Green Belt: Development Pressures (Hansard, 10 December 1997)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, the Government are committed to the Green Belts and have no current plans to revise the policies set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 2. Adoption of Green Belts and the determination of boundaries are, however, primarily a local matter. Where changes to Green Belt boundaries are proposed, we would expect all non-Green Belt alternatives to have been fully explored.

§ Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I declare my interest as chairman of the CPRE. Will the Minister confirm that she is effectively rescinding the statement made by Mr. Richard Caborn, one of her ministerial colleagues, on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 on 30th October that the Green Belt is up for grabs? Nevertheless, does she recognise that there are nine urban centres whose Green Belts are under major threat at present? Can she assure the House that the Government will make certain that any proposal for development in a Green Belt, whether it comes from local authorities or private developers, will be called in so that it can be determined centrally by the Secretary of State with the appropriate national consultation and publicity?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I am very happy to make clear to the noble Lord the Government's 145 commitment to the Green Belt and to reiterate it. There remains a presumption against inappropriate development in Green Belts, and the Government's policy is as set out in Planning Policy Guidance No. 2. The fundamental aim of Green Belts is to keep land around urban areas permanently open and to prevent urban sprawl. It has been made clear—and I reiterate this—that Green Belt boundaries should only be changed in exceptional circumstances. Any changes proposed by a local planning authority would need to he subject to full public consultation. In addition, the department would need to be satisfied that all opportunities for development within the urban areas contained by, or beyond, the Green Belt had been fully considered. It is within that framework that any proposals for change would be viewed by the department.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recall that in a debate earlier this year she told the House that her department was preparing a list of available brown-field sites with definitions and targets for their use? Is my noble friend in a position to say whether this review—if I may use that term—will shortly be available?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, we are certainly looking at the possibility of using more brown-field sites for development than was previously the case. Any sensible government committed to revitalising inner cities and making them vital and attractive places in which to live, and indeed to protecting the countryside, would be committed to using the maximum number of brown-field sites available. We are considering our policy on planning for household growth, which will take into account the public consultation earlier this year. We hope to be able to announce decisions in that respect in the new year.

§ Earl Peel
My Lords, is it not striking that the Government's plans to increase rural building come only a few days after the Deputy Prime Minister announced the emasculation of the Rural Development Commission, which many of us on this side of the House in particular very much regret? Further, does the Minister agree that it was quite deplorable that the Deputy Prime Minister remarked in another place, when announcing the changes, that, the rural areas will be better off without him".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/97; col. 361.]— the "him" being my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, who chaired the Rural Development Commission with such great distinction?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I believe noble Lords will recall that I was asked a question from the Front Bench opposite about the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, and that I answered it during the discussion on the Statement regarding regional development agencies. In repeating that Statement, I tried to make clear the Government's commitment to the health and well-being of rural areas. I also tried to make clear that our decision to include the regeneration 146 budgets of the RDC within the RDAs was because we believed it would be to the benefit of rural areas. I accept that not everyrone in the House or elsewhere shares that view. However, it is shared by many other organisations; and indeed, by many of the people who responded to the consultation on RDAs regarding the proposal that regeneration budgets for rural areas would be ring-fenced in terms of the budgets within the RDAs, and that there would have to be members of the RDAs with experience of rural matters.
I should make clear to the noble Earl that there are no plans to increase rural building. The Government have not taken any final decisions on what the targets might be to meet household growth figures. In the meantime, I should point out that the previous government's target of 50 per cent. on brown-field sites is one to which we are keeping.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that most of the larger conurbations are totally against this type of development outside the cities? Where such development has taken place in the past, it has had a tremendously detrimental effect on other conurbations which are trying to restore their city centres. Is that still one of the Government's priorities?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that it is still a priority to restore the vitality of city centres and make them places where people will want to live, work, shop and enjoy leisure facilities. That is why the very clear guidance in terms of out-of-town developments and shopping centres is being adhered to by the Government. We are looking first and foremost at town centre alternatives rather than out-of-town alternatives for development.

§ Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, in view of the reported statement of the planning inspectors that it would be detrimental for the environment if more houses were built in West Sussex than those prescribed by the county structure plan, can the Minister explain how the Government can, on the one hand, organise and ask that 13,000 houses above the Sussex plan be built and, on the other, say that they are a friend of the environment?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I believe that the Government's credentials as regards being a friend of the environment will be proved in many areas of policy throughout the lifetime of this Parliament, and beyond. In terms of West Sussex, it is correct that there was an intervention in the structure plan regarding the planning for household growth. I understand that those concerned in West Sussex have now announced that they are seeking a judicial review of the Secretary of State's 147 decision to intervene. Pending that legal action, I am sure that the House will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.