Green Belt (Hansard, 8 February 2000)

§ 9. Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet)
If he will make a statement about the protection of established greenbelt land, and the acreage of it that has been approved for non-conforming use for development during the past 33 months. [107314]

§ The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
The Government are entirely committed to the green belt as a method of restricting urban sprawl. The area of green belt has been increased under this Government by around 30,000 hectares. As I have already indicated in a written answer to the hon. Gentleman, information on inappropriate uses in the green belt is not held centrally.

§ Sir Sydney Chapman
The integrity of our greenbelt policy depends entirely on no part of it being built on. 108 Is it not spurious to allow development on greenbelt land and then say that the problem is overcome by adding more land to the green belt elsewhere—land that would not in any case be built on?

§ Mr. Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman will know from his background in planning that it is always important to keep policies under review and that there are circumstances in which policies that might appear to be unduly rigid may need some modification to achieve a more sustainable outcome. That should always be allowed for. The Government whom he supported consistently allowed development on greenfield and greenbelt land up until their last year in office when the then Secretary of State released 1,200 hectares of greenbelt land for development. That was a shameful record, and this Government are protecting the green belt.

§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)
Northowram hospital in my constituency, which is in the green belt and has beautiful lands, is due for closure. My hon. Friend will know that NHS Estates is essentially the landowner. Is there anything that he can do to prevent NHS Estates from going for the easy option of more housing in an already crowded village and make it consider alternatives for that beautiful site?

§ Mr. Raynsford
Inappropriate development in the green belt is a strong prima facie ground for refusal of planning permission. Certainly, any concerns that my hon. Friend has about an inappropriate proposal for development in her green belt should be referred to the local authority, which should be guided by PPG2, the relevant planning policy guidance note, which makes it clear that inappropriate development in such circumstances should be refused.

§ Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden)
Does the Minister recall justifying last week his approval of the building of 10,000 houses in the green belt in my constituency on the basis that the land is near the transport links of the A1 and the railway? Does he recognise that planning in this country works on precedent, and will he admit that the precedent that he has created gives the green light to ribbon development along motorways and railways, even when they go through greenbelt land? Will he remove that precedent by lifting his approval for the monstrous building of 10,000 houses on greenbelt land in my constituency?

§ Mr. Raynsford
No. As the right hon. Gentleman ought to know by now—he has heard it often enough from the Dispatch Box—the decision was properly made by the local authority in his area, which felt that it was better to concentrate development in one area with good access to transport links rather than to allow sprawl throughout the surrounding rural area. That was a decision properly reached by democratically elected local representatives who were facing up to their responsibilities rather than uttering cheap soundbites, of which he should be ashamed.

§ Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, under the previous Conservative Government, substantial development, particularly ribbon and dormitory development, took place outside the green belt, with a consequent impact on 109 transport and services? Does he accept that a sane and rational planning policy must take account of that, and that the Government must plan accordingly for the future?

§ Mr. Raynsford
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the appalling record of the previous Government in permitting consistent and profligate use of greenfield land, including the nibbling away of the green belt, for inappropriate housing developments. We have adopted a different approach. We are seeking to ensure that the principles of sustainability are at the top of the agenda and that greenfield land is protected wherever possible, to ensure that the bulk of development is concentrated in our cities and on brownfield sites.

§ Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)
The House and the country will be alarmed to hear the Minister say, as he did a couple of minutes ago, that greenbelt land is under review. Will he give us a commitment today that if the Government adopt any part of the Crow report, which disgracefully advocates concreting over large parts of the south-east, no greenbelt land will be lost? Does he agree that the Government's failure to protect the green belt has led to comments such as the one in this month's Environment and Planning Review, which states that considering Labour's pre-election pledge that the party would form the 'greenest ever Government'", environmentalists have every right to feel let down? Is not that exactly right?

§ Mr. Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all three counts. First, he misinterpreted my comments about the need to take a serious approach towards policy, and not to be utterly rigid when circumstances suggest that there are real gains to be made from an adjustment of policy. That occurs in certain cases, and any sensible, serious Government recognise that.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to suggest that the Government favour concreting over the countryside. As I pointed out in response to an earlier question, it was his party that allowed so much of rural England to be built on in a shameless and disgraceful way.
Thirdly, if we are speaking of the merits of individual hon. Members in terms of their environmental credentials, perhaps he will record that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the former shadow Secretary of State, recently received the award for being the least green of all Members. That is a pretty shameful comment on the Opposition Front-Bench team.