Posted by: westlancashirerecord | November 27, 2016

Clueless Green Belt Swop Planning Policy

A report in the telegraph_outline-small says 5,000 houses a month are now planned for the green belt. Ministers will next month publicly back building thousands of houses on green belt land despite a growing Tory rebellion and concerns from environmental campaigners. The Sunday Telegraph understands the Government will encourage the use of “green belt swaps” in a white paper to help solve the housing crisis.

The scheme allows councils to remove protections on one part of green belt in return for creating a new area of protected land elsewhere. Critics say the change could transform Britain’s countryside by allowing thousands of homes to be built on protected land and watering down the original definition of green belt. And many haven’t got a clue what it means anyway.

Sajid Javid, yet another clueless Local Government Secretary, indicated his support in a speech this week as he called on MPs not to oppose building on green belt outright. He said the Westminster politicians “should not stand in the way” of councils who propose green belt development, providing “all the options” have been considered. Green belt swaps allow a council to suggest some protected land is freed up for development, often to help meet demand in the housing market.

In return, a separate area of land is proposed for new protections, meaning the total amount of green belt land does not fall. The rules already exist but often fail to work in practice, with planning bodies rejecting proposals because the new land fails to meet the definition of green belt. Industry sources have said that a white paper on housing to be published next month will include measures to encourage the use of such swaps.

Tories hope it will help hit their ambitious housing target building a million homes by 2020 – while living up to a pledge to protect the green belt. There is a belief that the demand for housing has grown so severe in parts of the country it should count as an “exceptional circumstance”, giving councils more freedom to act.

Experts say one option would be encouraging the Planning Inspectorate to approve more swaps. The body often rejects proposals because the new area of land fails to hit the “five purposes” of green belt, including stopping urban sprawl.

Yet the plans are already being met with significant opposition from Conservative MPs, who are privately warning that they are prepared to vote against the Government in Parliament if the plans are too aggressive.

Andrew Mitchell, the Tory MP for Sutton Coldfield where the green belt homes near Birmingham will be built, said “We face horrific proposals from the Labour council and are frankly astonished that Sajid Javid has not stood by the Conservative’s manifesto commitment to defend the green belt. He himself said the green belt is absolutely sacrosanct. We are therefore at a loss to know why the Government is unable to protect us from these iniquitous proposals. There is nothing that causes more anger among the electorate than being let down in this way”.

Paul Miner, planning campaign manager at the Campaign to Protect Rural England cprenew said that once green belt land is lost it is very difficult to replace. He said that while it is relatively easy to give permission for green belt land to be built on, it is far less easy to get permission for new areas to be classed as green belt.

He said: “We are concerned that his could be charter for developers and encourage local authorities to release large swathes of green belt with little justification. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. It’s generally found that the green belt is performing an important function in stopping urban sprawl”.

Earlier this year an analysis by the CPRE found that 5,000 houses a month are being planned for the green belt as councils struggle to find land to meet the government’s target of a million new homes by 2020. It found that councils are proposing almost 300,000 homes on the 14 rings of land around English cities where development is meant to be strictly limited.

Since June alone, councils have proposed an additional 22,000 homes for the green belt in their draft local plans. The borough of Poole in Dorset has proposed 5,300; New Forest district council in Hampshire 4,000; Waverley borough council in Surrey 2,400; and Aylesbury Vale district council in Buckinghamshire 800.

The West Lancashire Local Plan  was way ahead of the game, with its horrendous failure to stop rogue applications from developers due in essence to their access to the best available legal advice. Never mind the huge land banks the developers hold, pure greed drives them on, helped by idiotic pronouncements of how the “…robust Local Plan that can withstand any challenges by the developers…is in the best interests of all the residents of West Lancashire”. Remember the wrap? [click to read]  championwrap

This nonsense was included by email from Wally Westley in October 2012 when he told me “I am both a Ward Councillor and a Member of the Cabinet and it would be ridiculous for me to have separate views on the subject for each of these roles. I have formulated my views after much discussion and consideration of the available evidence and against the imperative of formulating a robust Local Plan that can withstand any challenges by developers and which is in the best interests of all the residents of West Lancashire”. west-lancs-plan-front-cover-image And then came the political cop-out, his shirking of reality moment “Inevitably there has to be some compromise when reconciling my initial personal preferences for future development with the reality of what would be acceptable to the public and the Planning Inspectorate. Should it be necessary to have recourse to the Plan B sites there could some effect on Aughton but the impact would be ameliorated by imposed planning conditions”. So that’s alright then!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: