HC Deb 16 December 1996 vol 287 cc731-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

10.34 pm
Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the protection of the green belt. There is no doubt that the green belt policy, which has been in place for almost 50 years, has been successful.

The metropolitan green belt is well established. Most of my constituency lies within it. Without it, we probably would have had urban sprawl and ribbon development all the way between London and Oxford, if not further afield. The green belt policy is certainly firmly supported by the two local authorities that cover my constituency—South Buckinghamshire district council and Wycombe district council.

There is always the need for constant vigilance of the green belt. There is constant development pressure on my constituency, which already has three motorways—the M4, the M25 and the M40.

Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)

There is no doubt that there is pressure on the green belt, but does my hon. Friend know of the plan to build 868,000 more houses in the south-east of England by 2011? That will certainly put enormous pressure on the green belt.

Mr. Smith

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and very much agree with him. We need to try to ensure that as many of those houses as possible are built in urban areas on reclaimed derelict land, rather than in the green belt where they would take up more of our lovely countryside.

There is constant pressure on the green belt. As well as the three motorways in my constituency, there is gravel extraction, the proposed expansion of terminal 5 at Heathrow, the complementary relocation of the Perry Oaks sludge treatment works to Iver, the Eton rowing trench and the Maidenhead flood relief scheme. I am glad to say that we saw off the threatened Central Railway project.

The Maidenhead flood relief scheme is under construction by the Environment Agency. One might think that a body called the Environment Agency would be particularly concerned about the environment. Construction of the scheme has only just begun, yet in a letter from the chairman of Dorney parish council, Mr. Ken Richmond tells me: it is becoming apparent that the Environment Agency has little or no interest in the local environment or in our opinions as to how the problems which the Agency is causing could be addressed. Mr. Richmond also sent me three photographs of the desecration that the Environment Agency has already caused. Unfortunately, it is not possible to reproduce photographs in Hansard. I wish it were; it would probably be a little bit more interesting if it were illustrated. All that evidence underlines the need to adopt an absolutist policy on protecting the green belt. There should be no exceptions to the policy; we must have a very tough approach and be vigorous at all times.

Given the context, I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I read with some amazement the latest consultation paper issued by the Department of the Environment, which is entitled: Proposed New Permitted Development Right To Extend The Garden Of A Dwellinghouse. It was published last month, and says: The Department is concerned that the benefits of requiring a planning application are not significant". I strongly challenge that assertion. I believe that they are significant and that the damage that would be done if one did not have to get planning permission to extend a garden into the green belt has been grossly underestimated by my hon. Friend's Department.

The paper goes on: Concern has been expressed to the Department that the requirement to obtain planning permission … is an unnecessary burden. Could my hon. Friend tell me by whom that concern has been expressed? I was unaware of a great clamour for a change in the law in this respect. Most people understand that they need planning permission and accept it.

The paper continues: It is argued that neighbouring householders and other users of adjacent land would not be adversely affected". I beg to differ with that too. Neighbouring householders could be severely adversely affected by the proposal. Indeed, some already have difficulty with what people do in their gardens. If the new right were introduced, life would be made even more difficult for them. The paper states: very little is … gained in planning terms by the current controls in this area. I strongly disagree with that too.

On the document's second page—its main virtue being its brevity—which is also to do with extending a garden, it says: Householders would … be able to fence the land, erect porches, garden sheds, tennis courts, garages and oil tanks, and install swimming pools, satellite antenna and hard surfaces subject to the same restrictions currently set out in the Order for existing gardens. That could all be done without any planning permission.

The next paragraph says: There would be no restriction to the area which could be added to a curtilage under the proposed permitted development right. In ordinary language, that means that one could buy a five-acre field, fence round it, make it one's garden and, over a period of time, build any number of swimming pools, tennis courts or whatever.

I received a response to that from the director of planning services of South Buckinghamshire district council, Mr. Paul Geehan, who is an excellent planning officer. He said: I was absolutely amazed to receive the attached consultation paper from the DOE. Essentially the proposed changes in planning rules would allow householders to annex an area of countryside, including the Green Belt, and incorporate it into their garden. They would then have the same permitted development rights to build in the extended gardens as currently exist in existing gardens or grounds of houses. These include covered swimming pools, domestic stable blocks, domestic garages, sheds, laying a hard surface, summerhouses, etc. Providing these buildings were more than 5 metres from the dwelling, no higher than 3 metres (with a flat roof) or 4 metres (with a ridged roof) and did not cover more than 50 per cent. of the total curtilage excluding the original dwelling, basically people could do what they liked providing it stayed ancillary to the residential use. With your intimate knowledge of the green belt, you do not need me to tell you the sort of things people get up to and the pressure the area is under. The proposal now before us would give a green light to urbanising the Green Belt and if it goes ahead, I believe its impact would be disastrous.

Mr. Steen

I follow my hon. Friend's argument about the green belt and I agree with it, but that is as far as I would go. Would he be happy to confine his remarks to the green belt? Does he agree that extensions should be allowed to houses and in green fields that are surplus to agricultural use, as set out in the Green Paper?

Mr. Smith

I am not at all sure about that. My main concern is with the green belt, because the whole of my constituency lies within it. My hon. Friend is better qualified to speak on other matters.

The planning officer continued: As an example of what could be done, a householder living in a property on the edge of the Green Belt could buy the next field, annex it to his property and build over at least half the field. Providing the use were for the householder and his family, subject to the height restriction already mentioned they could build an indoor swimming pool and changing area, a stable block and other buildings for pets, a tennis court, a new drive, a multi-car garage block, a recreation complex (e.g. snooker/gymnasium), sheds, domestic workshops, greenhouses, caravan hardstanding area, summerhouses, a chapel etc., etc., etc. Even if one of these developments were carried out, Green Belt policy would be seriously undermined. In addition of course, there would be nothing in planning terms to stop playing fields or areas of open space being annexed. The proposal seems to be in conflict with national policy on keeping Green Belts open (PPG2) and on policies which stress the value of recreation and open space (PPG17). I have had a similar letter from Stoke Poges parish council, where I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) lives; he has considerable knowledge of the area. The clerk there said: These dangers are already apparent in Stoke Poges. For example, I enclose a map of some land at the rear of properties in West End Lane and Park Road indicating where fences have been erected partitioning off a field in the green belt. It is very important to preserve these fringe areas of green belt otherwise the extent of the green belt will be eroded and its aims and objects impaired. In this case not only is the green belt affected but public footpaths interfered with. The purposes of the green belt are set out in planning policy guidance note 2. They include the aims to check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and to safeguard surrounding countryside from further encroachment. In my view, although it sounds like a modest measure of deregulation, the Department of the Environment's proposal could be the thin end of the wedge. It undermines the objectives of PPG2, and I hope that when the consultation comes to an end the Department will throw it out.

10.43 pm
Sir Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)

With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), I should like to contribute briefly to this important debate.

When I first saw the deregulation news release from the Department of the Environment, I thought for a moment that the publication date had to be 1 April, in which case I could have understood why it had been sent to me. I certainly thought that it was a hoax of the first order.

I am astonished and amazed that the release could have crept out of the Department under the guise of deregulation. I have such respect for my hon. Friend the Minister that I can only assume that he was away on holiday when it was sent out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has correctly pointed out a number of things that could happen if the ghastly proposal ever came to fruition. The owner of the extended garden would probably want to fence it. That would result in small pockets of land, or whole fields, sprouting fences up to 2 m high without the need for planning permission. That would break up the countryside and damage the all-important concept of openness, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are well aware is one of the crucial criteria for green belt land.

Since half a garden may be covered with buildings, sheds, hard-standings and the like, developments could include multi-storey garages, indoor or outdoor swimming pools, recreation rooms and stable blocks—later perhaps to be converted to a granny bungalow when the owner discovers that he does not have any horses. Although existing rights of way would not be expunged, one can imagine that they might soon be obstructed, or that the owner might try to have cross-field paths legally closed on the ground of lack of use. As we all know, most people are reluctant to cross what looks like a private garden. Such rights of way might be diverted to the edge of the property.

What about a person who wanted to conduct some activities which are unacceptable in the green belt? He could buy a house bordering it, buy the land behind the house, fence that land and then conduct the activity while claiming that it was related to the amenities of the house and within its curtilage. Alternatively, the person might already own the land behind the house, buy the house, unite the two sites and proceed to behave as I have described.

The Department might say that such suggestions are far-fetched, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, given his knowledge of the subject, will readily agree that such manoeuvres can take place. They are real problems, which arise in real life.

The proposal, were it to come to pass, would create what I can only describe as shed city on the green belt. It would set neighbour against neighbour. It would be a nightmare for planning officers, for councillors of every kind, and, not least, for hon. Members. We would be faced at our constituency surgeries by angry constituents who had discovered that they could do absolutely nothing about the buildings that had sprouted up on the green belt land near their homes.

It is a matter of great regret that there are only a few days to object to the proposal. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell the House that he is willing to consider extending the period for consultation so that elected representatives of every kind can have the opportunity to make their objections known.

I am sorry to say that I feel that the consultation paper is the most ill thought-out, environmentally damaging and unsustainable suggestion that the planning profession has been requested to respond to in recent times. It is difficult to believe that the Department is serious, particularly at a time of increasing environmental awareness and support for the protection of the countryside for its own sake.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield rightly asked what are the concerns that have been referred to in the consultation document and have apparently been expressed to the Department. There is no evidence to support what has been asserted. The amount of concern and the importance to be attached to it needs to be seriously questioned. [Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am running out of puff. I regret to say that I strongly oppose the Department's proposal, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the effect that it might have on the effectiveness of Thames valley water, which has helped to restore my voice to this debate.

10.49 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for providing the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the green belt, and about the suburbanisation of the countryside. What better example of that can there be than the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary who is to reply to the debate? Croydon was once a wonderful rural area, but it is now totally suburban. There is something to be said for guarding against the expansion of the green belt.

I would like to throw in the caveat that we must distinguish between green belt land and green-field sites. The idea that green-field sites might end up full of tarmacadamed drives, stable blocks, granny flats and swimming pools seems to suggest that people who own their own land will lower the value of that land. Self-interest and private enterprise are the hallmarks of the Conservative party, and deregulation is at the centre of our economic policy. I am fortunate enough to chair the Conservative party's Back-Bench committee on deregulation.

I agree that the inclusion of the green belt extension is a damaging precedent, but the use of alternative land means that green fields go fallow. That is a tremendous burden on the public purse, and the money could be used for something useful. One must conclude that people who own land will use it to the best advantage, and we must remember that there is a distinction between the green belt and green fields.

10.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)

We must congratulate the Environment Agency on one point. It now contains the National Rivers Authority, which was responsible for the glass of water that allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) to conclude his speech.

This has been a much more entertaining debate than I expected—that was this week's understatement. When the Government publish a consultation document, we like to receive varied opinions and reactions to it. We try to put the document in the simplest of forms so that it can get the fullest of answers. This evening, we have had the fullest of answers, with two of my hon. Friends on one side and one on the other.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on raising this matter. By the time he finished, I had visions of Barnum and Bailey or Ringling Brothers' circus being parked in his and his neighbours' back yards. That was a slight exaggeration. There is a consultation document, and I shall take the points raised in the debate on board. We will read tomorrow the points raised by my hon. Friends, and ensure that they go into the consultation.

We accepted that effective limits would be set by the criteria that the land must form part of the curtilage of the house and be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the house. The slight exaggerations that we heard this evening—although emphasising a point—were a little beyond the pale. We are not talking about huge garden extensions that cover large parts of the countryside and change its real nature. We have issued the consultation document on the proposals, and we specifically asked for views on the principle and the detail. Careful attention will be paid to those views. It is worth reiterating that this is part of a full package that includes policy planning guidance note 2, which refers to green belts.

It is worth stating one or two facts about green belts to emphasise the importance of bringing the discussion document into perspective. Green belts are popular at home and are widely admired abroad. I remember as a child looking at pictures of the English countryside, and it is a beautiful part of the English scenery that we all know—including those who come here as tourists. Since 1979, the extent of green belt land has more than doubled, and it now covers 12 per cent. of England—some 3.8 million acres. This also applies to the metropolitan green belt—as has been mentioned this evening—which covers a substantial part of the region around London and the home counties. About 21 per cent. of the south-east is formally designated as green belt, and it encompasses some of our thriving towns. Green belt land is very important—it remains an essential tool for containing urban sprawl and it is one of our major assets.

Housing policy and the difficulties with development that we will encounter were mentioned. When discussing that policy we have to recognise that the Government have acted in various ways to ensure that development and new households—the demand for which is there, whether we like it or not—are brought to so-called brown land. We are already succeeding—about 50 per cent. of new dwellings are on brown land and we hope that that figure will rise.

I appreciate my hon. Friends' comments, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield and for Uxbridge, both of whose constituencies are on the edges of London. It is vital that we retain the green belt and I back my hon. Friends all the way.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.