So then... first up:
The UK Government has just released news of new planning guidelines for England that they think will reform an overly-bureaucratic existing system and accommodate the urgent need for new homes, whilst protecting the countryside.
Check http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17514730 for the BBC news release and http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/ for the official info.
Where do I stand on this?
As someone who fell in love with the (alleged) original concept of the (modern) UK Green Belt system, my thoughts on the matter have changed over the years. Like the Government, I can no longer support it in its current form. The simple facts are that: (1) the UK is a small island with over 60 million people on it, and has a large capital city that over overly dominates the economy, transport, politics... and geography of the country it rules; (2) we have no real wild countryside* left and that all land and its inhabitants, be them human or otherwise, must be continuously managed in some way for a balance to be attempted/achieved; (3) The population is growing. Not, fortunately, as bad as the developing world, but enough to warrant an upcoming programme of new housing construction that will put pressure on the entire country's infrastructure.
*bar a few, dying, 'alpine' mountain tops in the Cairngorms.
And so... what to do?
The true nature of much of the UK's 14 green belt areas is that they are not green. They are dominated by monocultural crop fields, where fertilizer and insecticide is heavily used and supplemented by significant water irrigation sytems, and sustain little in the way of 'breathing space' for the cities they surround - either in the way of wildlife reserves of sports and recreation facilities.
We could build on much of these sites and not feel that we have 'hurt' the countryside, and so the Government is right to say that the middle of many of our towns and cities - where most of us live and work - are being picked to death by new developments that take over the little greenspace that remains in our urban areas.
However, as much as urban densification can be a bad thing, there are still many brownfield sites in the UK that are untouched. They are purely and simply being bought and sold for the profit game. It is better for some so-called developers to play the buy/sell game rather than actually start building. Also: by building outside our cities in green belts, even if it means creating more true green space in the form of parkland and pocket nature reserves as a result, it also puts pressure on transport.
If we are still commuting into these cities, our road and rail systems continue to suffer.
I am going to stop here for now - this is not supposed to be a mini-essay... but I will close by saying that I think the key to future UK development is providing more smaller, affordable homes in central city locations, not providing underground car parking or 'one parking space per unit' schemes in middle income urban housing developments and concentaring on high-speed Internet connections for out-of-town projects (whatever they may be) so that people are encouraged to work from home more. Then... we won't have such a need to overspill into our South-Eastern green belts specifically and continue the status quo of one half of the country dominating the other. If we can do this, we won't need to build on green belt land at all - leaving it to be properly converted back intro true green space, providing 'wildife corridors', where are threatened flora and fauna can be given a chance to re-colonise.
What would be so bad about living in the north if your house was carbon neutral in construction, a 'Passivhaus' in usage, had a view of true green Dales and Hills... and had BroadBand so good that you didn't need to commute to the City of London to join in on that all-important Video Conference to that client in Dubai?
TTFN, Zeeox
No comments:
Post a Comment