tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post3596014115610465608..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Common sense about the Green BeltMartin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-78300597807435838642014-07-26T23:39:53.285+01:002014-07-26T23:39:53.285+01:00Agree that Green Belt rules are too rigidly applie...Agree that Green Belt rules are too rigidly applied but don't agree that it should be abandoned completely - the 'Philistines' who are more interested in money than keeping a decent amount of the countryside would have us covered in concrete from end to end if there were no rules!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-73811009387557467422014-05-28T07:25:05.955+01:002014-05-28T07:25:05.955+01:00The green belt issue is also compounded by tendenc...The green belt issue is also compounded by tendencies to designate all but huge villages as washed over, regard edge of village sites as subject to "open countryside" restrictions even where a village is inset, and last of all to use poor transport sustainability and the mantra of "one (or any single digit number) house(s) won't help to meet the housing targets" to resist any new development.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-16069004249696177442014-05-09T16:42:55.943+01:002014-05-09T16:42:55.943+01:00I have to say I whole-heartedly agree with every l...I have to say I whole-heartedly agree with every last word of your article.<br /><br />If you want an even better example of the absurd extent of current green belts than the London one, just google 'nottingham and derby green belt' and the first item is a pdf of the 2006 review, with a handy map on its first page. The extent of the green belt east and south of Nottingham is a travesty. It has and continues to lead to many examples of 'town' cramming elsewhere, especially in the River Erewash valley between Nottingham and Derby.<br /><br />I’m local to the area and could give you many examples of housing that's sprung up in the last 30 years which, amongst other things, have eroded settlement identity and removed areas of openness of great value to the quality of the living environment – precisely the kind of harm that green belt status is meant to fend off through its ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’ implementation.<br /><br />In Broxtowe and Erewash Districts – either side of the River Erewash – space for a disproportionate amount of the demands of the Nottingham housing market has been found. This has generally led to a density of living (and employment) that the transport system doesn't cope with, and which couldn’t unless extremely expensive and highly intrusive improvements are carried out. I’m sure this is a common occurrence as a result of all the bloated green belts.<br /><br />Of course, this will matter not one jot to the districts of, Gedling, Rushcliffe, and Newark and Sherwood, who are the chief beneficiaries of this corrupted policy in respect of the Nottingham-Derby green belt. In fact compare what’s going on with Nottingham with the situation at Derby, which has no green belt to the west and south and rightly so – just goes to prove it doesn’t need over-egging!<br /><br />It’s not a dissimilar outcome to the tale of the M64. This was never built, blocked as it was by the inhabitants of the rural area south of Stoke, through whose back yard it would have gone. Still, something had to be done to facilitate traffic movement between the M1 and M6, the result being the A50 straight through Stoke (or, more appositely, an atrocious living environment and congestion for 10,000’s as opposed to a slightly worse environment for a few hundred).<br /><br />What planning policy gives to some with one hand, it takes away from others with the other hand. This lesson is least of all understood by those who gain.<br />Andy Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09686455848134884155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-35550108697320479722014-05-09T14:54:07.360+01:002014-05-09T14:54:07.360+01:00I think it's time that green belt policy was c...I think it's time that green belt policy was consigned to the history books. Planning policies in terms of protection of countryside have moved on to the point where a specific green belt policy is unnecessary. Entirely removing green belt policy (a national policy) is also clearly the localist answer by leaving Councils and communities free to protect or otherwise their undeveloped land.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03131316215134726533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-76673973834621449692014-05-09T11:39:54.362+01:002014-05-09T11:39:54.362+01:00The loudest voices will prevail, the government is...The loudest voices will prevail, the government is afraid of upsetting the likes of the CPRE and NIMBYs even if it is clear that we are protecting land that is privately owned for a public that has no access to it so there is no amenity value at a time when we desperately need more housing yet 40% Of England remains preserved in aspic. And don't get me going on green wedges. I apologise for the rambling but I'm busy on a project to reform English national parks, the ultimate fossilising planning madhouse. Evan Owen - Snowdoniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12228099681098123960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-76064169732375744222014-05-09T11:11:27.489+01:002014-05-09T11:11:27.489+01:00Very interesting blog Martin, many thanks.Very interesting blog Martin, many thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-16242114102246624402014-05-09T09:56:06.508+01:002014-05-09T09:56:06.508+01:00I agree with pretty much everything you say - but ...I agree with pretty much everything you say - but think it might be better said again a little over a year from now...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-1452957280458444262014-05-08T13:34:29.494+01:002014-05-08T13:34:29.494+01:00Martin, Thank you as usual.
Para 89 of the NPPF ...Martin, Thank you as usual. <br /><br />Para 89 of the NPPF allows for the redevelopment of previously developed sites in the Green Belt. This is much more pragmatic than PPG2 and creates development opportunities provided that the replacement buildings are not materially larger than those they replace. There are some very positive appeal decisions circulating in this respect, although LPA's are still in denial generally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com