What Price West Midlands Green Belts?

Transcription

1 What Price West Midlands Green Belts? June 2007

2 Acknowledgements This report has been prepared by Peter Langley and Janine Bryant, with help from Gerald Kells, Malcolm and Patricia Kimber, Mark Sullivan and Phil Goode. We are grateful for advice from Graham Harrison. The section on the History of Green Belts in the West Midlands draws on Michael Law s article in Region and Renaissance (see references). The Green Arc Partnership have provided examples of positive improvements to the green belt. We are very grateful to Phil Jennings ( for the design work. Photographs are by Peter Langley except where otherwise indicated. We are particularly grateful for the financial contribution from the Pailton and Monks Kirby area that made a major contribution to the preparation and publication of this report. Stoke-on-Trent Stafford Staffordshire Burton upon Trent Shrewsbury Telford Cannock Shropshire Wolverhampton Walsall Nuneaton Birmingham Leominster Herefordshire Kidderminster Bromsgrove Droitwich Worcester Worcestershire Solihull Redditch Coventry Rugby Kenilworth Leamington Spa Warwick Warwickshire Stratford-upon-Avon Hereford

3 Introduction For the last fifty years, green belts have acted as one of the best known and most popular planning tools for protecting our countryside. They still command widespread public support. Although we can never know for certain what would have happened in the West Midlands without them it is likely that the geography of the region would be very different and not for the better. They have preserved sharp distinctions between urban and rural areas, encouraged development in cities and towns instead of allowing it to sprawl outwards, and prevented towns and cities from coalescing and losing their separate identities. Green belts work because they are straightforward, have understandable goals and are supported by political will. Without them, the countryside round our cities would have been prey to speculative development and sprawl. Yet today, in the twenty-first century, when green belts are needed more than ever, some commentators seem willing either to dispense with them altogether or treat them as a mere short-term brake on development. They argue that the green belt is an impediment to fast moving development, but in fact the kind of free-for-all they favour, with very few planning controls, would come at the cost of the environment and, just as importantly, would undermine the seeds of urban renaissance in regions like ours. We are glad that the Government have withstood calls to amend green belt policy from the economist Kate Barker, but at the same time, we worry that they are pursuing other policies, such as very high housing figures, which threaten to overwhelm the capacity of our cities and undermine green belts by the back door. While the boundaries of the green belt may need to be adjusted occasionally for good reasons, local decision makers need to cure themselves of the damaging habit of whittling away at the green belt whenever it suits them. Green belts are by far the most effective tool for creating the fixed urban growth boundary referred to by Power and Houghton: The future of cities lies in what we call smart growth. This means containing the expansion of cities, by creating a fixed urban growth boundary, and intensively regenerating existing neighbourhoods to reverse the flight of people, jobs and investment into land gobbling, congestion generating and environmentally damaging urban extensions. Cities have a pulse, a biorhythm based on their resource use, waste and dependence on natural capital. When they grow outwards, these patterns become overstretched. JIGSAW CITIES, BY ANNE POWER AND JOHN HOUGHTON We need to ensure that our green belts are fit for the next fifty years of strategic planning. And that means also giving greater attention to the quality of green belt land itself. Green belts contain some of the most valued and accessible countryside in the West Midlands, areas such as the Clent Hills and paths such as the Beacon Way, but other parts are too much like sterile no go areas. We need to improve green belts so that as well as preventing sprawl they contribute more positively to the lifestyles of the people who live and work in the areas they surround. Subsequent sections of this report look at the evolution of green belt policy, the history of green belts in the West Midlands, successes and failures, and the role of particular elements of green belt policy. We conclude with some suggestions for the future. Most importantly the report demonstrates that the emphasis politicians in the West Midlands place on the regeneration of our cities and large towns, and on sensitive rural renaissance, depends crucially on the existence of strong green belts. Woods, Newnham Paddox, Warwickshire Green belt east of Stourbridge ONE

4 Green Belt Policy Many people think that once an area is designated as green belt, no new building will ever be allowed there. The reality is more complex and not always easy to interpret. Circular 42/55 invited local authorities to consider designating green belts. It was replaced by Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) in 1988, which was updated in However the fundamentals of Government policy on green belts have remained largely the same over its fifty year history. The main aim of green belts is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. PPG2 (para 1.5) describes its five purposes To check the unrestricted sprawl of larger built-up areas; To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Green belts, once defined, may help achieve other goals such as providing areas for sport and recreation, preserving attractive landscapes, supporting nature conservation and retaining agricultural land or forestry but these are not the primary purposes of the green belt. The Extent of the Green Belt Green belts account for about 12% of the area of England and just over 20% of the West Midlands. The overwhelming majority (about 78%) of green belt in England surrounds London and the six other major conurbations. Some other green belts surround smaller cities, but green belts have only rarely been used to protect free-standing historic towns. Perhaps the key phrase in PPG2 (para 2.1) is that the essential characteristic of green belts is their permanence. Green belts are not intended to appear and disappear at the drop of a hat. Once the general extent of a green belt has been approved it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. Even the detailed boundaries of the green belt should only rarely be changed. Green belts are expected to be several miles wide and their boundaries should follow recognisable features such as roads, streams or woodland edges. Most green belts encircle whole towns and cities, although that is not always the case, and some include green wedges, which often reach into the heart of a town of city. Policies for the Green Belt As well as more general policies for the protection of the countryside there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in green belts. Such development should only be approved in very special circumstances. The interpretation of these two phrases is fundamental to the effective operation of green belt policy and has been hotly contested in many individual cases. New buildings will generally be inappropriate in the green belt, but there is a list of important exceptions in PPG2: Buildings used for agriculture and forestry; Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation; Cemeteries; The limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing buildings; Limited infilling within existing villages; Limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites e.g. factories, power stations, airfields, hospitals and educational facilities; Mining operations. Green belt south west of Stourbridge TWO

5 PPG2 gives additional planning guidance on most of these categories, but cannot cover all eventualities. There remains a good deal of room for interpretation. Do sport and recreation facilities requiring large buildings significantly detract from the openness of the green belt? Should a new golf course be allowed in the green belt even if its club house is as large as several individual houses? What constitutes limited infilling in villages and when is it an abuse? How can planners decide when redundant factories should be redeveloped and when not? And can land used for mineral working always be restored to its former openness? Picnic site, Forhill So when local councils decide individual planning applications they have a fair amount of leeway in interpreting the policy guidance from Government. Most try to apply it consistently and in a way which meets the spirit of the guidance and ensures that the fundamental aims of the green belt are met. But some councils may have bent the rules in particular cases. This inconsistency of application has led to a worrying erosion of the integrity of particular parts of the green belt. The phrase very special circumstances is also open to differing interpretations and the Government has given little help on this. PPG2 says that these circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations (para 3.2). This vagueness is often exploited by developers keen to override green belt policy. Much then depends on the resolve of the local council to protect the openness of the green belt, especially where this may involve costly public inquiries, or even legal battles. If the council sees green belt as an overriding objective it will often face the developer down, but if not it may be prepared to trade off green belt to achieve other objectives leading in different directions. We will look at the green belt s track record in the West Midlands in more detail later. What is clear is that very special circumstances have not always been applied consistently and some developments have proved extremely controversial. We would like the Government to expand and strengthen its definition of very special circumstances in the light of experience of the policy s practical operation. Wider Benefits of the Green Belt Whatever the official purpose and objectives of green belt policy, it is likely that green belts will in practice bring a much wider range of benefits to the areas they cover and to their surroundings. For example, in addition to their benefits for local people, green belts may help to preserve the natural environment and the habitats of key species, providing a haven for wildlife generally. They can protect ancient woodlands and agricultural land. They can provide natural defence systems, for example against flooding, and can help to offset carbon emissions and pollution. They contribute to the tranquillity of an area, as CPRE s recently published maps of tranquil areas throughout England show, and they can provide darker areas close to areas of concentrated light pollution at night. They make it easier for previously abandoned or misused land to be returned to nature. There is also growing evidence that ready access to the countryside around cities helps to relieve stress, and that people value the opportunity to escape the frenetic pace of life in large towns and cities. Green Belts include vital areas for recreation, quiet contemplation, study or education. They help to bring people, who might otherwise lack such opportunities, into contact with the natural world. They stimulate a search for alternative solutions to the seemingly endless growth of urban areas. Rich and poor alike have access to the benefits they bring. We would like to see a concerted effort to improve the quality and accessibility of the countryside in the green belt. This involves extending assets we already have and creating new habitats and accessible open space. Mow Cop, Staffordshire THREE

6 Kate Barker s Review of Land-Use Planning Following her review of planning for housing, the economist Kate Barker was commissioned by HM Treasury to undertake a review of Land Use Planning in England and Wales. The review, published in 2006, included an assessment of some planning policies as well as the overall planning process. In her report Ms Barker assessed green belt policy and its operation. She accepted that the major success of green belt policy over the past two decades has been in driving regeneration and urban renaissance, in conjunction with policies to encourage the use of under-used urban land. She also concluded that green belt policy has played a major role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Without the green belt, the benefits of containment would have been much harder to achieve. Earlswood Lakes More positively she emphasised the need to enhance the quality of green belt land, but to achieve this she wanted a more tolerant attitude to developments which could help to fund improvements such as better access to the countryside, opportunities for sport and recreation, landscape enhancement and the improvement of derelict or disused land. She particularly favoured green wedges and green buffers, and wanted to see the creation of open access woodland or public parks in place of low grade agricultural land. Monument, Wychbury Hill However she also expressed concern about the phenomenon of leapfrogging where development takes place beyond the green belt to avoid its restrictions. This, she concluded, could lead to longer journeys (particularly for commuting) into the towns and cities concerned. We address this issue in more detail on page 5. An opinion survey she quoted suggested that land on the edge of towns and cities is not among the most important to protect, although these results are contradicted by CPRE s own survey (see page 7). It is noticeable that green belt was not directly mentioned in the Barker survey. Kate Barker concluded that because of pressures on the green belt in a number of parts of the country, green belt policy should be more sensitive to impacts in specific cases. She also suggested that boundary changes should be considered to allow development to extend out from cities or to build new settlements. Near Monks Kirby, Warwickshire In May 2007, the Government said in its Planning White Paper that no fundamental change in green belt policy was envisaged. Green belt boundaries could be reviewed in development plans as appropriate. We agree that green belt policy should not be fundamentally changed, but improving the quality of the green belt should be a priority. We would not want this to be linked (as Kate Barker suggests) to development in the green belt that would otherwise be refused. FOUR

7 Green Belts and Sustainability One of the harshest criticisms of green belts (by Kate Barker and others) is that they contribute to the lengthening of journeys by forcing those who continue to work in our larger cities to leapfrog the green belt in search of a home. In the case of the West Midlands there are also substantial towns and large villages within the green belt, so it is certainly not true to say that metropolitan residents looking to move outwards must jump the green belt to do so. Secondly, it should not be assumed that everyone who moves out of our larger cities continues to work in those areas. Precise information on this is lacking, but it appears that many who move out do so in order to make a number of lifestyle changes, such as working from home. Their choice of lifestyle which also includes for example where they shop and spend leisure time will often have much more influence on the length of journeys they make than how far away from the city they move. A500/A34 junction, North Staffordshire We do not accept that this is necessarily the case. The evidence is long standing and well established that compact cities tend to decrease the amount and distance people travel (for example, comparisons made of world cities by Newman and Kenworthy in the 1980s) Compact cities also provide the patronage to justify the cost of local public transport. The way to keep our cities compact is to continue to protect the green belt. However, there are other reasons why the leapfrogging criticism is unfounded. Firstly, new housing generally adds only about 1% to the existing housing stock in any one year. So even over a substantial period, the great majority of those searching for new homes will end up occupying a home from the existing stock. Frankley Beeches Lake near Pailton, Warwickshire Thirdly, these issues should be considered in the wider context of urban regeneration. One of the expressed aims of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy is to reduce and eventually eliminate the ongoing net migration of people for the major urban areas to the rest of the region. This currently amounts to a loss of over 12,000 people per annum. The green belt has been and remains a key contributor to that process. It constrains the outward spread of our cities and towns and avoids the sort of low density suburbanisation characteristic of many other countries, such as the USA and Australia. Our regional strategy has never been more focused on this task, and the green belt never more fundamental to its prospects of success. FIVE

8 The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy The Regional Spatial Strategy, part of the development plan for every part of the region, has the fundamental aim of reversing this migration to the shires. But despite a prominent map of the green belts in the West Midlands inside its front cover, there is no specific green belt policy for the region. In the definition of spatial strategy objectives (para 3.14) the Strategy lists retaining the green belt as one of ten objectives, but it qualifies this by allowing.an adjustment of boundaries where this is necessary to support urban regeneration. With no further explanation, this cryptic phrase is in danger of weakening the national policy, allowing green belt boundaries to be altered too easily. In almost all cases they are likely to be drawn back rather than extended. The Regional Strategy is currently under review. Some developers and commentators are urging a policy of building urban extensions to our large towns and cities, drawing back the green belt where necessary to achieve that. An Independent Panel has already looked at the implications of that for the Black Country (Phase 1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy Review) and warned us against such an approach. We have no doubt that.developers would seek to take advantage of it by bringing greenfield sites forward effectively in competition with opportunities on previously developed land. There is a real risk that this could undermine the redevelopment and re-use of urban sites, which would be a serious weakening of the regeneration strategy. [Panel Report, para 1.17] We believe it is vital that the Regional Assembly reaffirms the positive role of green belts in promoting urban regeneration. We would like to see a strong policy on green belt protection added to the Regional Spatial Strategy to support the protection and enhancement of this vital asset to our region. Hill country near Biddulph, North Staffordshire Conclusions Green belts bring a very wide range of benefits to the areas they serve. Some benefits are intangible and unquantifiable, but they are none the less real for that. Green belts remain hugely popular with the general public. Any attempt to reduce the area covered by the green belt or to weaken its effect would undermine the benefits green belts provide. Woods near Forhill Green belts do not enjoy a blanket ban on future development. While small-scale development may do little damage to the green belt s role, ill-defined exceptional circumstances can lead to much more significant developments slipping through the net. Green belt boundaries can change over time, and in the West Midlands some parts of the Regional Spatial Strategy seem, whether deliberately or inadvertently, to have increased the prospects of that happening. The Barker Review has also had a destabilising effect on the green belt, although the Government has not supported all its recommendations. Green belts act as a vital and central component in the key task of regenerating and reinvigorating our urban areas and creating truly sustainable communities in areas like the West Midlands. In this context, misplaced criticism of their possible impact on travel distances should not be taken seriously. All this adds up to a situation of considerable uncertainty for those who value the green belt. No planning policy is absolute or overrides all other considerations, but we would like to see green belt policy tightened at all levels to limit potential abuses. Otherwise there is a serious risk of the erosion of the fundamental aims and characteristics of particular green belts. SIX

9 West Midlands Green Belts in Practice Golf in the green belt, near Dorridge The History of Green Belts in the West Midlands Green belt has been described by Michael Law as a mighty sword in the planner s armoury which is popular with the man and woman in the street. Both features have been much in evidence in the history of green belts in the West Midlands. As in other parts of the country, the first half of the twentieth century saw strong pressure for the outward spread of the West Midlands towns and cities, fuelled by improvements to public transport and a growth in car ownership. Urban extensions became a feature of land-use planning, but encountered increasing opposition, particularly from county councils. There were also growing concerns about the need for recreational access to the countryside from the city. Building new towns, such as Telford and Redditch, provided an alternative way to house the growing population, as would expanding towns, such as Tamworth and Droitwich, later. Proposals for a Green Belt around Birmingham and the Black Country appeared in the 1948 Regional Study Conurbation. When the 1955 Circular invited proposals, the West Midlands local authorities put forward their proposals initially as amendments to development plans. The West Midlands Green Belt was publicised by the Midlands New Towns Society. The green belts remained proposed, but with policies applied largely as if they were approved, until 1975, when the Secretary of State approved the West Midlands Green Belt. Even then about a quarter of it remained interim and subject to later review in structure and local plans. This led to some planning disputes, though for the most part the interim green belt was treated on a par with its fully designated counterpart. All the interim green belt has now been fully approved. A North Staffordshire Green Belt, surrounding the Potteries conurbation, was proposed in 1974 and approved in Finally, following a boundary change in 1991, Staffordshire also inherited some small areas of green belt between Burtonon-Trent and Swadlincote in Derbyshire. These three broad areas of green belt have remained substantially unchanged since their approval, though there has been some tinkering with boundaries and some areas have been lost to exceptional circumstances. The majority of green belt has remained in agricultural use throughout, but there has been a growth of other uses such as golf courses, playing fields and horsiculture as well as informal recreation such as walking and cycling. New roads notably the M6 and M6 Toll, M5, M40, M42 and the A50 in North Staffordshire have carved their way through the green belt, changing its character and bringing further pressure for development. At one point regional policy favoured development along transport corridors in the green belt, but thankfully planners have moved away from that idea. Several large business parks have also been developed because of exceptional circumstances and, as we shall see, some major incursions into the green belt have been allowed, in particular on the eastern side of Birmingham. Horsiculture near Stourbridge Green belts have proved to be immensely popular, as confirmed by a 2005 opinion survey for CPRE. 85% of people surveyed in the Midlands (both East and West) believed that green belt land should remain open and undeveloped, with no building on it. People may not be familiar with the finer points of green belt policy, but they have an innate sense of its importance and worth. Green belts in the West Midlands also appear to have been a key factor in supporting the much stronger emphasis on urban regeneration in current regional policy. While at one time green belts were seen negatively as a barrier to the outward spread of the conurbations, and as leading to the displacement SEVEN

10 of development to free standing towns beyond the green belt, planners now recognise their key role in refocusing development in our major towns and cities. They have certainly played a big part in the substantial increase in the proportion of development taking place on sites which have been previously developed. Approximately 80% of all house building in the West Midlands now falls into that category. They may also have had a significant impact on the density of development (particularly housing) which has risen most markedly in the region s major urban areas. Their overall effect has been to assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. This versatility and ability to adapt to changing circumstances and priorities helps to explain the durability of green belt policy and green belts themselves. While other planning concepts and measures have come and gone, green belts have remained. When the Regional Spatial Strategy was developed, they were largely taken as a given but the current pressure from Government to increase housing development means their future needs to be secured. Successes and Failures In this section, we look at the application of green belt policy to different parts of the West Midlands. Although it is difficult to measure objectively what the effects of the green belt have been, or what would have happened without them, it is important to assess how effectively green belt policy has been put into practice. the number of planning permissions actually granted. There was a particular concentration of planning applications close to the edge of the North Staffordshire Green Belt and to the south and south-east of Birmingham in the West Midlands Green Belt. Over that three year period, 54% of applications were granted. The majority probably constituted appropriate development in the green belt, but the Assembly s information does not allow a precise assessment to be made. We would like the Regional Assembly to consider how its monitoring could better reflect whether development in the green belt is damaging the goals of green belt policy. The West Midlands Green Belt This is easily the largest of the three green belts in the West Midlands, covering some 923 square miles. It surrounds Birmingham and Solihull, the Black Country and Coventry, typically extending between 6 and 15 miles outwards from the edges of those major urban areas. The West Midlands Green Belt also contains many holes for settlements of varying size, the largest being Redditch, Kidderminster and Cannock as well as villages which are washed over by it. To the west of the Black Country, the green belt in South Staffordshire and Bridgnorth district has been generally successful in preventing the outward spread of the conurbation. The Black Country is effectively contained and the green belt boundary coincides with the wooded ridge line along the Wolverhampton and Dudley boundaries with South Staffordshire, ensuring that the Stour Valley remains largely rural. Sizeable settlements such as Wombourne and Codsall pre-date the green belt and are compact and physically distinct from the conurbation, though not far from it. It is a tribute to the success of green belt policy that they have retained their separate identities rather than being simply swallowed up by their bigger neighbours. Any breach of the physical definition and screening of the conurbation here would fundamentally compromise the green belt s openness and attractive rural landscape. Towards Birmingham from Frankley Beeches Monitoring Green Belt Policy The West Midlands Regional Assembly s most recent report on green belts in the region showed there was no significant change in the overall area of the green belt between 2001 and 2004, with very slight increases in Birmingham and Walsall balanced by slight decreases in Dudley and Redditch. However, there had been an increase in the number of significant planning applications in the green belt, and in Warehousing spreading north from Redditch EIGHT

11 Further south, the closely clustered towns of Kidderminster, Bewdley and Stourport-on-Severn are surrounded by green belt. There are substantial pressures for new housing in this area but the green belt has generally succeeded in keeping these three towns apart, and also separating them from the nearby conurbation. Wolverhampton Airport The countryside in this western sector arguably has a more rural feel than that in most other areas of the Green Belt. Despite their geographical proximity to the conurbation, villages such as Enville and Claverley have a very strong rural character. It simply does not feel as if you are within a few miles of a large conurbation. However this western area of the Green Belt has been threatened by two specific development proposals that could undermine its integrity and effectiveness. A long-standing proposal for a Western Orbital Motorway linking the M6 north of Wolverhampton to the M5 near Bromsgrove was rejected a few years ago. More recent proposals for bypasses of Wolverhampton and Stourbridge, through roughly the same corridor, have also been rejected, but still have their proponents. If such road schemes went ahead, they would destroy much of the character of this part of the green belt and invite development to stream into the area. We believe they should be stoutly resisted. A more specific threat is that of the expansion of Wolverhampton Airport at Halfpenny Green. This small airport, currently used for small planes (classified as either business flying or general aviation) has in the past sought to expand to take commercial passenger flights. It lies in a deeply rural part of the green belt and, even with substantial investment in roads and public transport, would still be hard to reach. Its expansion would be wholly at odds with green belt policy and would greatly damage the largely unspoilt rural character of the surrounding area, especially through the spread of ancillary development such as service facilities, car parking and new road building. There is a more general pressure from developers for housing, industrial and commercial development just outside the conurbation. This is seen by some as the only way of raising the quality of development serving the Black Country, given the shortage of green field sites within the urban area. However, we reject the view that quality development can only be achieved on green fields or that this should become an excuse for development to spill out into the green belt. To the south of Birmingham, the Black Country and Solihull, there is a mixed picture. In some parts of this area, for example between Bromsgrove and Kidderminster, rural character has been well preserved, with any development generally confined to a few of the larger villages. East of Bromsgrove, and particularly north of the M42 in the Wythall area, there has been a good deal of scattered development, some of it pre-dating the green belt, some in holes. Dickens Heath, a significant new village in the green belt, is relatively self-contained but was highly controversial in green belt terms and its poor public transport links make it of questionable sustainability. There has been some pressure for development close to junctions on the M42, but this has generally been resisted south of the conurbation. Of more concern are pressures for both commercial and housing development to the north of Redditch. Worcestershire County Council appears to support housing development in the green belt near Redditch and there is already a creep of industrial and commercial development on the northern edge of the town. M42 south of Birmingham A spur of green belt extends southwards through the A38 corridor to Worcester. The sections of green belt between Bromsgrove and Droitwich and Droitwich and Worcester have generally been successful in preventing sprawl from those settlements and keeping them apart. However this has been treated as a high technology corridor for some years by the regional development agency and could become an excuse for drawing back green belt boundaries. More recently, Worcestershire County Council have indicated that they are NINE

12 ready to see substantial green field development on the edge of Worcester, some of which could take place in the green belt. The green belt in this corridor is therefore potentially vulnerable. To the east of Birmingham/Solihull, the green belt has come under immense pressure and there have been a number of significant incursions into it, usually justified under very special circumstances. The heartland of the celebrated Meriden Gap (separating Birmingham and Solihull from Coventry) and the area further south towards the towns of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth, has been reasonably well protected by green belt policy. Without it, there could have been more or less continuous development along the A45 between Birmingham and Coventry. Knowle and Dorridge, for example, would probably have been swallowed by the conurbation. The Meriden Gap Birmingham International Airport The expanding airport has a more general impact by attracting related development such as car parking, additional roads, industry, warehousing, housing and services. Developers often argue that the green belt is the only feasible location for this. For example, two business parks Birmingham and Blythe Valley have been developed on what was formerly green belt. Proximity to the airport was clearly a major factor in their location. The National Motorcycle Museum has also been built nearby. Other proposals, such as a National Football Stadium east of the M42, have come and gone. Further north, proposals for a Major Investment Site at Peddimore and for a Business Park at Bassetts Pole, both east of the A38, caused a wave of opposition until both proposals were withdrawn by Birmingham City Council. Protection has been much less successful to the west of the M42. Leading the assault on the green belt in this area has been the National Exhibition Centre, built in the early 1970s and expanded on a number of occasions since. Birmingham International Station was opened in 1976 to serve the NEC and neighbouring Birmingham Airport. The airport itself has been reasonably well contained within its existing boundaries but a south-eastwards extension of the existing runway and eventually the construction of a new runway are now threatened, each of which would make substantial inroads into the green belt. Peddimore, former major investment site Blythe Valley Business Park The cumulative effect of such high profile development has been to turn the area between the conurbation boundary and the M42 into a de facto area of overspill for Birmingham and Solihull. Green belt policy has been largely impotent in stemming this tide. Although some undeveloped areas remain, most are under some form of development threat. Even the area immediately east of the M42 may not be immune from development, and with no natural boundary to deter eastwards sprawl into the Meriden Gap that is an issue of grave concern. TEN

13 The green belt has been much more successful at stemming the westward spread of Coventry into the Meriden Gap. The edge of the built-up area remains well defined, although development at Keresley has posed something of a threat. The Hawkhurst Moor coal mine proposal of the 1980s was a major threat, but its refusal was partly on green belt grounds. A continuing threat remains on the southern side of Coventry, where the narrow green belt gap between it and Kenilworth may be eroded by the further expansion of Warwick University. character, though there have been some disfiguring mining operations. There could however be pressure for industrial and commercial development, particularly close to the M6 Toll. Further west, towards Cannock, the green belt is much less continuous and significant areas of previously developed land are available for development. It is particularly important here that any future development is steered to brown field sites outside the green belt rather than being allowed to jeopardise what is already a heavily fragmented green belt. Settlements, such as Cannock, Burntwood, Brownhills, Great Wyrley, Cheslyn Hay, Pelsall and Aldridge, are already close to one another. Unless planning policy is strong, they could easily merge, not only with one another but also with the built-up area of Walsall and Willenhall to effectively extend the Black Country as far north as Cannock Chase. Conurbation edge, Sutton Coldfield The green belt has been generally successful in containing the outward growth of Coventry, in contrast to Leicester, for example, which has no green belt. To the south-east the green belt includes the Leam Valley and Dunsmore Heath. North of the A45 it is a spacious agricultural landscape which retains its rural character and includes a number of attractive villages protected by conservation areas. This area was threatened by the Rugby Mega-Airport proposal in Though this was dropped a year later, it shows that the green belt remains vulnerable precisely because it is open and undeveloped. North of Coventry, the gap between the city and Bedworth is filled by the M6, but that between Bedworth and Nuneaton survives, despite having been threatened by industrial development. The threat of housing development at Bedworth Woodlands, west of the A444, was averted by a strong campaign and this area should now be added to the green belt. To the north of Birmingham and the Black Country, there is a patchy picture in which the green belt has been much more successful in some areas than in others. The M6 Toll has been a major incursion into the green belt. It is also likely to become a strong catalyst for further development, but since it has only been open a few years it is too early to judge the extent to which this will happen. The green belt in North Warwickshire has an indistinct outer boundary which does not extend to Atherstone, but it protects a little-known, well wooded landscape. The area between Sutton Coldfield and Lichfield has generally been well protected and has managed to preserve a largely open Site of Brinsford park and ride Further west again, the M6 Toll joins the M6 and there is a proposal for a new or improved road link to the M54. This again is a danger area in which development could destroy the integrity of the green belt. The Government s recent decision to widen the M6 to four lanes in each direction could also have a significant impact on the green belt here. A proposed substantial residential and business development including a park-and-ride site at Brinsford would breach the strong defining line of the M54 boundary between the Black Country and the green belt. If permitted it would effectively urbanise an area of about a square mile. Development alongside M6 Toll ELEVEN

14 To the north and east of the conurbation important efforts have been made to improve the environmental quality of the green belt. For example the Green Arc initiative is a partnership between local authorities, Natural England, the Forestry Commission and Midlands Expressway Ltd to mitigate the effect of the M6 Toll and improve the environment and general quality of life in the area. This is an illustration of the more positive approach to the green belt discussed on page 16. parkland to include extensive shopping facilities and a Center Parcs type complex in the attractive Maer Hills. In this specific area, as well as elsewhere, threats from quarrying and exploitation by gas drilling have only been narrowly averted. Proposals such as these, if permitted, would have impacts far beyond their actual site boundaries. Maer Hills, suth west of Newcastle-under-Lyme Retail development, Trentham Lakes, North Staffordshire In summary the West Midlands Metropolitan Green Belt has been relatively successful at restricting urban sprawl. To take just one example, it has largely prevented development at motorway junctions on the M42. But its success in preventing the coalescence of smaller settlements is more patchy, particularly near its inner boundary. Even where settlements remain nominally apart from one another (as for example Coleshill and Chelmsley Wood), the urban fringe area between them has often been despoiled and degraded by roads, power lines and other urban intrusions. The North Staffordshire Green Belt This green belt, covering 110 square miles in the north of the region, surrounds the Potteries conurbation, extending to Leek to the north-east and embracing Biddulph to the north. It continues across the county and regional boundary into Cheshire. It contains some exceptionally fine upland scenery as well as attractive countryside west of Newcastle. In general the North Staffordshire Green Belt has been under less development pressure than its West Midlands counterpart but green belt policy has been most effectively deployed by districts adjacent to the built-up area. Some potential development may have been siphoned off into fast growing Cheshire. There are substantial reserves of developable land within the North Staffordshire Conurbation, and the rejuvenation of this area is central to any policy of restraining outward expansion into the green belt. Nevertheless some specific development proposals have come forward, often to exploit the area s attractiveness, such as a hotel at Wedgwood s factory, redevelopment of the Trentham At Trentham, a proposal to build 24 executive homes in the green belt was to be approved by Stoke-on-Trent City Council, but has now been turned down by the Secretary of State. It was claimed that the need for executive homes constituted the very special circumstances required to justify over-ruling green belt policy. However it is difficult to see how applications such as this can be permitted without putting at risk the integrity and effectiveness of the green belt. The Government s recent decision to widen the M6 to four lanes in each direction could add further development pressure close to the two motorway junctions (15 and 16) to the west of the conurbation. This is a very attractive area of countryside through which the West Coast Main Line railway from London, the South East and the Midlands to the North West and Scotland also passes. Burton-upon-Trent The small areas of green belt on the eastern side of Burton, between it and the border with Derbyshire, are discontinuous. Their effectiveness in preventing outward sprawl must therefore be questionable, though they protect specific areas of land from development. The proposal by the West Midlands Regional Assembly to designate Burton-upon-Trent as a sub-regional focus for development, if confirmed, could have a significant effect on the remaining green belt. Up to 15,000 new homes could be built in the district of East Staffordshire over 25 years as a result. Given the proximity of Needwood Forest and other attractive countryside to the west of the town and the large quantity of development that has taken place in the A38 corridor, there is bound to be pressure to develop on the east side, between Burton and Swadlincote, possibly on some of the remaining areas of green belt. TWELVE

15 Key Aspects of West Midlands Green Belts In this section we look at some particular aspects of the extent and role of green belts in the West Midlands. Inner Boundaries One of the most distinctive features of the West Midlands Green Belt in particular is that its inner boundary closely follows the outer edge of the conurbation and Coventry. When green belt boundaries were drawn, very little land was left between the urban area and the green belt to provide for longer term development. PPG2 says that: If boundaries are drawn excessively tightly around existing built-up areas it may not be possible to maintain the degree of permanence that Green Belts should have. This would devalue the concept of the Green Belt and reduce the value of local plans in making proper provision for necessary development in the future. [paragraph 2.8] Having such tight green belt boundaries in the West Midlands is not, therefore, entirely supported by policy guidance and has had mixed results. In many areas, the integrity of the green belt has been retained. The tight inner boundary has helped to maintain a sharp edge between the conurbation and its surroundings, and little or no peripheral development has occurred. In other areas, however, development pressures have proved too strong and the green belt has been breached, often on several different occasions and sometimes to a very substantial degree. Probably the best example is the area close to Birmingham International Airport and the National Exhibition Centre, where development has moved outwards towards the M42 motorway. Although much of this development was allowed in the green belt under very special circumstances, it could be argued that the overall integrity of the green belt in this area has been weakened by the frequent changes. Planners were unable to anticipate long-term development needs and take them into account in defining the extent and precise boundaries of the green belt. Outer Boundaries The West Midlands Green Belt extends outwards to the edges of a ring of towns surrounding the conurbation. In the cases of Lichfield, Tamworth, Nuneaton, Rugby, Warwick and Leamington, Stratford-upon-Avon, Alcester, Worcester and Stourport, the green belt reaches the edge of the town on its conurbation side but does not surround it. This means that control of development is generally tighter on the side of those towns facing the conurbation and weaker on the opposite side or sides. In some cases this seems to have led to a distorted pattern of development. For example, development has spread along the A38 north-east of Lichfield, but has been much more tightly contained to the south and west. In Warwick, there has been substantial development on the south-western side of the town, towards the M40 motorway, but little to the north. There are some exceptions to this pattern. Redditch, Bromsgrove, Kidderminster, Cannock, Bedworth and Kenilworth are all close enough to the conurbation (or Coventry) to be surrounded by green belt on all sides. In most cases this has been successful in constraining development. A green wedge near Cradley Holes in the Green Belt A number of existing built-up areas are large enough to be omitted from the green belt. The towns mentioned above are examples, but other smaller settlements excluded from the green belt include Balsall Common, Knowle and Dorridge, Kinver, Wombourne, Codsall and Burntwood. A similar pattern exists in North Staffordshire where Biddulph and villages such as Endon, Madeley and Keele are excluded. To some extent this pattern is unavoidable. The alternative would have been for the green belt to wash over settlements, but in the case of larger settlements in particular this might have inhibited development within the settlement, even though such development might have had little bearing on the openness of the area as a whole. Nevertheless there are some areas, for example south of Birmingham, north of Walsall and north-east of Stoke-on-Trent, where the green belt contains so many holes that it resembles a Swiss cheese. In areas like this, the green belt is vulnerable to encroachment from within as well as from without. The often very narrow areas of green belt between individual settlements become vital barriers to development, helping to preserve the character and integrity of these settlements. Not all of them have been successfully retained. Green Wedges Among the distinctive features of the West Midlands Metropolitan Green Belt are the narrow wedges of green belt THIRTEEN

16 extending well into the conurbation or Coventry. The most striking example is the green wedge extending out from the Sandwell Valley in the heart of the conurbation to Brownhills, but there are others to the north, west and south of the Black Country, in south-west Birmingham (Woodgate Valley), between Sutton Coldfield and Walmley, and both east and west of Coventry (the Sowe Valley and Coundon Wedge). Sutton Park, to the north of Birmingham, is a substantial area of green belt completely surrounded by the conurbation. Some consider these green wedges an anomaly but they have a particularly important role in meeting the green belt objective of stopping towns and villages coalescing. They are also among the parts of the green belt most highly valued by local people. They bring open space and countryside very close to residential areas and provide excellent recreational opportunities. They also help to preserve the distinctive character and sense of identity of places which could otherwise be swallowed up in an amorphous conurbation. They play a significant role in efforts to regenerate the conurbation and make it more attractive as an area in which to live and work. Conclusions There is no doubt that green belts in the West Midlands have been generally successful in preventing urban sprawl, particularly the outward spread of the conurbations. We cannot be certain what would have happened without them, but it is likely that tongues of development would have extended outwards along the main transport corridors, with clusters near motorway junctions and railway stations in particular. Some, at least, of the free-standing towns and large villages within five miles of the conurbation s edge would probably have been absorbed into it. The sharp distinction between urban and rural which exists in most parts of the region would have become blurred. This outward spread of development would almost certainly have fuelled the exodus of people and jobs from our major urban areas into the rest of the region. At over 12,000 people (net) per annum this is still far too high for the region s good, but it would have been much higher still without green belt protection. On the other hand, looking at the region in greater detail, we cannot be entirely satisfied with the role of the green belt. There have been two main problems: In some specific hot spots the green belt has been overwhelmed by development pressure to a point where its continued integrity is in grave doubt. The area close to the National Exhibition Centre and Birmingham Airport is by far the most significant example, but there are others on a smaller scale. The Worcester area could become a future example. In these cases, pressure for development can become cumulative to a point which destabilises the whole meaning and purpose of the green belt. Once one major development breaches the policy, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist others; More generally, developers have found ever more ingenious ways to argue that their developments are appropriate or that there are very special circumstances justifying them. Some of these arguments have been successful, others not. Because this type of development is quite scattered, it does concentrated damage to a particular part of the green belt, but it can undermine the overall integrity of the green belt and the respect and weight given to it. Green belt views near Monks Kirby, Warwickshire FOURTEEN

17 Conclusions and Recommendations Green belts matter to the West Midlands more than to almost any other English region. The West Midlands has a large central urban core (with a smaller urban area in the north) and a large rural hinterland, much of which has relatively good transport links to those major urban areas. With such good communications, the region has seen a strong exodus of people and jobs from these urban areas throughout the second half of the twentieth century. The flow was at its height in the 1970s but still continues at a high level today. It is a central aim of the current Regional Spatial Strategy to reduce and eventually reverse this flow. We cannot know how many people would have moved out of the cities if green belts had not existed. What can be said with certainty is that with the refocusing of regional planning onto urban regeneration, green belts have once again come into their own. Without them, an urban regeneration strategy stands little or no chance of success. Nothing should be done to diminish the integrity or the effectiveness of green belts at local, regional or national level. Instead they should be strengthened by: defining more clearly than national policy does the very special circumstances which would be needed for development to take place in the green belt, clarifying grey areas in appropriate development. creating a specific green belt policy in the RSS, setting out the purpose of each green belt in the region. It is important to look ahead. We are entering a period where we need much tougher policies to tackle the threat of climate change, with the depletion of fossil fuels also likely to play a significant part in how we plan transport and development. Refocusing policy should acknowledge the significance of green belts in fighting climate change. They act as key carbon sinks, helping to diffuse the carbon emissions of the urban areas they surround, as areas for sustainable water systems to help alleviate drought and flooding, and as sources of local produce and renewable energy. That does not necessarily mean that the present area of the green belt is exactly right. To refocus and reinvigorate the policy, we should re-examine current boundaries to make sure that they remain fit for purpose. if necessary extend the green belt in some places, for example to help control growth in some of the subregional foci and other freestanding towns in the region. Lake near Pailton, Warwickshire Conurbation edge, Stourbridge New development, Brown Edge, North Staffordshire FIFTEEN

18 Pipe Hall Improvements, near Burntwood, Staffordshire (Picture courtesy of the Green Arc Partnership) Community involvement in environmental improvement (Picture courtesy of the Green Arc Partnership) Gailey Clay Pits improvement, Staffordshire (Picture courtesy of the Green Arc Partnership) This should be done in a co-ordinated, planned way, not through ad hoc decisions on specific developments, and the goal must be to strengthen the region s green belts, equipping them for at least the next 25 years. They are about to be tested like never before, and they must be strong enough to pass that test. We also recommend that the Regional Spatial Strategy should take a much more positive approach to the way green belts are used. David Miliband, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has recently referred to green belts turning a deeper shade of green and to the potential to put the green back into the green belt. We recommend: a proactive policy of environmental upgrade in green belts, This should draw on work already in progress, for example by the Green Arc Partnership. The emphasis should vary from area to area, but could include: Selective woodland planting to strengthen carbon sinks and enhance the landscape; Other landscaping to diminish the visual and noise impact from the urban edge; Wildlife and biodiversity enhancement and new habitat creation to improve the ecological significance of green belts; Cleaning and clearing derelict and disused sites and removing eyesores; More effective restoration of mineral workings, landfill sites etc; Proactive land management to improve the quality of land use; Selective improvements to opportunities for informal recreation, such as walking and cycling e.g. provision of new and improved public rights of way; To do this, each part of the green belt needs: An Environmental Enhancement Plan built into the relevant Local Development Framework to cover activities such as these. Above all we need to engender a new sense of purpose and enthusiasm for green belts. Because of their extent, their effectiveness and their predominantly rural character, they contribute greatly to the attractiveness of the West Midlands. They have stood the test of time far better than any other planning policy, but there is a very real danger that they will be taken for granted and allowed to wither on the vine through sheer complacency. It is time to bring green belts back to the centre of the stage in planning the future of the West Midlands. SIXTEEN

19 References Barker, Kate Review of Land-Use Planning in England and Wales, 2006 CPRE Green Belt Omnibus Questions, conducted by MORI between 30 June and 4 July 2005 CPRE Press Release 49/05 CPRE Saving Tranquil Places: West Midlands, October 2006 Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning for a Sustainable Future (White Paper), May 2007 Department of the Environment - Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts January 1995 Green Arc Partnership The Story of the Green Arc Partnership, 2007 Law, Michael Green Belts in the West Midlands, in Region and Renaissance, Chapman, D, Harridge C, Harrison J and G, Stokes B, Brewin Books, 2000 Miliband, David speech on A Land Fit for the Future, to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the founding of CPRE March 2007 Ministry of Housing and Local Government - Circular 42/55 Newman, Peter and Kenworthy, Jeffrey - Cities and Automobile Dependence an International Source Book Gower Technical, 1989 Power, Anne and Houghton, John Jigsaw Cities Policy Press, 2007 Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands (The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy - RPG11), approved June 2004 West Midlands Regional Assembly Regional Spatial Strategy Annual Monitoring Report 2004: Green Belt West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy, Draft Phase One Revision the Black Country Report of the Panel, March 2007 Printed on 9lives 80 Silk which contains 10% Packaging Waste, 10% Best White Waste, 60% de-inked waste fibre and 20% TCF Virgin Fibre (NAPM approved) and printed using vegetable based inks.

20 For further information about CPRE West Midlands, please contact Gerald Kells, Regional Policy Officer. Telephone: Website: