|
|
17th January, 2007
Dacorum Environmental Forum
Supplement to the Forum's response to Dacorum Borough Council's Core Strategies
Supplementary Issues And Options consultation document |
| Removal of Green Belt Status from around Hemel Hempstead |
The Forum opposes the proposal in the East of England Plan to remove Green
Belt status from areas on the periphery of Hemel Hempstead.
The long-standing commitment of Governments to protect the Green Belt is
well known in Hemel Hempstead, a town that has already seen its population
increase many times over within the memory of many of its present
inhabitants. The constant presence of Green Belt land around the town, and
the support it has received from successive Secretaries of State, has
provided Hemel Hempstead and the other towns and villages of Dacorum with
the security of knowing that their identities will remain protected and
distinct, within a much loved, valued and rare type of countryside.
As a direct consequence of the Government's continuing if not admitted
policy of "Predict and Provide", real and permanent damage is being
inflicted upon this and other parts of the East of England through the
erosion of the Green Belts which sustain its character and attractiveness.
To halt this damage, there must be a re-working of national policies, that
address the issues of the North-South divide, and reverse the incentives
towards lower house occupancy levels, and net inward migration to the UK.
In regard to the last-mentioned, we note that the East of England Panel
report (Para 7.6), having observed that "Net in-migration to the East of
England accounted for some 77% of the population growth between 1998 and
2005", concludes that "What will happen to migration in future remains a
matter for conjecture".
The Forum disputes this conclusion. What will happen to migration in future
should be a matter for Government Policy, and we should not be facing the
loss of our Green Belt because of housing demand figures one of whose main
determinants is "a matter for conjecture".
Even in purely economic terms, the Eastern Region will fail as the economic
powerhouse of the country if, because its major environmental asset
continues to be plundered and squandered, it ceases to attract the necessary
type of entrepreneur. Policies and predictive methodologies require an
overhaul nationally, and need to be passed down to the Regional and local
plan levels. Some of our members have made these comments directly to
representatives of Government, but the Forum now requests that Dacorum
Borough Council includes them in their input to the regional planning
process.
The Green Belt was established as a permanent check on the spread of the
towns and villages of Dacorum. This permanence is the Green Belt's essential
feature, whose purpose is to preserve the countryside as a resource for
enjoyment by this generation and succeeding generations of the town's
inhabitants. The many thousands of people who migrated from London did so
knowing that the Green Belt was there as a guarantee, backed by government
at all levels, that they would not be exchanging one endless conurbation for
another. The principle of dry valleys acting as "green wedges" leading
uninterruptedly from within the town to open countryside was an essential
feature of the original Hemel Hempstead Development Corporation Master Plan
The history of threats to the Green Belt since the early eighties, and the
arguments used to oppose them, are pertinent to the present situation. On
the whole, the County and Borough Councils and successive Inspectors and
Secretaries of State have sought to protect the Green Belt in West
Hertfordshire. Releases which have been proposed on the borders of Hemel
Hempstead were opposed by the Inspector and the Secretary of State
respectively:-
After the (second) public inquiry into Dacorum's first District Plan in
1982, in his ruling against the development of the Fields End site, the
Inspector found (Para 72) "I consider that this comparatively large
extension of housing would lead to a consolidation of the urban fringe, and
undermine the nature of the fragile gap with the settlement of Potten End. -
- I consider that the proposal goes beyond the usual considerations of
rounding off".
In his ruling on the County Structure Plan Review of 1986, which proposed to
relax the inner Green Belt boundary around Hemel Hempstead, the Secretary of
State made it clear that the function of the Green Belt was to prevent the
continued outward spread of urban areas, and the fact that there was
pressure for development did not constitute the exceptional circumstances
which warranted altering the Green Belt
The importance of permanent Green Belt boundaries was reiterated in
policies in the Herts Structure Plan reviews of 1991 and 1996 and in the
Dacorum Local Plan in 1995:-
The County Council Structure Plan review of 1991 (Para. 7.2.8) said that "in
defining these (Green Belt) boundaries regard was generally had to the
degree of long-term expansion of each built-up area in the context of the
stated purpose of the Green Belt."
In the Deposit version of the Structure Plan, approved in 1996 the Council
visualised that there should be "no room for urban sprawl and other
development on the edge of towns which take up green fields but do nothing
to improve the town".
The Local Plan of 1995 stated that "The existing Green belt boundary is
generally appropriate for the long term, and development needs can
reasonably be accommodated in the towns and to a lesser degree the large
villages. No change other than minor adjustments had therefore been made to
this Green Belt boundary."
Both the Local and County Councils have consistently re-iterated that the
Green Belt should be preserved. The Dacorum Environmental Forum, created
under legislation to comply with Agenda 21, at its November 1997 meeting,
passed a resolution objecting to "the proposals of Dacorum Borough Council
to alter the status of various areas of land currently within the Green Belt
so as to allow housing development."
It is impossible to live in Hemel Hempstead without being constantly aware
of the beauty of the countryside that surrounds it. Hemel Hempstead is very
much a town existing within the countryside. It is an ancient market town
that has expanded vastly, but it has managed, on the whole, to preserve and
cherish the best of its landscape features - its woods, its small, steep
fields, and its many hedgerows.
All of the parcels proposed in the planning document have particular
requirements to retain their Green Belt Status, as detailed on our joint
questionnaire response.
Suggested Questionnaire responses
Question 10: Do you support a new neighbourhood at Bunkers Park?
No, this has a history of Council-sponsored development as
as an open space, and for wildlife and conservation. To undo all of that
when massive tree plantings undertaken during the last decade are maturing
would be a monumental betrayal of principle and trust, particularly for the
communities of Leverstock Green and Northend Farm
Question 11: Do you support expansion of Nash Mills?
No, this is valuable open area for residents of the
recent substantial canalside developments.
Question 12: Do you think a new neighbourhood should be built at
Shendish?
As for question 11
Question 13: Do you support expansion of the residential area at Felden?
No, existing low-density development is visually mitigated by tree
cover and should remain so. The visual backdrop of the Felden side of the
Bulbourne valley is a valuable and defining characteristic of Hemel
Hempstead,
Question 14: For a range of landscape and environmental reasons we
conclude that new development in the Bulbourne Valley outwards from Boxmoor
is not appropriate.
The Forum agrees strongly.
Question 15: Do you think a new neighbourhood should be built at Pouchen
End (West Hemel Hempstead)?
No: This borders on the Local Nature Reserve
of Shrubhill Common, and would be highly visually intrusive across the
Bulbourne valley. It was recommended against on landscape grounds by the
Inspector at the Inquiry into the Borough Plan in 2000 and before that by
the Council's own planning consultants. At the time of the enquiry the
Council received a petition of over 1000 Chaulden and Warners End residents
opposing the removal of Green Belt status here.
Question 16: Do you think a new neighbourhood should be built north of
Gadebridge?
No: This will intrude visually across the Gade valley and increase
pressure for a Northern Bypass, which will intrude massively on the Gade
Valley bordering on the AONB.
Question 17: Do you think the Old Town should be expanded northwards into
. . .:
No: As for 16
Question 18: Should Grovehill be extended through development at
Marchmont Farm?
No: as for 16
Question 19: Do you think a new neighbourhood should be built north of
Grovehill and Woodhall Farm?
No: it will increase pressure for a Northern Bypass. See 16.
Question 20: Do you think a new neighbourhood should be built east of
Woodhall Farm (i.e. at Holtsmere End, north of Redbourn Road)?
No: it will increase pressure for a Northern Bypass. See 16.
Question 21: Do you support the development of:
(a) one new neighbourhood;
(b) two new neighbourhoods; or
(c) nothing at Wood End Farm (south of
Redbourn Road)?
(c): while the future of Buncefield is yet
to be determined.
Question 22: Should land off Breakspear Way (east of Buncefield) be
designated as an extension of the Maylands business area?
No. as for 21
Question 23: If this land at Breakspear Way (east of Buncefield) is
designated in this manner, should it:
(a) be available for development during
the plan period (i.e. before 2021); or
(b) held in reserve for development
after 2021?
Neither. as for 21
Question 24: Do you support the development of residential neighbourhoods
at Leverstock Green:
No. as for 21
|
|
