Call for new towns on green-belt
This article adds to the debate about greenbelt and raises questions about the “sacrosanct” nature of much unexceptional green land around the edge of cities, which through its preservation chokes them into unsavoury densities. It goes on to reveal :
“Ministers should allow new towns to be built on Green Belt land around the edge of cities to deal withBritain’s housing crisis, a think-tank with close links to David Cameron recommends today.
In a controversial report Policy Exchange claims that the green belt is having negative effects on the economy and quality of life.
It refutes the idea that there are enough brown field sites to cope with future housing needs adding that much green belt land is not of any great natural beauty and failure to build on it is having a negative effect on the economy.”
I am not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bathwater here – I just reflect along with the Policy Exchange that applying one view of the value of greenbelt irrespective of its quality and circumstances can have negative unintended consequences.
It should be read alongside this article about the Church of England and accusations of sharp practice in the acquisition and development of greenbelt – which puts the whole emotive issue into further controversial focus:
An unholy row has erupted after the Church of England was accused of ‘ruthlessly’ putting ‘profit before communities’ by snapping up green belt land which had already been earmarked for development.
The church purchased 180 hectares of green belt land around the area of Dewsbury,West Yorkshire, in August, and could rake in a whopping £116m if housing and business developments go ahead.
The Church Commissioners confirmed they had bought the land – known as WindsorPark- from UK Coal along with four other sites for a combined total of £12.5m.