***
Having noted the the clown has strayed onto my specialist subject (planning not mushrooms), I find myself needing to make a few observations about the "green belt" and the endless, dreary 'planners are concreting over our wonderful English countryside' comments that each generation of lazy journalist and self-serving local politician succumbs to.
First, let's be clear about one thing - I represent a ward that is entirely within West Yorkshire's 'green belt'. And it is beautiful. And I am incredibly fortunate to be living here. And I want to protect the area's beauty. And that means keeping the Green Belt.
Second, if we scrapped planning restrictions for housing the whole of England's beautiful countryside would not be built all over. The building of 250,000 houses would not bring an end to wood, stream, field and style.
Having done that let's ask why we have 'green belts', what purpose - if any - such restrictions serve and whether there is any need for reform.
1. Green Belts were intended to prevent the spread of large urban conurbations - a limited amount of land close to those cities was identified and granted protection. In effect this represented a transfer of value from the land-owner (now unable to realise the development value of his land) to the home-owner (now living in an artificially scarce commodity - a house in a place where people want to live).
2. Green Belts presume no development other than for specified purposes or under "exceptional" circumstances. This leads to the nonsense of permission being refused for the conversion of barns and outbuildings to holiday lets while permission is granted to an industrial rendering plant.
3. The designation "Green Belt" does not mean that a potential development site is either green or attractive. There are plenty of places within my ward that could be developed for housing without remotely affecting the amenity of the gorgeous South Pennines. My attendance at planning meetings is more often to support applicants seeking to make sensitive and small scale developments making use of redundant agricultural or other rural buildings.
4. The drawing of tight Green Belt boundaries around villages contributes to those villages becoming 'dormitory deserts' unable to sustain local shops, health centres, pubs, post offices and milk deliveries. The same "campaigners" whinging about Tesco and running campaigns to save one or other local service are the same ones fighting even the smallest extension to their village. In truth villages like Cullingworth need to grow and we need to have a sensible, local discussion about how we achieve that
5. The ramping of house prices from the Green Belt policy has resulted in a dearth of affordable housing for rent. So what, you say? But not when it's your son or daughter.
I don't think there should be no planning rules. Just that the current approach serves us all very badly. And the Green Belt has served us well but needs sensitive reform...
...and we do need a load more houses building so ordinary people have an outside chance of living where they want to live.
....
2 comments:
The green belt does need reform along with the rest of the planning system, but I question the idea of loosening restrictions to enable affordable housing as (if it's in a nice area) it becomes instantly unaffordable. Houses in nice areas will always be expensive unless you ruin the area to the point of being unpleasant. As an example look at tower blocks built by councils in London that are now very expensive due to their location. Sadly we can't all live where we want to live and preserve it the way we like it.
The answer lies in making unpleasant places into pleasant ones, easing the cost pressures on already desireable areas. The green belt should help this: by constricting the spread of urbanised areas developers must look to making better use of inner cities and former industrial areas rather than just moving on to virgin land. Sadly planning strikes again with its obsession with 'modesty' and aversion to height. Having caught a bad cold in the 60s due to socialistic architecture we sprawl rather than grow tall. If we built stylish and elegant towers like in the US, with large floor areas, apartment living would be very popular and ease pressures on land.
I hate the obsession with green belt openness and the smothering effect it has on even modest proposed extensions to properties. It is absolutely absurd to nail down the volume of extensions in the green belt to the extent that planning policy currently does. If each house in any green belt was doubled in size the only people who would really notice are those in hot air balloons or aircraft. We have unimaginative policy freaks and nimbys to thank for the current situation supported by wet politicians. I hope the Torys will unravel all this nonsense in the way that they are considering with the health and safety situation and that people who need to extend their accommodation to more than a glorified porch.My blood is boiling
Post a Comment