Green Belt Policy

Today, the Campaign to Protect Rural England issued a press statement headed:

"Green Belt loss a daily reality despite government pledges."

From my point of view, that is a timely coincidence with this debate, and I should like to place on record my thanks to the CPRE, both nationally and locally, for providing me with background material.

I want to put the debate in context. Green belt policy has existed formally for more than 50 years, and it has performed its functions well. Some of the most important purposes for designating land as green belt are to protect the countryside around towns and cities from urban sprawl, to encourage the regeneration of neglected sites within towns and cities and to prevent towns from merging into each other. Of course, the most important feature of green belt land is its openness.

People prize their local countryside, and the public see development and urban sprawl as the biggest threats to the countryside. The crucial element of green belts is the permanency of their boundaries. If boundaries are shifted, the incentive provided by a designated green belt is lost, because developers and land speculators have only to wait for more greenfield sites to be opened for development rather than making better use of urban land.

The Government have repeatedly stated their commitment to protecting the green belt. Mr. Prescott pledged to Parliament on 5 February 2003 that he would

"maintain or increase green-belt land in every region".—[Hansard, 5 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 275.]

On 11 July 2007, the new Prime Minister announced that the Government would: "continue robustly to protect the land designated as green belt."—[Hansard, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1450.]

There have also been supportive statements in the Government's White Paper on planning, "Planning for a Sustainable Future", which was published in May 2007. For example, recommendation No. 9, "Green Belt/Green Space", states:

"The Government is committed to the principles of the Green Belt and will make no fundamental change to policy in this area. Existing Government policy (PPG 17) already asks planning authorities to proactively plan for the protection and enhancement of valued green space in towns and cities, including efficient and effective countryside."

On 2 May 2007, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Minister for Housing and Planning, wrote me a letter stating:

"Let me also reassure your constituent that the Government remains committed to the protection and the enhancement of the countryside and to the key principles of the green belt. Strict planning controls on green belt land are in place and there remains a general presumption against inappropriate development within green belts. The Government has no intention of making fundamental changes to Green Belt Policy."

In an earlier letter, she stated:

"With regard to your constituent's concerns about green belt land the Government has made clear that we believe strongly in the key principles of the green belt. There remains a general presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt and I would like to make clear that the Government has no intention of weakening this high level of protection."

In the same letter, the Chief Secretary also stated:

"Kate Barker is also clear that in taking forward further reforms the importance of consultation and democratic accountability must be respected."

During the Radio 4 programme, "Any Questions", on July 13 2007, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was quizzed very closely by Jonathan Dimbleby. She said:

"I can be absolutely clear that the current protections for the Green Belt will remain as they are and we're absolutely determined to do that".

Jonathan Dimbleby pressed her further and asked whether:

"Green Belt might have to be invaded, as it were, to build houses?"

The Secretary of State replied:

"I'm being very clear that the current planning protections for the Green Belt will absolutely remain."

Jonathan Dimbleby pressed her even further, and the Secretary of State replied:

"No, I think I've tried to be as clear and unequivocal as I can be and say that the current protections for the Green Belt will remain."

So why do I , the CPRE and my constituents have such great concerns?

I accept that the section of the 2007 White Paper that I have quoted refers to reviewing green belt boundaries. For example, regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should review green belt boundaries as part of their regional spatial strategy/local development framework processes to ensure that they remain relevant and appropriate, given the need to ensure that any planned development takes place in the most sustainable locations. Also, there are recommendations to local authorities in drawing up their development plans.

On the positive side, it is possible to identify green belt gain. A large area—47,300 hectares—of green belt in the south-east has been re-designated as the New Forest national park, which has been widely welcomed. The most recent green belt statistical release from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which was issued in January 2008, shows that since 2004 the total green belt area has grown in the north-east, north-west, south-west and Yorkshire and the Humber. Significant new areas of green belt have been created in Durham and to the west of Newcastle since 1997. Otherwise, most of the increase appears to be due to more reliable mapping by local authorities of green belt land. The statistics also show, however, that since 2004 the total green belt area has shrunk in East Anglia and in the east and west Midlands.

On the negative side, there is also a more worrying trend of significant losses of green belt land to development. Between 1997 and 2003, an average of 1,100 hectares—nearly 4 square miles—was lost each year. From 1997 to 2005, 45,240 new dwellings were permitted on green belt land. The Government approved development involving the loss of 1,300 hectares between 1997 and 2001.

Since the creation of the DCLG in May 2006, the Secretary of State has decided 48 planning applications involving development in the green belt. From those, 16 significant developments have been allowed. The loss of green belt land raises serious questions about the Government's commitment to green belt policy in practice, despite overall gains on green belt in some regions. Great concerns are emerging that regional plans will lead to further significant losses of green belt land in years to come, and that they will particularly affect those parts of the green belt that are nearest to our major towns and cities, which are the ones that we need the most.

My specific interest is, of course, the south-west. The draft regional spatial strategy for the south-west was submitted to the Government in April 2006. The Secretary of State is expected to publish proposed changes for consultation this summer, following the panel report in January 2008. Both the draft RSS and the panel report proposed amending the general extent of all three green belts in the south-west to allow a number of urban extensions to accommodate housing development.

The RSS also proposed several extensions to the green belt to compensate for land lost to urban extensions, but the panel report rejected that proposal due to lack of justification. That was despite its being clear that the report's recommendations and the RSS will lead to significant losses of green belt land. Was it not a Government promise that replacement land would be added to the green belt in the event of development on green belt land?

I would like to focus further on the south-east Dorset green belt. Up to 8,550 dwellings could be built on it. The RSS proposes urban extensions, with 2,400 dwellings spread over sites at Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, Ferndown and Christchurch, and there will be further losses of green belt around Bournemouth. In addition to supporting the RSS proposals, the panel report went further and added another urban extension of 1,500 homes to north Bournemouth and one of 2,750 dwellings to Poole, which is of particular interest to me as it is in my constituency. A further 1,000 dwellings are also recommended for green belt land in semi-rural east Dorset.

A major concern that I have previously raised with Ministers is the democratic deficit. For example, the democratic East Dorset district council, which is the relevant planning authority, voted to reject the proposals for development on green belt around Corfe Mullen and Wimborne. On the 700 homes for Corfe Mullen, the parish council, separately but in conjunction with an interest group called Keep Corfe Mullen Green, did a survey of the whole parish. There has been a total disregard of the value that people place on their local green belt.

The panel report recommends that Purbeck as a whole should have an increased housing allocation of 5,150 homes—above the 2,100 already agreed, and including 2,750 homes on a site that happens to be in my constituency. No democratically elected council asked for the latter recommendation—the inspector responded to a landowner's desire to build. Indeed, the proposal was opposed by all democratically elected councils. Three action groups have recently been set up. Sustainable Matravers held a public meeting that more than 400 people attended, and Lytchett Minster has an action group, as does Upton. The strength of feeling is enormous.

Members should consider what Purbeck is like. It has an enormous amount of valuable heathland. Natural England, of course, does not want development impinging on it or close to it. Purbeck has a world heritage coastline, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. With all those restrictions in quite a small area, many consider that it would be impossible to fit an extra 5,150 homes