Planning: the green belt is a precious resource. We must protect it
|
Version 0 of 1. Paul Cheshire criticises green-belt policy but fails to mention the huge benefits that it has given this country ("Why Surrey has more land for golf courses than for homes", News). The article focuses on Surrey, which is actually a prime example of the positive effects of green belts. Surrey has large areas of common land, nature reserves and natural beauty that green-belt policy has helped safeguard. Without it, the low-density sprawl you find in London boroughs such as Croydon, which were once part of Surrey, would have marched across much of the rest of the county. In fact, rather than weakening green belts, the Campaign to Protect Rural England believes that they need to be given proper protection. CPRE Surrey is currently opposing two developments for golf courses and evidence gathered by CPRE nationally shows that green-belt land has been allocated for 190,000 new homes, despite government promises to protect it. This alarming figure has come about because of the intense pressure put on local authorities by the government to meet inflated housing targets. The government needs to take steps to reduce the pressure for development in the green belt, including by actively encouraging the reuse of brownfield land and existing buildings. Some small-scale, exceptional revisions to green belts may be required to accommodate necessary development in the long run, where this is justified locally, but any wholesale weakening of the policy would have a catastrophic effect on the countryside and the nation as whole. John Rowley Campaign to Protect Rural England London SE1 This is the situation in my small town in Cheshire East of just over 5,000 homes: as a result of the government's national planning policy framework and the presumption in favour of development, we are highly likely to get a housing increase of 60%, mostly on greenfield and farmland. This despite the fact that the town is currently unsustainable, with one health centre at capacity, no employment, B-roads that are routinely gridlocked, overstretched waste disposal, schools full – to name a few of the issues. The only thing that will save our community will be commercial considerations. We have three brownfield sites that we would like to see developed but so far the only ones being built on are greenfields. We, as residents, are powerless despite having a very active residents' group able to put sound arguments and provide evidence. The inspectorate can hardly be said to be independent given some of its recent decisions. Our small town has been surrendered to the developers. Dr M Wakelin Alsager Cheshire Emma Duncan, welcoming the decline of the high street and of "offline shopping" in general, strangely fails to address an underpinning economic reality ("The high street is dying. Hurrah...", Comment). I live in a small town, very distant from London. Although the commercial hub is sadly diminished, it still fulfils some important functions; for those who might for various reasons feel isolated, it's a place where they can find human contact. But also, the butcher, baker and candlestick-maker still thrive, buoyed by the fact that, across the generations and classes, many are still reassured that they can buy locally sourced meat and vegetables whose quality they can trust. If any Westminster government is serious about addressing the decline of facilities and retail business in smaller towns and trying to nurture social cohesion, they should adequately fund local authorities so that they don't need to raise money by squeezing communities – entrepreneurs who want to trade, shoppers coming in from adjoining villages who need to park. In rural areas, the high street is essential and bad governance, not internet shopping, is the main problem. Marc Hadley Penzance Cornwall |