Greenbelt (Hertfordshire) (Hansard, 19 December 1985)

§ Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)

I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for coming to answer an issue that has generated a great deal of enthusiasm, heat and anger in my constituency and in the other Hertfordshire constituencies. I would like my hon. Friend to imagine that I have beside me, as I know I have in spirit, all the other Hertfordshire Members. I am pleased to see a more physical manifestation in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy).

The subject of the debate is of concern not only to hon. Members for Hertfordshire, as other hon. Members have approached me and offered their support. Councils from outside Hertfordshire have written to ask me to support their interests over the green belt.

I do not intend to deal with the history and justifications behind the creation of the green belt. Regular consultations take place as part of that process, and in January 1985, the Hertfordshire structure plan review consultation document was published. The document was generally well received. There was strong opposition from the housing and construction industry, which believed that the review of the county structure plan needed to make provision for at least a further 12,500 to 22,000 units.

For this and a variety of other reasons, it was felt that further consultation should take place, and that took place in April of this year, on the new development options. It concerned incremental and major growth, all of which involved taking considerable acres from the green belt for housing development. The people of Hertfordshire were asked for their views on the building of about 72,500 homes in the county before 1996, an increase of 20,000 on the figure that was put forward earlier in the year. There has been a high level of response to those consultations and to date replies have been received from 336 groups and 1,072 individuals. All but about 50 have been against the proposal. Of the 50 who have written in in support, most have expressed qualified support.

In addition, the individual Hertfordshire Members have received representations directly themselves. I have been inundated by concerns and queries from my constituents, especially from those living in the village of Bovingdon, which is in the heart of my constituency. I understand from the consultation document that there is the possibility of about 700 homes being constructed there. If the proposal were implemented, it would destroy the environment and the character of the village. In the end, I had to beg my constituents to stop writing to me on the issue, especially from Bovingdon. I contacted the parish council and asked it to tell everybody that I had the message and that I would be supporting what they were saying, which was that 700 homes should not come into the area.

In addition, I consulted the two district councils, the borough of Dacorum, and Three Rivers district council. The Dacorum council resolved that it was not satisfied that the levels of dwelling provision contained in the new issue consultation document had been adequately justified and requested 666 the county council to make a thorough examination of the Department of the Environment and the SERplan household forecasts, taking into account the importance of maintaining inner city policies. That it would be opposed to further development in the green belt as currently defined and would seek to maintain a policy of containing developments within urban areas. Finally, to inform the county council that the location of any further development should be established by the borough council through the local planning process. That was a clear-cut and unequivocal reply to the new consultation document.

Three Rivers district council was concerned to resist the efforts to nibble at the green belt and was worried about pressures that might flow from circular 14/85, headed "The Green Belt", and circular 15/84, headed "Land for Housing". There are obvious conflicts in the advice that is given in the two circulars. Three Rivers council is concerned especially about paragraph 4 of circular 14/85. I shall not go into the paragraph in detail, but it seems to avoid the realities. It points the way to the development of the white line, which in turn will bring it hard up against the urban edge, which in turn will produce greater pressures to re-draw the green belt. The routeing of the M25 through my constituency will inevitably create the temptation to make it the natural limit of permissible development. That is of concern.

I hope that the House will excuse the pun, but I do not believe that the green belt should be set in concrete for ever. There must be a little flexibility. Allowance should be made for building lines to be straightened and for sensible and regional density infillings, but not to the level suggested. It is possible that 2,000 of the 20,000 homes for Hertfordshire will be located in Dacorum. People chose to live in south-west Hertfordshire because of the environment. Many people say that more development should be permitted to allow local people the chance of getting a home. Unless there was a vast increase in planning permission, the cost of land would not decrease substantially to allow that wish to be fulfilled. I do not believe that I have been elected by my constituents to see my constituency covered in tarmac and concrete.

I do not blame those in the housing and construction industry for seeking permission to build more houses. They have a business to run. Of course it is easier to build on a greenfield site. In the past few months, we have heard much about the state of our inner cities. We have had the panoply of the Church of England putting pressure on us to do something about the inner cities. In anything to do with development, it must be the duty of authorities to restore, renovate and rebuild the inner cities rather than develop the greenfield sites. I point as a hopeful sign to the redevelopments on the docklands. We can build on that example.

I return to the question of flexibility and the idea that there can be some tolerance around the edge of the green belt. I have a suggestion. I know that it is not new and I put it forward without having consulted either of my two local councils, so I might be out of order with them. I suggest that there could be merit in considering the idea that, while housing development should be concentrated in the towns, the rate of housing development in rural areas should not be allowed to exceed the rate of 0.5 per cent. per annum of existing housing stock. This could be administered through and by local district councils. I know that this was not approved in 1979 by the Secretary of State 667 because of representations by district councils on that structure plan, but I believe that it would give flexibility to local councils and might merit reconsideration.

I understand that the results of this consultation process will be considered on 13 January by the county planning committee, which will look at a draft structure plan to put to the Secretary of State. I sincerely hope that the county will firmly reject the idea of adding another 20,000 homes to the original January 1985 plan.

I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to confirm the Government's support for the green belt, to enable me to reassure my constituents. I should like him also to reassure my constituents in Bovington that they will not see 700 houses springing up beside their homes. I should like to take back some reassurance to my two local councils, so that they know that the Government are firmly behind them when planning matters are considered and large inroads into the green belt are proposed.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey)

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on tabling this motion on the Adjournment debate. I also welcome the attendance of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy). There has been a good deal of concern about pressures for development and the future of the green belt in south-west Hertfordshire and, indeed, in other areas. I welcome the opporutnity to set out the Government's position. As a Member of Parliament with some green belt in my constituency in Chessington, Surrey, I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate.

Green belt policy in England has been one of the most successful planning initiatives since the war. Unlike some other planning ideas, it has not been affected by changes of fashion which might have sought to re-interpret its objectives and the means of achieving them. Successive Governments have continued the original policies in essentially the same form.

The policy on green belts was first set out in a circular in 1955, and it remains the same today. The importance which the Government attach to green belt has been confirmed in several recent circulars. The essential characteristic of green belts is their permanence. The Government's policies are aimed at defining detailed long-term boundaries so that they can be fully protected from unsuitable development.

This Government have a particularly good record in moving towards this objective. An area of 4.5 million acres, which is roughly the size of Wales, now lies within the green belts around London and our other big cities. In 1979, when we came to power, the green belt picture was patchy, to say the least. It depended upon the application of a hotch potch of old development plans. Under half of it had been fully approved. Since then, in just six years—and it is a shame that there are no Opposition Members present to hear this—all the rest of the green belt land has been formally approved by this Government.

The green belt around London now extends to 1.2 million acres, an area greater than the whole of Hampshire. There is a green belt around Nottingham and Derby of over 200,000 acres. An extension around Sheffield and other south Yorkshire towns has added 800,000 acres. The west Midlands green belt now covers 668 650,000 acres and the Tyne and Wear green belt has been more than doubled to 200,000 acres. All this represents significant progress, for which the local authorities concerned can share the credit.

Within green belts, as elsewhere, each planning application has to be decided on its merits, but there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. My hon. Friend illustrated that well in his speech. Inside a green belt approval should not be given, except in very special cirumstances, for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use of existing buildings other than for a very limited range of purposes. We would all accept that clearly some development does take place in green belts. They are not intended to be museums, so for example development for agricultural or recreational purposes may be appropriate and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in towns and villages within green belts some strictly limited infilling or rounding off may be acceptable.

The Government's concern to protect green belt land is part of a wider policy of protecting and enhancing the environment, including national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and conservation areas. But we must also ensure that there is an adequate supply of land for new development, for industry, for housing and for other needs. Our future prosperity and quality of life depends as much on sustaining a strong economy as it does on protecting our heritage. These objectives are not incompatible, but they do require careful planning and sensible development control.

With this in mind, the Department's circular on green belts issued in July last year reaffirmed our commitment to the long-term protection of green belts and gave advice to local planning authorities on defining green belt boundaries. We want to ensure that detailed boundaries are clearly defined, so that people can see exactly what areas are included in the green belt. Once those boundaries have been defined, we are anxious that they should be altered only in exceptional circumstances.

The Government's aim is to ensure that as much new development as possible takes place within existing urban areas. I give this assurance to my hon. Friends. We have, for example, asked local authorities to ensure that full and effective use is made of land within urban areas for housing. In some cases, good housing can be provided by converting or improving existing buildings without the need for any new land. There is also scope for building on neglected, unused or derelict land. We have also reminded local authorities that full use should be made of potential sites and existing premises in urban areas for industry. This emphasis on the full use of urban land can help to promote economic and social regeneration in older urban areas. It can also assist the preservation of agricultural land and conservation of the countryside and maximise the use of existing infrastructure.

We should not be too pessimistic about the scope for meeting present housebuilding requirements from land in built-up areas. Preliminary analysis of recent data from the ordnance survey suggests that nearly half the land being used for housebuilding is coming from previously developed land, including land already in residential use, or from other vacant land in built-up areas.

My hon. Friend suggested that housebuilders should have their attention directed to the city centres. He will be pleased to hear that only last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State encouraged housebuilders to concentrate more on the development of small infill sites 669 which were popular with clients and were more acceptable to those already living in the area. He welcomed the House Builders Federation's announcement of an impartial investigation, to identify ways of overcoming the obstacles to housebuilding in the cities.

The Government have developed a range of policies to encourage development in urban areas. Since 1979, some £1,900 million has been channelled through the urban programme into thousands of projects intended to encourage enterprise, improve the environment and pilot new ways of tapping voluntary effort and meeting the needs of ethnic minority communities. More than £300 million in new private sector investment has been attracted into the inner cities through urban development grant. We have introduced land registers to identify areas of land in public ownership that could be put to better use.

Earlier this year, city action teams were introduced in the major inner city conurbations to pull together Government programmes, which are aimed at stimulating local economies. They look after programmes worth £270 million a year. Some 25 enterprise zones are now operating in the United Kingdom. They have created and safeguarded thousands of jobs, largely by easing restriction on business development.

Our derelict land programme is particularly important. The use of derelict land grant to create development sites out of run-down urban land helps to stimulate economic activity and to ease the pressure to find building land in the green belt. The Government have greatly increased the resources available for reclamation through derelict land grant. In 1979–80 this stood at £23 million. This year it was initially £76 million. We have just increased it to £82 million.

We have also changed the way in which this money is spent. The main priority for derelict land grant is to improve our towns and cities, by opening up new areas of attractive. Clean modern development, making them better places in which to live and work, and more attractive to private investment and private housing. This is how to create jobs and prosperity. We have increased more than tenfold the amount of grant going to inner cities and have encouraged the reclamation of land for housing, commerce and industry. Six years ago only 6 per cent. of this reclaimed land was used for housing or commerce. Now it is 60 per cent.

My hon. Friend is concerned that large-scale significant housing development may be permitted in the green belt in south-west Hertfordshire. I understand his concern. He has in mind proposals for additional housing provision included in a consultation document issued in the autumn as part of Hertfordshire county council's draft structure plan review. This is a purely consultative document produced by the county council. It has made it clear that 670 it is in no way committed either to the principle of accommodating more housing growth in Hertfordshire, or to any of the individual proposals in the document.

When Hertfordshire county council has considered all the responses to its consultation, it will be for the council to decide what to include in the final proposals that it intends to submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his approval early next year. When its proposals are submitted, there will be an opportunity for objections to be made to the Secretary of State. Before reaching his decision on the proposals, the Secretary of State will take into account all the representations received, and may decide to hold an examination in public. I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that all representations received will be carefully considered before any decision is reached on the review.

My hon. Friend referred in his excellent speech to proposals for development at Bovingdon. I assume that the proposal to which he refers is one on which the public have recently been consulted as part of the structure plan review. I do not know whether this proposal will form part of the county council's final proposals to the Secretary of State. If it does, it will of course be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend. At the time proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make representations to my right hon. Friend about the county council's proposed alterations to the structure plan.

My hon. Friend has criticised those who say that, if there were more residential developments house prices would fall and, consequently, local people would be able to afford them and to remain in the area. This is a difficult issue. House prices are determined by a number of factors of which land availability is only one. I have no reason to believe that an increase in housebuilding in Hertfordshire would necessarily lead to a fall in house prices. If prices were to fall in any area, there could be no guarantee that the houses would be bought by local people.

I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's suggestion that local authorities should be given a tolerance—I believe that was how he described it—which would allow them to develop 0.5 per cent. of the green belt each year if they wished. Our present policy on the control of development in the green belt allows local authorities the proper flexibility, which is preferable to the application of more rigid rules.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am grateful for this opportunity to spell out in some detail the Government's commitment to the green belt. As I said, I have some green belt land in my constituency. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend on the matter before he starts his Christmas recess.