Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
200-205)
MR PHIL
WOOLAS MP, MR
DARYL BROWN,
CAROLINE FLINT
MP AND MR
BOB LEDSOME
3 JUNE 2008
Q200 Martin Horwood: Cheltenham.
It is AUNB on one side but green belt on three sides. It has been
handed down in the regional spatial statutory housing targets
which project about 6,000 houses inevitably going into the green
belt. Local councils of all colours have been committed to protecting
that green belt but they are being asked to meet the housing target.
How do they do it?
Caroline Flint: You will have
to forgive me; I will have to be careful about what I say about
anything that is in terms of the Regional Spatial Strategy and
individual housing targets for legal reasons. What I will say
is that we have protected the green belt and the procedures that
underpin its protection are not something that we plan to change
at all. In fact, in England the green belt has actually increased
by 64,000 acres since 1997. The proportion of land in England
counted as urban is something around 8.5% of it, certainly under
10%, well below 13% of land in England that is currently green
belt. Our view and our guidance underpinning this is that we should
be looking to develop on brownfield. I think we increased from
56% to nearly 75% brownfield use since 1997; a quarter of new
homes built on brownfield has risen by those figures. In some
cases clearly green land as opposed to green belt has been utilised
as well. My general advice to any local authority is to make sure
that it has looked to all planning guidance that is provided,
that it has looked at what available land outside the green belt
is there for it to use. In those circumstances, that will be part
of the negotiations for any house supplier or house delivery on
the ground. As I say, there are cases sometimes where green belt
I understand, is infringed on in some way but often as part of
negotiation. That is then offset by creating green belt elsewhere
or it is on a marginal point in terms of the development. But,
overall, green belt has increased and brownfield sites have increased.
Q201 Martin Horwood: You have quoted
an increase of 64,000 hectares, but that is a gross figure, is
it not? The net figure is 33,000 I think, which means that the
31,000 has been lost.
Mr Woolas: It is because of the
designation of the new national forest.
Q202 Martin Horwood: So the real
figure, apart from the New Forest is only 32,000. There is a net
increase. Areas have been lost, have they not?
Mr Woolas: Despite the reclassification
of much of the green belt in the new national forest, the increase
is 33,000.
Q203 Martin Horwood: To bring you
back to the original question, if the Regional Spatial Strategy
specifically says that 8,000 or 10,000 per year of an area is
the maximum capacity, all the potential exploited, therefore a
larger number has to go into the green belt, how does any local
council that wants to commit to protecting the green belt square
that circle?
Caroline Flint: As I say, I think
it is only in exceptional circumstances that green belt boundaries
can be amended through the development plan process and only after
there has been robust public consultation, an independent examination
and the independent examination of the draft proposal. It is important
therefore if a local authority has any view on the development
in its area that it looks at making those cases and that is part
of the discussion that takes place in the negotiation. I cannot
really say any more than that.
Q204 Martin Horwood: You said it
was exceptional but CPRE has told us that there are 37 current
or projected reviews of green belt boundaries. Is that right?
Caroline Flint: They may have
situations where development plans come forward in which they
want to impact on green belt. That does not necessarily mean that
they are going to be allowed to go forward. The whole point is
that these are subject to very robust investigations and examination.
That sounds logical to me. We cannot stop a situation where someone
might put a plan forward but by putting the plan forward that
might infringe on the green belt it does not mean it is necessarily
going to go ahead at the end of the day. That is why there are
the various planning policy statements and other guidance available
to underpin the importance of the green belt and for that therefore
to be used by local authorities and others in their negotiation
about whether a development should or should not go ahead.
Q205 Chairman: So in very broad terms
what would be the ratio of proposals to amend the green belt which
are rejected?
Caroline Flint: I will have to
come back to you on that.[2]
Chairman: Thank you very much for coming
this morning. I am sure what you have said will be useful to us
in writing our report.
2 See Ev 103.Back
| 
