Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Green Belt has a new voice in Parliament
The London Green Belt, part of which lies in Kent, has a new champion.
Yesterday’s (October 31) launch of an All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for the London Metropolitan Green Belt saw members at the inaugural meeting agree to develop policy thinking and a plan to influence the debate on housing and planning policy.
The objective is to “protect the capital’s precious Green Belt and achieve sustainable development”, a statement from the London Green Belt Council (LGBC) said.
Crispin Blunt MP (Conservative) was elected as the group’s chairman, with Lord Rogers (Labour) serving as co-chairman.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat) and Gareth Thomas (Labour) became vice-chairmen, while Oliver Dowden (Conservative) will act as treasurer. The secretariat will be provided by the LGBC.
Richard Knox-Johnston, chairman of the London Green Belt Council and vice-chairman of CPRE Kent, said: “The establishment of the APPG is an important move in the protection of London’s Green Belt.
“There is far too much unhelpful propaganda being used to force encroachment into this important national resource, which provides health and well-being to the people of London and surrounding communities.”
Group chairman Mr Blunt added: “I am delighted we have formed the APPG for London’s Green Belt.
“With the number of Green Belt sites around London under threat from development more than doubling over the past year, we urgently need to review our approach to housing policy across the region.
“The group will inform the debate and develop recommendations for Green Belt-friendly planning policy.”
Co-chairman Lord Rogers, meanwhile, highlighted some of the issues the group will need to tackle: “There is an abundance of brownfield land which can and should be developed.
“Land-banking is threatening both the provision of affordable homes for key workers and the protection of the Green Belt. I hope the group will contribute to radical and innovative thinking in this area.”
Last month we highlighted how threats to the London Green Belt had doubled in a year: Read our story here.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
- A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
- There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
- There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.
The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:
- There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
- A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
- Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
- Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.
Concerns about the rush to submit the plan
The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.
As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.
Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.
Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.
The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.
Further information
