Harrow Council approved the development of RAF Stanmore last Thursday and I spoke in favour of that decision.

Harrow Council approved the development of RAF Stanmore last Thursday and I spoke in favour of that decision. I should like to account for my support in your columns.

I have a great respect for the Conservative lead councillor on the Planning Committee. His fundamental concerns relate to the density of this development, for which he blames Labour Government planning guidance.

I know he is also a staunch defender, as am I, of the green belt and recognises the pressing need for social housing.

He can't have it all ways. Developing RAF Stanmore to higher densities provides more housing. His only response to this is that, like road building in the 70s, a 'demand driven approach will not solve the problem'.

I am afraid that I see a fundamental difference between providing decent homes and providing roads. The market sees to it that a shortage of homes prices them out of the reach of many.

I regularly see the results of this in my council surgeries.

Government policy states (para 4.16) 'Enabling a more effective use of housing land and seeking housing in areas of mixed uses will make a significant contribution to achieving sustainable development'.

A more sensitive approach should be adopted to policies and standards, particularly in avoiding inappropriate restrictions on the amount of development, for example by the imposition of generous off-street parking standards or inappropriate amenity space standards or densities.

Para 8.12 goes on: 'There are opportunities in London for a wide range of densities linked to the provision of different types of housing'.

The Secretary of State considers that 'each borough examine the scope for raising densities. Locations which merit consideration for higher densities include those in or close to existing centres and public transport nodes'.

This Government policy, Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities, was issued in 1996 by a Conservative Government. It has yet to be repealed or altered by the Labour Government.

It is the concern for the environment that drives the need for higher densities. The need for new housing derives from people living longer and the fragmentation of families, not from any significant increase in population.

Putting new homes within cities and close to transport links saves building new hospitals and new schools, and makes best use of existing facilities to serve a similar sized population that happen to live in more houses.

The alternative is more green field building.

During Harrow Council's last five Tory controlled years (1989 - 94) this borough was in the bottom four London boroughs for building new houses, whilst population growth was in the top quartile. Are these the actions of an administration that takes homelessness seriously? I don't think so.

The London Planning Advisory Council, now part of the GLA, issued planning guidance for large sites (such as RAF Stanmore) in January 2000. This recommends densities of between 50 and 80 units per hectare on sites such as RAF Stanmore.

The planning permission granted is for a density of 43 units per hectare, and in addition includes nearly five acres of parkland/pond. If the density is recalculated to include this land it is about 30 units per hectare.

The planning permission granted for RAF Stanmore is not an over development ,, if anything it is under development according to current planning guidance.

It is not environmentally insensitive ,, because to have acted otherwise would have been to court far worse environmental damage elsewhere. This is a responsible development of a large site.

Cllr Mark Ingram

Pinner View

Harrow