| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
26 Mar 2003 : Column 428—continued
Mr. Prisk: I detect a cul-de-sac arriving, but it is important to put on the record one of the problems that local authorities have had. Just as they are trying to form the local plans to which the Minister has referred—I should be grateful for his response to this point—along comes the M11 corridor review and the sustainable communities plan. All such initiatives, including the regional guidance for which his Department is responsible, are actually slowing the process. So to suggest that local plans are biding their time and being very slow in the absence of other distractions is a little disingenuous, if I may say so. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding in agreement. I hope that he will recognise that east Herts intends, of course, wherever possible—he will undoubtedly want to respond to this point—to bring in enough homes for young people. However, the suggestion that it is dragging its feet is perhaps wrong.
Mr. McNulty: I will meet the hon. Gentleman half way, but with the best will in the world, in terms of the
areas that east Herts must respond to, a process that lasts from 1999 through to 2007 is tardy by any token, however active the Government and others are. We need to change that, but I should point out that that is not a reflection on east Herts; in part, it is a reflection on the system that the planning legislation intends to change.It is true that the plan-led system has to be appropriate for east Herts. It would damp down precisely the sort of speculation that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has referred to. I accept that that is a heated topic in connection with the London-Stansted corridor, the M11 and other developments, but the process is rather lengthy nevertheless. I recognise that other factors are in play, but that is by the way.
The local authorities, led by the regional planning body, are undertaking work to develop a planning and implementation strategy for the London-Stansted-Cambridge growth area for inclusion in RPG14, which will provide housing figures for the period up to 2021. However, that strategy must be rooted in the realities of regional problems and opportunities, and it must work on a time scale relevant to the local community.
Two further studies are under way to supplement that work—the Harlow options study and the Stansted-M11 development options study. I accept that the local plan will have to take them into account. These further studies will inform the regional planning body in preparing RPG14, which is due to be submitted to Government in February 2004. My difficulty is understanding why it will take east Herts until 2007 to prepare matters, when all the other things that I have mentioned will come on stream before.
It will be for the regional planning body to prepare a sustainable development strategy for the growth area, and to consider whether the necessary exceptional circumstances, which have always been embodied in PPG2, exist to justify a review of the green belt. That review would then determine what extensions and releases be made.
Any proposals in RPG14 for a review of the green belt will be fully tested through a public examination, at which a full range of local people and their representatives will have their say. Should RPG14, in its final form, identify a need for green belt review, there will be a further opportunity through local development frameworks for stakeholders to have their say on the appropriate boundaries. By local development frameworks I mean the final deposited versions of local plans.
I am aware also of the cases in Hertfordshire that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned, where land in the green belt is being fenced into individual plots and sold to gullible people—I accept the hon. Gentleman's description—apparently as an opportunity for housing. The fencing of the land does not need planning permission, as it benefits from permitted development rights. The hon. Gentleman will
know that the council has asked the Secretary of State to approve two directions that would remove the permitted development rights on land that has been subdivided into individual plots.The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford will know, too, that it is inappropriate for me to comment on the issue, other than to say that the Government office for the south-east will be giving full consideration to the merits of the proposed directions, and will take account of all material considerations. The matter may well land on my desk.
Mr. Prisk: I accept that the Minister cannot go into the details on the Floor of the House, but my point is that the signal being sent is the worst one—that there may be a chance that the land will be de-designated. That would undermine everything that the Minister has just set out. Does he genuinely believe that the metropolitan green belt can ever apply to any area other than those like mine, in southern Hertfordshire and Essex? How could it be transferred anywhere else and not be destroyed?
Mr. McNulty: The original conception was that the metropolitan green belt would be the lungs around London. In part, that can still be recognised readily enough, but it has expanded. I have mentioned the 30,000 hectares that have been added since 1997, and before that 5,000 hectares were added around Bishops Stortford. The growth of the green belt should benefit everyone in the country, but I accept that there are special circumstances associated with the metropolitan green belt that need to be taken into account.
I do not suggest that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford is adopting scare tactics, but those tactics make good headlines. However, government is about delivering sustainable solutions to meet clear and pressing need for housing. To safeguard the effectiveness of the green belt, PPG2 remains in place, while PPG3 and the other studies focus development on existing land, where it rightly belongs.
This Government are committed to maintaining or enhancing the green belt, combating low density development and delivering the affordable housing that people need. I shall certainly keep the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford abreast of those studies, and of wider developments in connection with the review of PPG2. I agree with his initial proposition, and endorse what he said about the heart of PPG2, which is that the green belt is crucial for the future vitality of the urban and rural areas of our country.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the measured, temperate and mature way in which he dealt with the matter, rather than turning it into an issue of "bulldozers versus concrete" and other such nimbysms. It is a serious subject, and I have no doubt that we will be in touch about it.
- Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Nine o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |