Housing and the Green Belt: What you won’t be told
You will be told repeatedly how it is inevitable that there must be development on the Green Belt. Well there is another side to this so here are some of the things you won't be told.
October last year the number of complaints from angry residents throughout the South East got so bad that Eric Pickles was forced to issue a statement backed up by policy examples trying to balance the picture. Known as the 'Pickles Panic ' It did not create any new policy just tried to re-balance those policies that already existed. Key among them was...
In decision taking, can unmet need for housing outweigh Green Belt Protection?
Unmet housing need (including for traveler sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt.
What is important is that this built on, or just repeated several existing policies and statements all designed to defend Green belt. These are the things developers and Spelthorne won't tell you . The issue is quite simple:- Does Spelthorne want to use the tools available to defend our Green Belt?
See the full statement and Policy base here
In case you are in any doubt here are some more references you will not be told about by developers or Spelthorne
Prime Minister to Crispin Blunt MP March 2013
My support for Green Belt is a matter of public record. A Green Belt boundary can be altered only in exceptional circumstances, through the Local Plan process, with local consultation and robust examination of any proposed change.
------
If no up-to-date Plan is in place, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. However, the Framework makes clear that this presumption would not apply if specific policies - such as those protecting Green Belt - indicate that development should be restricted. The presumption therefore does not 'trump' Green Belt policy.[Spelthorne has 'specific' policies]
See the full letter here
This next letter makes it clear that local councils are in charge of their Green belts. They make the decisions
Nick Boles Under Secretary of State (Planning) to Anna Sourbry MP April 2013
We are absolutely clear local councils are in charge of their Green Belts.
-------
Policy is clear therefore that neither unmet need nor the presumption in favour of sustainable development automatically override Green belt protection.
See the full letter here
HANSARD 28 Apr 2014 : Column 492W (Reply to Martin Horwood)
Housing: Construction
Nick Boles: This returns power to local authorities and communities to determine whether it is appropriate to develop on green belt land, taking into account the strong protections in the National Planning Policy Framework.
See the full extract here
At the start of July 2014 Junior planning Minister Brandon Lewis presented a written Ministerial statement to the house. making the positon clear yet again
Extract: Written Ministerial Statement Brandon Lewis July 1st 2014
The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on its facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveler sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the 'very special circumstances' justifying inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
See the full Written Ministerial Statement here
Which brings us back to the Pickles Panic of October 2014.
Don't let anyone say there is nothing we can do to protect our Green Belt if we want to.
Liberal Democrats want to.