as a whole.

Birmingham GB problem. Changes to the B’ham Unitary development plan will return two industrial sites to the GB, creating employment land shortages it is claimed. The final revisions suggest two Sutton Coldfield sites will be re-designated at Peddimore (56ha) and Bassetts Pole (50ha). These changes were recommended by the Planning Inspector at the 2002 inquiry. The Council said Peddimore is a single-use site with other large sites in the region offering opportunities for employment

The UK produces more than 400 million tonnes of waste every year. As the cost of disposal rises, criminals have stepped in to illegally dump waste. The Environment Agency says fly-tipping happens every 35 seconds in England and Wales. Officers found hundreds of pieces of asbestos at a Lancashire nature reserve near Scarisbrick. It costs £102-204 per tonne to dispose of hazardous waste legally, with the asbestos bill alone being £150M.

East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) – opposition to 478,000 more homes – On 13 Dec 2004 the EERA withdrew its support for central government’s plans for an extra 478,000 homes in the region. EERA accused the government of failing to fund infrastructure that would make the plan sustainable. ERRA covers Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridge. Without funds for road and transport links, schools, hospital etc, it is ‘living in cloud-cuckoo-land’ according to the chairman of the assembly’s planning panel. Click here for further information.

EERA started a 14-week consultation on the proposals on 8 December with comments due by 16 March 2005. See www.eera.gov.uk for details. Several public meetings are to be held – see that website for details. This is a vital stage and people must make their views know. There is no second chance.

Stansted and Luton expansion opposed in Court. Essex and Herts County Councils took the government to Court. They claimed the government was trying to circumvent the planning process to push through its plan for a second runway at Stansted airport. The councils claimed there should be a proper examination at a planning inquiry. They also challenged the commercial viability of the £4billion scheme which would increase flights from 180,000 a year to 500,000 by 2030. The White Paper breached planning law by laying down the exact location of the runway and how many movements should be permitted. The action also challenged the White Paper’s approval of a scheme to extend the runway at Luton airport even though the option was not included in the earlier consultation paper. Update Feb 2005. The High Court decision was mixed with both sides claiming victory. The Judge said that residents living around Stansted airport must be allowed a say on the location of the proposed second runway. There must be further consultation on plans to extend the runway at Luton. However he did uphold the policy stated in the Air Transport White Paper for two new runways in the region. He threw out the challenge to the economic viability of Stansted expansion.

Restriction on travellers proposed in draft Bill - The Green Belt Protection Bill will, if passed by Parliament, will give extra powers to local authorities to clamp down on unauthorised development. This would enable action where, for example, travellers buy GB land and develop it quickly without planning permission. It would alos allow councils to serve injunctions on unknown landowners, immediately halting unauthorised work. The second reading was due in late March 2003.

Met GB boundaries may be loosened. At the 2002 Labour Party Conference the Junior planning minister Tont McNulty said that GB boundaries are not sacrosanct. 'If it means allowing a halfpennyworth of tar here, so we can better preserve the GB elsewhere then so be it' he said but it should be limited. 'Once we have a sustainable community the rest is sacrosanct'. Speaking at a CPRE meeting, Lord Rooker hinted that the government might swap GB land close to towns and cities for sites elsewhere. The Oxford CC leader said that the city had homelessness problems matcghing those of London so GB boundaries need examination.

Luton GB release for housing - Bedfordshire CC and Luton BC propose to release GB land to the north of Luton to allow 6,000 new homes to be built, according to the deposit version of the Structure Plan published in October 2002. 3/4 of housing is in the north of the county so this would redress the balance and meet demand.

Town & Country Planning Assoc & RTPI - modernise Green Belts call

In May 2002 the TCPA called for a review of green belt policy by the Government. They say the 'restrictive nature' of many green belts inhibits the scope for new forms of development in rural areasand the scope for sustainable urban extensions. Their call is in line with RTPI demand for a more flexible polciy. TCPA say that green belts have been effective anfd popular in stopping urban sprawl but the idea has been abused and needs refining. They claim that dormitory towns and villages in the green belt cannot attract jobs or provide more homes to support schools and shops, forcing residents to commute long distances; this is unsustainable and puts a strain on families. CPRE disagree, noting that 120 notices of green belt referrals have been passed in the last 5 years, so policy needs strengthening if anything. The TCPA paper 'Green Belts' is available from TCPA on 020 7930 8903

The RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) have simultaneously issued a paper saying that green belt poliocy should be subject to review like any other plocal plan policy. the green belt is part of the housing issue. In some areas they claim it might make more sense to bite into the green belt boundaries to meet housing needs rather than leapfrogging it. However CPRE say that opening up green belts to urban sprawl shiould not be confused with the need for a sensible policy on affordable housing. 'Modernising Green Belts' is available from the RTPI on 020 7929 9494.

The London Green Belt Council have written to the Government to counter the arguments by the RTPI and TCPA - click here

City of Oxford wants to expand into Green Belt

In June 2001 it was reported that Oxford's Green Belt was in danger from housing and many other new developments including a science park and a stadium for Oxford United Football Club. The Oxford Preservation Trust (OPT) is 75 this year and it held a conference on the future of the green belt in that area. Oxford's green belt was the first outside London and was deliberately drawn tight to preserve the ancient city. There was a policy to divert growth to the county's outlying towns, endorsed by the then environment minister Nicholas Ridley in 1987. This stance is now being challenged by planners who want to see growth on the east side of the city. OPT say that the Green belt has served the city well, and should continue to do so. Green Party councillor Dr Mike Woodin, is chair of Oxford City Council's local plan review group. He argues that there must be a limit to growth. Oxford does not have to try to be the biggest tourist attraction, have the best university, the biggest shopping centre, or the best football team.

Labour's record

In the run-up to the June 2001 election, the reply to a parliamentary question revealed that about half (119) applications have been approved by John Prescott in the green belt. Most have been small scale. However redevelopment of old Ministry of Defecnce or hospital sites have been controversial. Prof Elson, of Oxford Brookes University, argues that decisions on these have not been very consistent regarding the size of development and extent to which popenness can be compromised.

CPRE do not consider there has been much change from the former Tory government. Approvals amount to 1,324 hectares, or 0.08% of the total green belt area, disregarding additions to the green belt. CPRE are said to be unhapy about the shift on park-and-ride in the green belt and the lack of consultation on this amendment to PPG2. The London Green Belt Council

Eastleigh - 3500 houses in Green Belt?

Eastleigh Borough Council have approved the allocation of a greenfield site to alleviate the demand for housing. The site, known as Allington, depends on the construction of a mile-long link road over the Itchen Valley, a floodplain. This valley is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and Green Belt. The situation is complex but worth watching since it is a symptom of the pressure in the South East to build on the Green Belt.

Tories divided on Green Belt policies

According to Planning magazine (2 March 2001 edition) the Tory environment spokesman Damian Green has attacked any proposals to soften the protection of green belts. He said ' broadly speaking, there should be no building on the green belt. Once you start building on it you have broken the principle of the green belt'. But Tory councillors do not universally support the party line. Chelmsford BC's Tory opposition recently voted to build up to 3500 homes on the green belt

Cambridge & Chelmsford green belts under threat

Cambridge City Council is to decide whether to extend the city into the green belt or build an entirely new settlement beyond it. Regional planning guidance for East Anglia requires 2,800 homes every year up to 2016. Meanwhile, Chelmsford BC has voted for 3,500 homes at Battlesbridge, a village in the green belt south of the borough

Cardiff green belt proposed

The city is requierd to build 6,000 new homes on greenfield sites. It is also proposing a green belt to the east of the city and north of the M4 motorway. This would stop coalescing with Newport and protect the setting of the city next to the Caerphilly Mountain. This would be the first green belt in Wales. UPDATE March 2003 - Cardiff planers are pressing ahead with this propsal in their depoist unitary plan.

Strategic gap & green wedge policies in Structure Plans

You can read this study on www.detr.gov.uk. under Planning - January 2001. Carried out by Oxford Brookes University, the study surveyed planners in a sample of counties across England using urban restraint policies such as strategic gaps, green wedges and rural buffers. It concluded that these provide more flexibility for sustainable development priorirties and are 'capable of delivering wider objectives' than green belts.

It found that in some areas the purposes for which green belts were originally established had vanished, and that strategic gap or green wedge policies were more appropriate. It questioned how far the existing purposes and long-term rigidities of green belts were appropriate in current circumstances. It said people tend to like strategic gaps and green wedges, being less rigid and having more room for manoevre. Green Belts still had a role in some areas, and planning guidance should be revised to clarify the role of alternative tools.

Baker Associates, who have also carried out extensive research on green belts, called for the scrapping of green belts saying ' they are negative and inflexible and are an increasing anachronism in light of efforts to promote all sustainable development objectives, not just a handful'.In its Editorial on 2 Feb 2001, Planing magazine said green belts are arguably the most controversial debate facing planning today. The RTPI had launched a debate on the subject (see next item). Many regard the 45-year old policy as planning's greatest achievement. But, in the face of greener transport policies and sustainable distribution of new housing, green belts are seen as too permanent, too inflexible, and too negative.

If green belt policies are to be revamped, the big problem will be convincing politicians and the public. There is a huge support for green belts, particularly in the South Esat. It is emotional and sentimental and few politicians are brave enough to face that challenge.

Green wedges are not the panacea to all ills. They reduce the options for peripheral development on the edge of towns and cities. Interpreting the idea of permanence and the need for safeguarded land are other problems. The report suggests that green wedges may identify land that would help shape development, linking town and country while protecting landscapes and access to the countryside. However sensible such approaches appear, 'Planning' magazine says they will be branded as heresy by some. But today's heresy has an unusual tendency of becoming tomorrow's orthodoxy.

Green Belt flexibility - RTPI discussion paper

You can read this discussion paper on www.planning.haynet.com. RTPI 'Planning' magazine issued 22.9.2000.reports that a Royal Town Planning Institute committee has issued a discussion paper on green belts. It says planning authorities should adopt a more flexible approach to controlling development within green belts to prevent 'museums of inactivity', and challenges the notion that green belts are sacrosanct, saying while green belts must have a 'degree of permanence', this should not create long-term inflexibility in attitudes to development within them.

Further, it says the RTPI needs to question its historic support for the principles of green belts in the light of current policies promoting greener transport nodes, reducing the need to travel and a sustainable distribution of new houses. It also agues that the emerging commitment to diversifying the economy in rural areas should prompt a rethink on what types of development should be permitted in the countryside.

Town and Country Planning Assoc. agreed on the need to re-explore the general principles of green belts. The CPRE said that the authors of the paper were out of touch with the immense public support for green belts, and that some of the most prosperous areas in the country are surrounded by green belts, demonstrating that they do not stiffle development.

Update 22 Nov 2000 - A planning consultant, John Baker, said that it was time to abandon the baggage of an outdated policy and get on with proper planning. He said it distorted strategic planning and prevented planners from properly considering other issues. He proposed replacing green belts with 'informed' strategic planning that considered the environmental, social, and economic capital of each local community. It would be coupled with legislation to protect areas of landscape, wildlife, agricultural, energy generation or other value, which would be preferable to an inflexible blanket green belt policy.

An alternative view is held by Steve Kowalczyk, planning & transport policy manage at S. Goucestershire Council. He argues that green belt policy is still sound. Green Belts provide ready access and proximity to openness for urban dwellers. The should be sacrosanct. Openness abounds over vast areas of countryside which would otherwise be urban in character. There have always been pressures to review policy, current arguments bearing the 'sustainability' label. However, once you move away from the 'inviolable' policy you step onto a slippery slope and the advantages will be lost forever.

Return to top of page

York green belt boundary

York City Council suspended its local plan inquiry earlier this year because it did not include permanent green belt boundaries. Temporary boundaries had been proposed pending further information on housing and employment land requirements. The city council is to organise a conference to discuss this next month (October 2000?). CPRE - York branch said 'we are keen to see as much of the green belt preserved as possible'. UPDATE July 2002 - The results of the first stage in May 2001 have been fed into the next stage of this review which began in June 2002 with city-wide consultation. This green belt is still a draft after 40 years. 80% of the York City Council area is within the proposed green belt, and the review suggests 2& of this land be used for housing and employment. Return to top of page

Railtrack wants 20 depots

Railtrack plan a network of up to 20 huge distribution sites around the country to meet the government's target of 80% more freight being carried by rail in the next 10 years. This network is likely to include a ring of four sites around London starting, subject to planning, with the LIFE site at Slough. All are environmentally sensitive because of their size and likelihood that most will be on green belt land. Railtrack would like the government to say that if there is no alternative there should be a relaxation of the green belt. In the eat Thames corridor, its next priority area, Railtrack may have its sights on three options - surplus land at Ford's Dagenham, Shellhaven, and Tilbury, all in Essex. Return to top of page

New planning appeal procedures.

From 1 August 2000 there are new rules including strict timetables with tighter deadlines aimed at streamlining the appeals process. Existing rules apply to appeals in progress. The rules are in Statutory Instruments 2000 Nos. 1624-1628 and can be viewed via www.planning.haynet.com. Return to top of page

Green Belt boundaries to be redrawn?

North East planners want to redraw breen belt boundaries to boost the area renewal. They say that it is necessary to bring the region's gross domestic product up to at least the European average. Large strategic employment sites are needed to create a range of development opportunities for major multinational firms. The say that some green belt land to the north of Sunderland should be deleted, rather than develop non-green belt land to the south of Sunderland. The soutn side is not near the highest areas of depravation. The local Government Office warned that changes to the green belt boundary should not be made lightly and said that the case made did not go far enough in establishing the exceptional circumstances required by PPG2.Return to top of page

1938 Green Belt Act is still in effect and could be used to protect even more land.

Under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938, land could, and can still, gain green belt status by means of an express dedication by the landowner, perhaps in return for monetary compensation from the local authority. Once so dedicated, a plan showing the green belt boundaries would be deposited with the minister of health.

Most statutory green belt was already owned by local authorities and could not be sold without the minister’s consent. This consent was also required before any building could be constructed on the land. There were exceptions for highway improvements, sewers etc. Although in planning terms this act may be considered obsolete, in legal terms it is not. Title Deeds do not show if land has been dedicated as green belt. If it has been dedicated, ministerial consent is still required by law. Land can still become dedicated under this 1938 Act, perhaps by way of a Section 106 agreement. It would give greater protection against future development that simple reliance on PPG2. Return to top of page

Edinburgh expansion

Edinburgh is to release a large area of land on its boundary to ease the city's critical shortage of new homes. Around 5,800 homes would be built at various sites in a 1,370 hectare area as part of the scheme put forward by the Council. They would comprise both new communities and extensions to existing towns and villages. It will take about 10 years to complete, and include retail and community facilities, with 30 ha. for business use. About 70% of the land would be designated green belt. Return to top of page

13.6 2000 - Tories vote down Prescott's plan for new housing in the South East.

See elsewhere for the debate on how many houses should be built in the South East i.e. the :LGBC page and CPRE page. This week the Conservative members of SERPLAN voted down John Prescott's proposal to build 43,000 new houses in the SE for each of the next 5 years. they voted to retain the 33,000 a year figure already agreed by SERPLAN.

This Society has also just received a paper by a noted academic who argues that building more houses in the SE is counter-productive. The shortage of housing will make it impossible for people to move to the SE, so SE businesses would find themselves short of staff. This would force business to move, or expand, elsewhere in the country to where there is already a surplus of housing. This would move work to people, and not people to where there is work. It would not, it is argued, drive business overseas.

Return to top of page