Westminster Hall debate: Future of the Green Belt in England

Anna Soubry (Conservative, Broxtowe) began the debate by noting that a number of MPs who had attended, showing their level of concern about this topic and importance of green belt. Our green belts, nowadays, she said, aren’t just a restriction on building: they are England's green lungs. Green field land, she said, must be distinguished properly from green belt land. This confusion has been made repeatedly, but the former does not have the same sort of protection.

 

James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) intervened to say that he was not sure he agreed that this should be the case, coming from a green field rather than green belt constituency. Soubry acknowledged this point, but said that this was a debate about the green belt specifically.

 

A Labour MP intervened to say that the Town and Country Planning Act principles are vital to protecting countryside. Those principles should be protected, he said. Soubry said she did not accept the notion that the green belt is under threat.

 

Caroline Nokes MP (Conservative, Romsey & Southampton North) asked if Soubry would agree she is fortunate to have the green belt in her constituency. Many MPs have none and this creates real problems. Soubry said she accepted this point.

 

One MP intervened to ask if Soubry agreed that protection of the green belt under new policy should be as strong as, or stronger than, before? Soubry said that the beauty of the new planning proposals is communities if they want, can in fact approve planning. Another MP disagreed, saying that even if one generation likes development future generations may not. Soubry said this comes down to sustainable development.

 

Col Bob Stewart MP (Conservative, Beckenham) said his worry is that in his constituency there is a requirement to comply with the London plan, meaning how it could impose on local people things it does not want. Soubry responded that the planning policy framework and localism bill do impose a requirement to work together. The question is about how to get the balance right.

 

Lawrence Robertson MP (Conservative, Tewksbury) said the question is not only where homes go but also why and whether they are needed. Soubry said this was true: local authorities will be able to determine their own housing needs rather than take figures from a central authority that they have no contact with. She gave the example of Rushcliffe, which is near her constituency. It has stepped away from the Greater Nottingham Local Advisory Board for this reason.

 

Col Bob Stewart suggested the words “presumption in favour of sustainable consultation” should be inserted in the bill.
Soubry finished by repeating that now local authorities can determine their own housing figures, unlike under the Regional Spatial Strategy.

 

Col Bob Stewart suggested that there should be an end to the ability to extend planning permission beyond the original three years, to ensure completion faster. Bill Esterson MP (Labour, Sefton Central) said he agreed. He set out his concerns about the brown field first policy. It was good, he said, to have development on these sites. There is a need to encourage landowners to develop empty disused properties. What about encouraging development of empty homes?

 

One MP began by endorsing the words of Bill Esterson. She said she had been a major opponent of the Regional Spatial Strategy and the targets it forced on her constituency. She was delighted to see it go. She argued that the new legislation could compromise the Green Belt. The green belt, urban green spaces and valuable agricultural land had to be protected.

 

Guy Opperman MP (Conservative, Hexham) said there is a need for housing and if young people struggle to get on the housing ladder then local shops and communities suffer. This new strategy is far superior to the Regional Spatial Strategy of the previous government.

 

James Gray MP said he supported the move towards localism that the government is pushing. He noted that in North Wiltshire there is no green belt, but there ought to be.

 

Jack Dromey MP (Labour, Birmingham Erdington) intervened to say that some Members do not think the MPPF goes far enough to protect the green belt, and noted it removed the brownfield first policy. He defended Labour’s record, noting how much the green belt has expanded under Labour. The Campaign to Protect Rural England wants a presumption against building on green belt to remain. The loss of the presumption against inappropriate development is to be regretted.

 

Andrew Stunell MP (Parliamentary Undersecretary of State, Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove), responding for the government, noted that phraseology has been raised so he would include this debate on consultation on the bill. One and a half pages of the Bill offer a definition of sustainable development, he noted, when asked to define it.

 

The government, he argued, values the green belt highly – it is very important to restrain sprawl. Retaining that green belt is part of coalition agreement. In terms of green field, the MPPF says clearly that the planning system aims to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting natural landscapes. Inappropriate development will happen only under very special circumstances that have been set out. The new system will come into force with the passage of Localism Bill on 1st April next year, if the House is willing. Until then, the existing planning system is in place.

 

For more information from Chelgate Public Relations, please contact us here.