Monday 24 May 2010

A new strategy for Green Belt destruction in Mill Hill

Make no mistake, the Green belt faces a  massive threat in Mill Hill.  I was incredibly disturbed to read the following article in yesterdays Mail on Sunday :-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1280275/Solsbury-Hill-Local-residents-fight-property-developers-save-rural-icon.html

This article contains the following two paragraphs near the bottom of the article.

And the alpaca farm ruse is an easy way of getting round planning restrictions in areas with toothless councils. GVP has three other sites in the South-West where it is using similar schemes to justify mobile and permanent residences.
Marc Willis, agent for GVP, has set up more than 35 alpaca farms for people wanting to build houses in restricted areas. Willis is the only Chartered Town Planner who is also a member of the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants, giving him a rare specialism in rural planning.
****** Update 18:27 ************
Further to the comments left by the management of Belmont Childrens Zoo, I've added a link to their website :-

http://www.belmontfarm.co.uk/index.php

It appears that there may be a misunderstanding as to the nature of my comments and I've added the link to allow anyone wishing to find out more about the establishment. As I thought I'd made clear above, in many ways the establishment is an asset to Mill Hill and many people are pleased it has opened.

As such I think it is only fair to the establishment to qualify my comments. The only issue I have with the establishment is the dispute with Barnet Councils planning department as to whether it requires planning permission. As the site is on green belt lands within the conservation area, I am of the belief that it should rigorously and pro-actively comply with these rules, before it even considered opening. This should have been sought and obtained through the usual channels.

If this had been sought and obtained, I would be championing the work done in preserving rare breeds.

I must say I find it odd that they claim not to be a theme park, given that their website has an entire page devoted to "Parties" which is clearly a "fun" activity and not educational or related to farming.


 http://www.belmontfarm.co.uk/parties.php

When I visited the "farm", they were hosting "face painting" which again is an activity unrelated to farming or education. It struck me as being a commercial leisure activity. I also see from the website that "tractor and trailer rides" are available as part of the "theme park" activities for May. I must say that advertising ride does reinforce the image of a theme park, rather than a serious commercial farm.

As to the comments about Alpacas, as the establishment calls itself a farm and keeps Alpacas, which are specifically described in the Mail on Sunday article, one must presume they were being farmed.If they are not being kept for farming purposes, then surely it again lends credence to the claim that the establishment is not a farm in the true sense of the word.

In short, my concern is protection of the green belt. If the Belmont Childrens farm has complied with all of the planning rules and regulations, this blog would be fully supportive of it as it would be an asset to Mill Hill. If it hasn't then I'm afraid that we'll have to campaign for the Council to enforce planning regulations, just as we would for any other usage where full permission had not been obtained on the green belt. Maybe the management would be so kind as to update us on their view of the situation regarding planning permission as they have with other activities.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Rog,

Don't want to take away from the thrust of your campaign to save the green belt, was wondering how you feel about this http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=1449587 which seems to be policy from the LibDems to allow more homes to be built on farmland, which you seem to oppose.

P.S. Before you say it, I think this is now 'coalition' policy but it did come from the LibDems

Dan

Mrs T said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mrs T said...

Dan,

This is a Clegg policy and it is part of the price of keeping out a Labour government. Like you I don't agree with everything this government is doing. The detail needs to be seen.

I'm not sure whether this relates to green belt in Mill Hill in any way, which the Conservatives are commited to retaining.

Duncan Macdonald said...

Daniel

It looks to me that the policy you refer to is about re-using existing buildings that are on farmland and therefore subject to a change of use application. It would make it easier to convert an old barn for example into housing but you will still need planning permission to build something new. This is quite different from the case that Rog is highlighting.

Anonymous said...

Totally inaccurate and misleading, it's a shame you dont ask before you write utter nonsense.

We are always available to talk to you.

Management Belmont Children's Farm Ltd

Rog T said...

Hi Info,

Please feel free to correct any innacuracies which there may be. That is what the comment facility is there for and that is why they aren't edited. You are welcome to post a guest blog stating why this is incorrect and inaccurate.

I have been copied on much correspondence between the council and residents and would welcome the opportunity to hear your side of the story.

Rog T said...

Dan,

If it is a bad policy I will say it's a bad policy whoever it comes from.

My view. We should be bringing all of the existing housing stock into use and up to scratch before we start destroying rural England. I opposed John Prescotts green belt policy and I will oppose this, if it is bad for the green belt

Anonymous said...

We are an education centre not a theme park and do not have bouncy castles or a playground, if you had read our website you will have noticed why we have three Alpacas, it is a shame you make no mention of the rare breed farm animals we have here and our breeding program.

We would be delighted to show you around rather than comment on blogs and preserve your Anonymity.


Management Belmont Children's Farm Ltd

Rog T said...

Dear Info/ Management at Belmont Childrens Farm

Please see my clarification added at 18:27. I have added a link to your website to allow people to make up their own minds. Please respond as you see fit to my comments.

Unknown said...

Would just like to add to your comments (which we fully support) -
I regularly drive along the Ridgeway to work and at around 6:45 I noticed cars in the Belmont Farm car park (which I found very unusual).
After some research I discovered that the Management team who claim the premises is a working farm for the education of city children, in fact advertises itself as a hub for open business networking. It plans and runs “BNI Meetings” at 7am on Tuesdays. The sessions are geared towards “generating business” is even serves breakfast from the site’s restaurant to create a “fun... and...exhilarating...stat to the day.” Sound much like a farm?

Moaneybat said...

Daniel
Before you mislead with 2-3 year old archive articles, read the article first, "ease the affordable housing crisis in rural areas " NOTE:Rural Areas Duncan Macdonald is not far wrong.

Below is the current state of play from the Coalition for places like Barnet in London, where it has the second highest waiting lists.

"It also promises to ‘promote shared ownership schemes and help social tenants and others to own or part-own their home’.We will promote “Home on the Farm” schemes that encourage farmers to convert existing buildings into affordable housing.’Note Affordable for rural communinities


Quite how low-income earners part-buy their own home and pay service and maintenance charges is going to be some achievement in Barnet.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/finance/housing-finance-reform-among-coalition-priorities/6509896.article

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/development/treasury-review-targets-housing-spending/6509900.article

I'm not a housing professional like Ross Houston but everything in the above suggests that Barnet's housing crises is going to worsen

d said...

I think planned and appropriate construction of Family Homes and schools on the green belt around the edges of Mill Hill/Edgware should be made a priority.

The population is increasing, we need to build on this space.

The old rich people of mill hill, have to Stop being a Nimby, stop worrying about their house price and let some of this land be used properly.

Most of the greenbelt is not well used or accessible.

Please keep as much green belt as possible. Increase accessibility to it. But where appropriate make the changes so it can be used to create jobs, homes, schools etc.

Moaneybat said...

d,
Sadly, Mill Hill around and along the Ridgeway and the 'Green' in Bunns Lane is sacrosanct.
Edgware is getting plenty of Family homes with a reduced 'Green' known as Stonegrove/Spur Road Regeneration. However this is Barnet, so Mill Hill and Spur Road roundabout next.

To Info Belmont Management
When do you envisage returning the Alpacas to their natural habitat in Peru or will you be selling 100%Belmont Alpaca sweaters?

Anonymous said...

"d"'s point is rarely vented but makes an important point.

I have taken a public stand against the Council's policy for cramming in rabbit hutch flats by, in my view, twisting planning policies and the normal english meaning of commonly understood words such as 'urban' to serve it's own policies.

It seems that battle is slowly being one and policy on the turn certainly in government, somewhat in City Hall and very slowly at the Town Hall.

The question is, "what next" ? If those, me included, demand that houses are built for families where are they to be built? The whole 'reuse brownfield sites first' has run it's course since the campaign against building on greenfield sites in the 1980s.

Is is tenable to end the cramming and infill development of the Labour years and, at the same time, worship every single bit of 'Green Belt' land ? What's so special about ALL Green Belt Land, after all much of it is accidentally protected by well meaning socialists in the early 1930s.

The BIG question which no one is debating is what are we going to do with London? Are we going to say that London is completed and see house prices go up and up and up as no further houses can be built? Are we going to establish new towns outside of London ala Welwyn Garden City, Milton Keynes and tell people to commute? Are we going to define the M25 as London's border and free up a lot of currently protected land (with no other environmental or scientific value)?

Something has got to give. There needs to be a real debate.

Unknown said...

Indeed, but do you really think these landowners, such as those along the Ridgeway, who are abusing the green belt via the back door care about affordable housing? All they are interested in are new ways to increase their earnings. The best way for affordable housing is to make better use of land already assigned for the purpose and to fill up idle housing stock. Not give the green light to "farmers" sitting on their land waiting for laws to relax so they can exploit them...for their own benefit not to provide affordable homes.

Rog T said...

Dan raises a good, if truly awful point. What do we do when London is Full. Do we redefine the borders at the M25?

I happen to think that he's looking at the problem in the wrong way. Maybe the point should be "how do we best use what we've got". How many buildings are empty? How many are substandard? What are the transport links like to satellite towns?

I don't think that expanding the borders of London is the answer. I don't think rabbit hutch conurbations is the answer either.

I think we need to incentivise property owners to bring homes back into use that are empty, to refurbish those which are clapped out and to link profits for developers strictly to how well those homes serve social needs.

Dan is a free market Tory and I'm not. We need to have a debate, but one which draws the border of London at the M25 or the Channel and the border of Birmingham is one which will destroy this country as a desirable place to live.

Anonymous said...

Rog, there's nothing 'free market' about land. You can't move it, you can't make more of it. The question isn't whether you regulate or not. It is how you regulate.

The really sole purpose of the Green Belt is to stop urban sprawl, but just how does the Green Belt in Totteridge do that? There is development and housing above it and around it. It's only accident that there was development between Totteridge and Underhill that the second world war prevented.

It's pointless to talk about reusing old building for houses, there's no economics to it. The reusing buildings arguments is what leads to the crammed rabbit hutches as you need to slam in the units to make the profits to tear down all the old stuff, remove contaminants, put in utilities etc and then (as you are building in a built up area) suffer all the planning nimby issues, transport concerns etc.

To be blunt really affordable housing is only going to come about in the traditional way. Government comes along, takes some land with some low value (maybe as it is currently protected), throw in a road, tube line and to pay for it sell off the more valuable land for development to pay for it all.

A recent report by economists, that I'll have to find pointed out that all of the actually housing need in this country can be solved by using a tiny amount of undeveloped land. And if new government proposal come through the local people should benefit not greedy Councils looking for developers to pay for their roads and education bills etc.

Moaneybat said...

Dan raises a good point according to Rog but the BIG questions have been asked too many times by the housing professionals like Councillor Ross Houston, by those around Edgware and West Hendon Anybody know how much of 'Green will disappear in W.Hendon, go ask.

A record 4.5m people are on housing waiting lists in England, There are around 2.5m people in, overcrowded rubbish sub-standard housing, so there is a massive demand for affordable housing in these sad Coalition times
The Great and the Good believe £170million at todays price will buy more than Colindale.

So here goes the Green Belt straight up not sideways,
http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2010-05-25-National-Housing-Federation-Dont-let-localism-become-nimbys-charter

http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2010-05-25-HCA-to-cut-new-homes-funding-by-230-million-full-details

Maybe people need to approach McGrigors and find out, what they paid for Reid Minty to become Farmer Reid who probably advises the Tories on Strategic planning, and then we'll know who we are fighting. The likes of Dan.
Maria if you're in East Barnet you tell em. Oh, Dan NEW TOWNS in our backyard Brent Cross/Cricklewood. Workers CANNOT afford to commute so they rent homes in London.

However Dan is to become a member of the Defend Council Housing movement. Dan if you had said that Councils need to build homes, EU Homes I would be asleep ready to have my shoulder removed in the morning. I'd get little help out of Barnet coz I ain't got the money to pay the OT service.
Be a man, Dan become a Milliband man

Anonymous said...

@moanybat - lets clear away a bit of your puff. Firstly it's "housing professionals" that cause of most of the problems. These "professionals" built the slums of the 1960s, they believe in social engineering and are aloof from real people and what works. Clearing the 2 up 2 down houses and stacking people in high rise was a shameful mistake.

As for housing "waiting lists" as a measure of success - what a joke and a load of baloney. Lets take this to pieces. Firstly, say Barnet started to build tonnes of social housing, will the list go down? Yeah, maybe for a few months but then everyone from everywhere would turn up on Barnet's door and the list would shoot right back up. Want to get the list down? Solution - build nothing - people will get the hint and move elsewhere. So measuring success by lists is facile.

Further as long as rents are subsidised people will queue for it. Imagine if the Council provided subsidised petrol... how long would that list be?

Never said for Council's to build new homes. I said for Government to find large plots of land, zone them for residential, take the profit to put in infrastructure for tube, rail, road etc and then bring in builders to build houses that people want to buy.

Anonymous said...

We are delighted that you have given your full support to the farm and believe that it is an asset to the community and also that you support our rare breeds development programme. We are thrilled that the local community is backing us so strongly and presently we have approaching 1,000 local members, increasing by approx 100 members per month.
Since opening on 30 November 2009 we have welcomed nearly 25,000 children and families through our farm gates who have enjoyed and learnt from the experience.

We have been advised by our planning advisers that since there has been a working farm on the property since at least the 1880s, in addition to the riding activities, that planning permission is not required.
In fact, the very existence of the farm protects the green belt and is a complying use.

As a matter of interest, the farm has planted 6,000 trees and a mile and a half of hedges. The farm is focusing on education and if you had been on one of our tractor and trailer rides you would realise that the idea is to let the children see the valley and the farm animals contained in it.
Theme park is not an applicable description but then it is so easy to criticise and not get out and do as we have done.

In addition, as part of the educational programme the farm will be developing a sustainable food project involving egg; goat’s milk and cheese; and honey production.

Management Belmont Children's Farm Ltd

Moaneybat said...

Daniel,

me old Puff in and out, study the history of Government housing and how it came about.
Did you say 'Government not councils.' I would suggest Delegated Government to LOCAL Government is NOT the council.I'm stupid,am I wrong? Government funded those local councils/government to build London's Housing all the wayback to one Herbert Morrison 1934.

With many millions of homes destroyed by the end of 1947, and throughout the 1950s where the hell did you think many a London working class granny lived? In a 'broke' and similar Britain of today.

The Conservative before your birth between 1957-1961 were responsible for Rachmanism. He was not a Cionservative.
Harold Wilson that famous Labour COUNCILLOR gave us the Open University and definitely high rise. "slum clearance and rapid building of council housing was a major priority. In 1967 160,000 council homes were built Thousands of flats and tower blocks was the result, corruption in the building industry and poor design left a serious legacy for future tenants but the new estates did replace appalling housing, and reduced the private rented sector to around 10%."

By 1978, "we have,at its all time high, nearly a third of housing (32%), but Labour had also encouraged owner occupation (54%).1978 was a year when there was serious housing choice .Campaigns forced Labour to pass the Homeless Persons Act 1977, and the Race Relations Act in 1976, which brought in many tenants who had been excluded. In 1979 councils were still housing in rented accommodation 20% of the richest tenth of the population. Thirty years ago then there was balanced, sustainable council housing alongside owner occupation."
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT YEAR?
Granny Thatcher gave us all the 'Right To Buy' and of course Legislated & Delegated Local Government never to build by keeping the money government made. The last Labour Go ernment
Read your History Here
http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/resources/GraysonHistory.doc
You might also peruse through the book "Estates" by Lynsey Hanley

Moaneybat said...

Daniel

I would like to add the compassionate side of the Freer in you from your reply.
"but then everyone from everywhere would turn up on Barnet's door and the list would shoot right back up. Want to get the list down? Solution - build nothing - people will get the hint and move elsewhere."

WHERE EXACTLY?

2) Here's what you say "Imagine if the Council provided subsidised petrol...how long would that list be?
Answer: The Local Government does not supply petrol and neither does any government pump it out. PEOPLE NEED HOMES--NOT PETROL.

Moaneybat said...

INFO at
Belmont Management

I'm pleased that the man is doing some good for the community from the sale of Reid Minty to McGrigors, they were nice staff barbecues then and the ex-employees do miss them, but one hardly needs the advice of planning advisers when the man is a Strategic Planning Consultant, dare I say to the local Conservative Administration

Councillor Melvyn Cohen must get a free ride on the Alpacas. It's your land on the edge of the city, beats Soliciting.

Tell us, Farmer Reid's Humble beginnings, so that some get to know their formidable opponent.

Moaneybat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Moaneybat said...

Full Link

http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/
resources/GraysonHistory.doc

Rog T said...

Dear Management Belmont Children's Farm Ltd,

Thank you for the info. It is very interesting. As I said before, I'm more than happy to see continuing farming and riding on the site. That is a more than appropriate usage of the Green belt.

The only aspect which troubles me is the development of the "Theme park" which has attracted 25,000 visitors (surely ordinary farms do not normall attract such huge numbers of people through winter months? ). Of course, if the theme park activities are acceptable within Green Belt and Conservation area regulations, then it is great to see a successful venture. Lets hope someone from Barnet Council is able to give us their view on the issue.

Am I correct in saying that we will also have a shop on the site selling these products?

Thanks for the postings. It is great to keep us locals informed of the progress.

d said...

I would like to wish Barnet Childrens Farm only success. A great idea and top notch waffles.


The planning laws should be there to help people not just protect the few old rich people who want to keep the status quo.

I am sure in the following area - you could easily build 1000 homes, schools, community facilities etc and still leave plenty of green space for everyone to enjoy.

I think there is an imperitive for the people of NW7 and Barnet to push for growth and development by opening up the area to new family homes.
It will create jobs, prosperity and a place for the next generation to live.
What chance does someone born in Mill Hill have to buy there own home here unless bank of mum&dad is open?


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=nw7+&sll=51.627129,-0.226078&sspn=0.0414,0.07699&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=London+NW7,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.630166,-0.20977&spn=0.041397,0.10952&t=h&z=14

Moaneybat said...

d,

As one who did spend his teenage life in heart of Mill Hill, I would have to agree with you, I now live in a council home and recall the Conservatives of the 1980s and the financial ruin that led many to seek the council house.

I object to people stigmatising council homes that, the generation before who paid taxes towards building homes for mine and, in turn, we should do the same for the next generation. Lets not forget the Conservative Councillor and recent ex-councillor whose daughter was grateful for a council home on a West Hendon Council estate not so very long ago. Bet papa has NOT sent her a 'Green' card to take up Daniel's suggestion of going elsewhere. It's middle class earners living on council estates these days because there is simply not enough homes.

d said...

Moaneybat - an interesting post.

I am not talking about building more council houses. I am talking about building 4 bed family homes that are within the reach of the many not the few. I don't mean the many people with no money. I mean people with a decent job who don't have £800k for an average nw7 house.

Moaneybat said...

d,
I'm sorry, but I did say "because there is simply not enough homes."

However 2 bedrooms and above are presumed to be family homes housing the average 2.4 children. Developers do build both i.e. for private sale and for state housing and that is exactly what they are doing on state/goverment/council owned land such as Grahame Park, Edgware Stonegrove, and West Hendon.The vast majority for sale and very very few homes for rent through the Housing Associations.

The collective descriptive these days is "Social Homes" provided by Housing Associations "affordable" for those whom can afford to buy them.

Maybe Daniel Hope and the current Conservative Council has the best housing policy and solution. They organise a Barnet Housing Conference annually for residents of Barnet.

Moaneybat said...

Daniel,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hniB8Wxg8ok

GreenBeltMan said...

Green Belt Land needs protecting for future generations - one it's gone, it's gone.

As Sir Andrew Motion, former president of CPRE, stated:
“Since about 1940, the population of Los Angeles has grown at about the same rate as the population of London. Los Angeles is now so enormous that if you somehow managed to pick it up and plonk it down on England, it would extend from Brighton on the south coast to Cambridge in the north-east. That’s what happens if you don’t have a green belt.”

http://www.green-belt-destruction-nw7.org.uk/

https://www.facebook.com/greenbeltdestructionnw7/

https://twitter.com/GreenBelt_NW7