| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
26 Mar 2003 : Column 425—continued
8.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): As is customary, I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing the debate—and I mean that, not least because the issue is very important for the country as well as for Hertfordshire. I am from what was called Middlesex, so I can say without being flippant that I know where Ware is.
I know much of Hertfordshire, as I was born in Harrow, and I note that the hon. Gentleman pops down to my constituency, or at least used to, via Stanmore
choral society, which is a great pleasure, although I do not think that I ever received a letter from him saying that he was coming. I also note that, as he said in his maiden speech, he was a front-row rugby player, as was I. That is probably apparent from my build, too.I shall get on to the matter under debate in a moment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman was part of the "proper" club—a tight-head prop, which is where the real props play, rather than a loose head, which we always regarded as a rather effete position. None the less, I also congratulate him on his consistency. I note that in his maiden speech he said, among other things, that he would
- "fight and fight again to ensure . . . that we defend our green belt from excessive development."—[Official Report, 9 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 597.]
We have strengthened our commitment to our aims on a variety of fronts. We have added 30,000 hectares to the green belt since 1997. In 1986, 5,000 hectares were added to the area around Bishops Stortford; of the 30,000 hectares added since 1997, north Hertfordshire—which is not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but next door to it—has benefited from an additional 3,600 hectares, and Dacorum has been given 1,000. The hon. Gentleman probably knows—hence the importance of this debate to him and his constituents—that some 60 per cent. of Hertfordshire consists of green belt: 21,000 hectares.
Additions to the green belt since 1997 have brought benefits to parts of the country that had previously been left out. There are 14 green belts in England, covering approximately 13 per cent. of the land mass, or 1.65 million hectares. Following the Government's revision of policy planning guidance note 3, on housing, in 2000, developers must take account of the 22,000 hectares of developable brownfield land in London, the south-east and the east before touching green fields. That in turn will help to focus development in towns and cities rather than "leapfrogging" the green belt to more distant locations.
In February, for the first time ever—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—the Government gave a guarantee to maintain or increase the amount of green belt in every region, including regions such as the east,
which already have sizeable amounts of land designated as green belt. If local authorities decide to undesignate green belt, we shall expect the regional planning body to work with them to find additional green belt, to ensure that the total amount in each region is maintained or even increased.The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), said on 11 March:
- "The green belt itself is a difficult situation. On the whole, green belts should be preserved, although a case could be made for replenishing the green belt with other areas, and for building the green belt itself provided that areas are added in compensation."
Mr. Prisk: If I may continue the rugby analogy, I thank the Minister for passing the ball across to me. He has referred to land area and the replacement of land elsewhere, but he has not returned to the main question: does he accept that the essential characteristic of green belt—I am thinking not of the policy, but of the land and the specific sites—is its permanence?
Mr. McNulty: I do not often pass the ball to the Opposition, although others may have different interpretations of the way in which I play the game!
In the context of PPG2, that is of course the case. There would have to be good and substantive reasons for the suggestions offered by east Hertfordshire, locally or elsewhere. Often the expanse and permanence of the green belt are what make it valuable. As a London Member, I find that that is increasingly so as one gets closer to London. If the hon. Gentleman toured Stanmore when he popped down to sing, he would know that much of the north of my constituency is green belt. It would be very difficult to unpick that in any way, given that it constitutes the start of what the metropolitan green belt was initially intended for: the barrier between the end of the metropolitan sprawl, as it were, and the start of the countryside. So permanence is important, but the notion that the Deputy Prime Minister's suggestion in the communities plan—that there can be additions to, and withdrawals from, the green belt, which is the implication of the commitment to maintaining the overall acreage on a region-by-region basis—is new and has not always formed the heart of PPG2 is inaccurate.
Mr. Prisk: I shall not continue the metaphor too much further, but I thank the Minister for again allowing the ball to pass to the other side. However, he will know from his own constituency experience—I should point out, for his benefit, that I have moved choirs and am now a member of the parliamentary choir, not of Stanmore choir—that the people of
Stanmore, for example, will be deeply worried if the gap between them and Bushey, or between them and Elstree, is chipped away. The issue is not the odd small site, but the permanent presence.The Minister said that he accepts that the character of the green belt is important, but I am arguing, and asking him to confirm, that it is essential; indeed, that is the principle that I am trying to establish. People in my constituency are worried about the fact that, slowly but surely, the character of their area is being diminished. Does he accept that that character is essential?
Mr. McNulty: I do, and so has the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement. However, the notion that the announcements in recent weeks mark a departure from what has always prevailed in terms of the core of PPG2—permanent, fixed, never-to-be-moved, immutable boundaries—is not appropriate. Even in the metropolitan green belt in my own constituency, there have been small movements in or out, and where there is justification for them, they have been allowed.
If I may, I should like to return, at least in part, to the east Herts local plan. The local plans, the entire plan-led system and their responsiveness and flexibility are crucially important in at least giving people the certainty of designation of green belt, and in avoiding the speculation about other elements which, I fully accept, is occurring in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Development plans should take a long-term view of their area and how it should develop and change, and should plan positively for that change. In east Herts, the local plan was adopted in 1999 and made provision for development only up to 2001. The local plan is currently being reviewed. In December 2000, the local authority placed on deposit a review of that local plan for public consultation. Some 26 months later, it still has not reached second deposit stage, including all the designations to and from the green belt. I understand that the local authority currently expects that it will not adopt the plan until 2007, yet the plan's life expires by 2011. That tardiness is not very useful for the hon. Gentleman's constituents in terms of responding to the boundaries and what goes into, or stays out of, the green belt; nor does it help with any other aspects of the planning framework in the east Herts area.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |