§ Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]
§ 3.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)I am very pleased that I have been able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to raise a matter of vital importance to millions of people in the Greater London area and to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House as well as to my own constituents in Harrow, East. I welcome the opportunity to raise this matter not necessarily because there is the need at this stage to raise an alarm signal over many specific matters of development plans and schemes in the Greater London area, but because I believe that it is an opportunity for hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to air the subject of London's green belt policy.
It is a matter which has exercised the House on previous occasions but not all that frequently. If we consider the green belt in general, let alone the metropolitan area green belt, then there is an interest throughout the nation in what the House considers to be the priorities for the future. I am grateful to the Minister for coming here to deal with some of my queries.
Public concern over green belt policy is manifested through the sheer pressure of population in this country, particularly in the South-East and certainly in the Greater London area. In the long, often rather complex and tortuous history of the development of London's green belt there was a feeling in the 1950s in the public mind that the green belt policy was a firm statement on behalf of the community for the future—something that would be valid in future. In an age of extreme change, when there is not that traditional British reliance on things remaining as they are, there is naturally public concern, particularly about those parts of the green belt in the metropolitan area which fringe the white zones, the developable land. There is concern that the future may hold uncertainties and that there may be the beginning of an erosion of what was formerly sacrosanct green belt.
For example, there was enormous public concern recently over the granting of 1466 planning permission for the development of Ladygate Lane, Ruislip. This does not concern me directly but it was sufficiently close to Harrow East to be of local concern. There has been a growth of anxiety in my constituency and adjacent constituencies that the future may be cloudy. There is no time now to go into the long history of the development of green belt, but I should like to refer to the Greater London Council Development Plan in the context of the fears expressed by many in the Greater London area and in this House. The plan may have been overtaken by events. It impinges on the future of the Metropolitan green belt even if only indirectly.
In another place in 1963 there was a useful debate on metropolitan green belt It is noteworthy that on that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Molson, referring to a Ministry of Housing circular published in 1959, pointed out that in paragraph 3(a) of that circular there was a fundamental restatement of official green belt policy, which was valid then. Presumably it is still valid. The circular said:
In settlements not distinguished from the green background, the strict green belt policy is the rule and not even in-filling is normally allowed other than for green belt agricultural purposes.That is still the position. I was particularly grateful when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in answer to Written Question No. 66 on 17th February, reiterated categorically thatPlanning authorities will have my support in conserving approved green belts for land uses restricted to green belt purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 455.]Not only myself but my constituents and people in adjacent constituencies where green belt matters are always to the fore were grateful for this firm restatement of policy. But in an age of change there is perhaps always need for reaffirming the Government's determination to protect designated green belts and the fact that, when the question of what should happen to the green belt areas which are the threshold areas adjoining white land arises, that firm policy of protection will be maintained.There was, therefore, encouragement for the public and for people in Hertfordshire—to which I refer because it is an adjacent county to Middlesex where 1467 green belt matters are very much to the fore in people's minds—by the recent restatement of proper interim protection until the Department of the Environment is able to make a definitive decision about extending the metropolitan green belt.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will accept a number of principles about the future of green belt policy which I should like to enunciate. I refer first to the threshold areas, and particularly to my constituency, where there is an area of extremely beautiful and visually aesthetic green belt to the north which has been officially designated for many years. It was designated most recently in official maps of the Ministry of Housing in 1961 and 1963. There is a green belt strip to the north where the edge of the approved development area gives on to this beautiful open countryside, embracing the northern part of Harrow Weald, the northern half of Stanmore, and the edge of the white land which gives on to the northern side of the Uxbridge road, the main spine road going through the northern part of the constituency. This has been, and still is, designated as virgin green belt territory.
But there is locally acute public anxiety that in future these areas will not be preserved as they have been in the past, because the white land has been gradually in-filled and there has been nibbling into the green belt threshold on far too many occasions to be recounted. I should appreciate anything that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can say today to allay the natural fears expressed to me by members of the public so frequently as to be beyond counting.
I put forward the principle that green belt land should be accessible to the whole community. There are areas in and just outside the metropolitan area and perhaps one or two areas in my constituency—although I hope that that is not the case—where public access is, if not impossible, problematical. Green belt land is there for the entire community to use, and that, I believe, should be firmly restated again by the Government.
Another principle I would enunciate is that urban environment should be improved. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the plans already suggested and to be published in the future by the Department of 1468 the Environment to do just this, but the welcome for that must not mean that that will be done at the expense of the green belt, which, as I say, is for the whole of the community of the London area to enjoy.
I would also suggest that existing gross densities in threshold areas should be maintained and that that should be firmly restated by the Department as a matter of principle.
Finally, I suggest that the basic character of an area on the fringe of Greater London should not be changed in any way. Perhaps, the danger of over-population is the first manifestation, in the centres of our cities, of the beginning of slums developing. That could be a danger in the future.
Moreover, I believe that public authorities themselves should not be entitled to special privileges in developments in areas of designated land.
I will sum up quickly with one or two points which I put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I shall be most grateful if he can answer them in the light of the principles which I have tried to put forward today. I shall be grateful if, in answer, he can give his view of the maintenance of growth densities in threshold areas. I should be grateful also if he would attempt some guideline on whether any formal designation during the interim stage till the final stage will mean any adjustments of existing areas of green belt land, or whether they will not arise at all. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider some comments on the possible need to review procedures for public involvement in development schemes in threshold areas, and in controversial areas such as the one to which I have already referred, and on whether that involvement and those procedures can be improved to make it easier for the public, who do not always have the time to obtain access to sophisticated advice on these complicated matters, to express a view, and to be able to do so without difficulty.
All these matters are of extreme importance. They are inextricably bound up with the wider question of the future of our enviroment and the future of the environment of London. They are bound up with local matters, as they are in my own constituency. It is for all these reasons that I much appreciate that my 1469 hon. Friend is here today, and I hope that he will be able to answer some of my questions. I believe that the answers which he can give—at least I hope that this will be so—will be to the encouragement and support of those who, for very valid reasons, and not selfish reasons, wish to be conservationists—not nibblers and in-fillers in the threshold areas—of the green belt which is part of London's heritage.
§ 3.14 p.m.
§ Sir Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)I am very glad to have caught the eye of the Chair for the second time this afternoon, just briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) in what he has said about the need to preserve the green belt in North-West London. I cannot speak from the same connection as he did, as he has a particular constituency point of view, but I can say that constituents of mine are also anxious about their use of the green belt. Even if they do not live in it they sometimes make use of it, and they want to see that it is safeguarded.
In Wembley we have not green belt, but open space. I do not think there is any great anxiety about that, but if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can confirm that it is the policy of the Government to preserve all those open spaces scheduled as such—and ours have been scheduled as such for some time now—so that they shall not be encroached upon in any way, that reassurance will be welcome.
Another point which is not quite on the subject of the green belt but akin to it is the preservation of open spaces in the way of large gardens of private houses from in-filling by flats, which is occurring in certain parts of my constituency and causing a great deal of anxiety and disturbance to the people who are affected.
Everyone appreciates the appalling housing shortage in North-West London and in the Borough of Brent in particular, but when permission is given to pull down a house with a large garden and put in its place a three-storey block of flats housing three or four times as many people, the private open space of the large garden is lost. There is one area I am thinking of particularly in my constituency which is bounded by Wembley Park Drive, Brook Avenue, Forty Avenue 1470 and Oakington Avenue. There is a certain amount of open space in the middle of that area. I know that these will be only names to my hon. Friend and I have not given him notice of this. So far there has been no in-filling although the possibility has been mentioned. There is infilling in Bridgewater Road, Wembley, where houses not more than 30 years old with gardens of an appreciable size are being pulled down and replaced by blocks of flats. This means a reduction in the amount of open space available, even if it is not public open space.
I know that this is primarily a matter for the local authority, but if a developer is not granted planning permission he can appeal to the Secretary of State, and this is where the Department comes in. Will my hon. Friend give some guidance on this point? I do not expect him to answer the details, because he has had no notice, but will he say something about the private open space policy?
§ 3.17 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine)I will say a word or two about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) before dealing with the general points on green belt policy made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).
My difficulty is that in the specific cases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South drew my attention it would not be appropriate for me to make any detailed comment because of the statutory position in which my right hon. Friend could find himself in the event of any planning application coming to the Department as the final decision maker. As he pointed out, this is a matter for the local authorities, who have all drawn up plans which show their attitude to the use to which this land can be put. It is, of course, open to anyone to put in a planning application and, if it is refused, to seek approval against the view of the local authority.
One of the most exciting developments that has come from the creation of the Department of the Environment is that it has enabled Ministers to take an environmental view of all our work, whether planning, transport or housing. 1471 We are able to take into account the growing public awareness that it is easy to destroy, to fill in and to take away and very much harder to put back open spaces once development has taken place. Our instinct is to try to preserve the greatest degree of amenity compatible with the interests, plans and wishes of the local community and the other representations which are put to us at local inquiries. I realise that this is not a very specific answer, but my hon. Friend probably appreciates that I cannot be more specific on this occasion. I will look again at what he said, and if there is anything I feel that I can do, I will write to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East raised the question of the green belt in the London area, and I am sure that everybody is grateful to him for having given an opportunity to air this subject. I appreciate the opportunity to say something about the Government's point of view. This matter has grown in importance and at no time has it assumed greater significance in public awareness in view of everybody's understanding today that land is at a premium and that, once it has been encroached upon, it is irreplaceable in the sense that it can never again be green belt.
One of the points which is often lost sight of is that, although the Department of the Environment is the custodian of the ultimate planning decisions, we are not the only people involved in the process or the only ones who have a compassionate attitude towards the use to which this land is put. I have been impressed by the way in which local authorities are vigilant in the protection they give to green belt considerations. For there to be a decision by a local authority for an infringement to be possible requires a strongly-argued case before it reaches Ministers by way of appeal.
We are extremly impressed by the way in which we find that not only local authorities but the other people involved, such as the amenity and conservation bodies and members of the public, are aware that there is a personal responsibility on everybody to be vigilant in trying to protect the environment from ravages of one sort and another with 1472 which it is constantly faced. This argument would apply as much to the threshold lands as to the greenbelt itself. There are always people living alongside the green belt. Even though it be a threshhold, it is green belt for all of that.
When there is any suggestion of taking open countryside for any purpose, there is no shortage of people—and rightly so—who come along to argue passionately that the land should not be so used and that the line itself is sacred. My hon. Friend should take heart that that is the public attitude and the attitude of local authorities. He will not need reassurance that my right hon. Friend and Ministers in the Department are extremely enthusiastic in supporting the general tone of what he said today.
It may be convenient if I give an indication of the scale of the green belt and said something about the history that has brought it into its present state of existence. The approved metropolitan green belt varies from about six to ten miles in width, and now covers some 850 square miles of land in London and the outer metropolitan areas. It has been approved as part of various county development plans. Broadly, this process started in the mid-1950s. The last approval was given by 1959. The purposes of the green belt were defined in Circular No. 42/55 which extended to a national concept the concept applicable in London and set out the aims sought for the national green belts.
There were three such aims. First to contain the growth of larger built-up areas; secondly, to prevent the coalescence of towns; thirdly, to preserve the special character of particular towns. Of these three objectives, the first two apply to the London green belt. There is no doubt that green belts have always been understood to have the aim of preserving the countryside so that it is within reach of the townsmen. My hon. Friend laid stress on the accessibility of the green belt to the public whenever people want to go there. He will agree that large numbers of people, particularly local authorities and the Countryside Commission, are specifically responsible for trying to make it possible for people to enjoy the countryside when they get there. A range of things are now taking 1473 place to make it easier for townsmen to appreciate the countryside.
Certainly, this is a two-way responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) has done a service by his Private Member's Measure to increase the penalties for depositing litter. That indicates awareness that not only must people have access to and enjoy the green belt but if they act irresponsibly by the random deposit of litter and rubbish, they must expect to pay a greater penalty than hitherto.
The main line of the argument is concerned with planning policies in the green belt. The general position is that all development control policies applying within the green belt entail a very strong presumption against all buildings, except particular buildings that have a direct relevance—for example, farm buildings in rural areas and special developments for sport. The presumption always is that there should be a very strong argument against the green belt being infringed.
There are, of course, always dangers and possibilities that there will be a limited amount of in-filling and rounding-up, but the argument that the land concerned is green belt will always be very strong in any case put to the Department. There have been certain cases in which substantial areas of land have been lost to the green belt but they cannot be put at the door of the present Government. My hon. Friend drew our attention to the case of 15 acres of approved green belt at Ladygate Lane, Ruislip. My right hon. Friend supported that decision. It had already been decided by the last Government to allow local authority housing on a wider area than that to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. That decision having been taken, and planning permission having been granted, it seemed reasonable to my right hon. Friend that, over a smaller area than that allowed by the last Government, we should allow private housing to take place.
The second line of argument pursued by my hon. Friend was about when the Government will make a decision about the proposed extension to the green belt. He is not alone in raising this question. Over the last decade, the local authorities 1474 in the Home Counties have put proposals to extend the green belt by about 1,200 square miles, which would more than double the existing green belt. A decision on this has been delayed because work has been under way on plans for a regional strategy. We have received the report of the South-East Joint Planning Study and will make a statement about it later in the year. Until that statement has been made and we are able to move forward and have our consultations with the local planning authorities to decide what areas of additional green belt might be compatible with the structure plans they will have to make, it would be inopportune to confirm the applications for an extra 1,200 square miles of green belt.
It is important to remember that the strategic plan for the South-East recognises the need for a continuing green belt policy and the part it can play in exercising permanent planning restraints in non-growth areas. The most encouraging single decision which the Government have been able to take in the green belt area around London is the freezing of the green and white land in Hertfordshire, pending a final decision of the sort I have mentioned. Our decision has been widely welcomed by the planning authorities, conservationists and amenity bodies.
We are about to do the same for all of Surrey and for large parts of Kent. In other words, although discussions are going on about the structure plans which are to come, and about the South-East Joint Planning Study, there is no danger in the meantime of a declining or deteriorating situation. We have taken the decision to freeze the land which could be affected by such a declining situation. This is the most encouraging thing we could possibly do.
§ Mr. DykesWhile I greatly welcome what my hon. Friend has just said, are we to take it that the acreages to be designated in this interim protection method in Surrey and Kent will be similar to that in Hertfordshire?
§ Mr. HeseltineI am not giving specific acreages at the moment. I am saying that, where there has been no final decision, we are freezing the land so that it cannot deteriorate into a situation in which it has been developed before we make up our minds on what should be 1475 done about the various planning processes in which we are involved.
With those few words and the assurances that I have been able to give, I hope that both my hon. Friends will feel that the Government are being as conscientious as they would require and 1476 that we are living up to the determined standards that we have set ourselves in the Department of the Environment.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at half-past Three o'clock.