3 Replies to “Green belt”

  1. Apart from the sloppy writing:
    “Green Belt protections are “near meaningless” because of the large number of development, according to the former chairman of National Trust. ” “developmentS”?
    “Sir Simon called for a rethink of the 60 year old definition of Green Belt so that building could be allowed on areas with the latest aesthetic value.” (least?, lowest?)

    … I don’t see the current phase as a free-for-all and the proposed developments are planned with some fairly lucid criteria. I suppose I see the rosy side of things becuase I live in a part of Europe (NE Italy) that has been devastated by wasteful and speculative development (the area of urban sprawl in the Veneto has increased 10-fold since 1950, the population is almost unchanged and have been to parts of Europe (Ireland, Belgium) where things are truly dreadful and where ribbon development, pretty well outlawed in UK after WW1, remains the norm.

  2. A random primer for those in need of ermm, priming. (Who knows, it might actually spark some more useful comments).

    Green belts aren’t about conservation and all that jazz.

    They were/are intended to provided strategic gaps between (some) urban population centres and ‘the countryside’, supposedly providing a girdle in which (most) development wouldn’t be permitted (other than in over-riding circumstances).

    The constraint ought to have two benefits:
    Firstly, it should prevent the horrors of urban sprawl and (ahem) willy-nilly, ribbon development.
    Secondly, it should ensure ongoing regeneration rather than ever-worsening urban decay (and all that brings with it) within those ‘belted-up’ population centres.

    All very laudable, eh?

    And the reason why there are so many developers, large and small, keen to build within green belt areas is essentially one of profit. It costs more to tear down slums and rebuild within a city and you can charge less per unit than you can for a building on a leafy green field site from which (relatively) high earners working in the the city are willing to commute. Even greater profits if you stay below the thresholds for providing affordable housing.

    Given the relative overall decline of the ‘natural’ or at least green bits of many (but not all) urban centres and their suburbs over the past 20 years), it’s hardly surprising that many of those for whom it’s prefer not to live in areas in a decline.

    Because green belts are just planning gaps, there are lots of bits that aren’t at all green and leafy. And there are some that have been deliberately neglected or degraded by the owners in the hope that this would help them obtain planning permission. But there are also extremely nice bits that have been built on too, for which a number of local authorities really shouldn’t be too proud.

    Sadly, strategic planning in the UK leaves a lot to be desired. Just how many local authorities in England have produced local development plans that might serve as exemplars (or produced them at all)? Effective strategic plans, would make it easier to reject the one-off proposals from developers who will have no real interest in an area once their commitments are fulfilled (if the local authority bothers to monitor them of course. If only there was a rule that unclaimed Section 106 monies would automatically go to the county Wildlife Trust or AN Other conservation body. Ah well).

    The biggest advocates of ensuring that green belts are protected ought to be the local councillors and MPs of urban areas. If there aren’t any pressures to address dereliction in towns and cities, and to build more sustainable housing and communities there, whilst protecting and improving green and blue corridors and green spaces, then what do you think will be the consequence.

    Times change and with so many people, increasingly packed into constrained urban areas (And yet still the population grows), not only is it vital that the quality and carrying capacity of such areas is increased but that there be a new approach to ‘the green belt’. Where green belt areas exist, there is a real need to improve their quality to provide increasingly important cooling, drainage, waste management, food, bio-fuel and leisure opportunities that don’t exist within urban centres. Now is the time to connect those who live in the centre with their peri-urban fringe. If they can’t see it is doing them any good they won’t bother to protect it.

    It’s been some years since the Green Arc project was launched. Encompassing and extending outwards well beyond the boundaries of London’s Metropolitan Green Belt this identified ways in which opportunities could be taken advantage of for the general public weal. All very fine (Actually, it was an excellent concept), but with exceedingly limited resources you can imagine how much real impact it has had.

    Seeking to link the Metropolitan Green Belt (and the inner ‘ring’ of Metropolitan Open Land which enjoys similar status) with green spaces, corridors and stepping stones in strategic fashion, the All London Green Grid really ought to be a monster success in linking people with THEIR green spaces locally and at London’s fringe, but again, whimper outweighs bang – probably as a result of lack of buck.

    So, it’s hardly surprising that CPRE reports all those housing units threatened or already destined for a green belt near you soon. The Campaign (nee Council) has been fighting what will always be a losing battle for many, many years. Occasional triumphs go very much against the tide of that particular war. A more positive approach is needed – along the lines of Green Arc but taking account of all those Ecosystem Service benefits and their £££ values (as identified by the much-lauded UK National Ecosystem Assessment)- which too few local planning authorities take into account or are even equipped to do so [You are aware of how few employ ecologists or even refer to biodiversity information in relation to their strategic planning aren’t you?]. Such positive improvements could even include Forest Lodges in locations more appropriate than Fineshade Woods.

    Perhaps a better analysis of environmental cost-benefits might reduce the number of successful green belt applications.

    With a changing climate, ever more people and more of them packed together, it’s important that green belts are protected but are also supported for more than their strategic gap value. Imagine what the air quality in London (Already none too good) will be like in 30 years – and how many will die each summer in direct consequence of this where the green bits to be reduced by another 5% (And yes I am talking to you with your 4×4 parked on your concreted over front garden where house sparrows used to nest in the hedge ten years ago)? And for those in other areas with a strategic gap – please mind it.

    OK, primer turned rant but hopefully the drift can still be seen.

Comments are closed.