The future of the green belt - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 09:43, 9 April 2022

2022-04-09T09:43:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:43, 9 April 2022
Line 30:		Line 30:
	Don’t expect a quick solution, but the argument is building momentum.		Don’t expect a quick solution, but the argument is building momentum.

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings =
−		+
−	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings ~~Wiki ==~~=	+

	* Amberfield land.		* Amberfield land.
Line 47:		Line 45:
	* Making the Green Belt work for London.		* Making the Green Belt work for London.
	* Metropolitan open land (MOL).		* Metropolitan open land (MOL).
−	* Must cities grow to compete?
	* National parks.		* National parks.
		+	* Repurposing the Green Belt in the 21st Century.
	* The compact sustainable city.		* The compact sustainable city.
	* The green belt and historic buildings.		* The green belt and historic buildings.
−	* Urban sprawl..	+	* Urban sprawl.

	[[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:Policy]]		[[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:Policy]]

Designing Buildings at 08:13, 2 December 2020

2020-12-02T08:13:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:13, 2 December 2020
Line 53:		Line 53:
	* Urban sprawl..		* Urban sprawl..

−	[[Category:~~Policy~~]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:Policy]]

Designing Buildings at 08:32, 12 November 2017

2017-11-12T08:32:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:32, 12 November 2017
Line 49:		Line 49:
	* Must cities grow to compete?		* Must cities grow to compete?
	* National parks.		* National parks.
−	* The compact sustainable city	+	* The compact sustainable city.
		+	* The green belt and historic buildings.
	* Urban sprawl..		* Urban sprawl..

−	[[Category:Policy]]	+	[[Category:Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]]

Editor at 13:43, 28 August 2017

2017-08-28T13:43:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:43, 28 August 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Around 516,000 hectares of land, enough to build 20-50 million houses, surrounds London alone, whilst vast swathes of mostly un-developed land surrounds Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Bristol, along with nine other urban areas in England and ten in Scotland. The Green Belt currently occupies around 13% of the total land area in England, compared to the 9% of land that is built on. It has grown into a behemoth since its inception and now dwarfs the environment it was designed to restrain.		Around 516,000 hectares of land, enough to build 20-50 million houses, surrounds London alone, whilst vast swathes of mostly un-developed land surrounds Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Bristol, along with nine other urban areas in England and ten in Scotland. The Green Belt currently occupies around 13% of the total land area in England, compared to the 9% of land that is built on. It has grown into a behemoth since its inception and now dwarfs the environment it was designed to restrain.

−	The notion of a ‘Green Belt’ was first mooted in 1580, when Queen Elizabeth I established a three-mile wide cordon sanitaire around London, prohibiting housing development where there had not been a building in living memory. By all accounts this proclamation was widely ignored. It was not until the late nineteenth-century that the idea received any more thought. In January 1914, Aston Webb, architect of the Victoria and Albert Museum and the facade of Buckingham Palace, told his peers at the London Society that he foresaw, in the year 2014, “a beautiful sylvan line practically around all London.” He named it the ‘Green Belt’. One wonders if the plan would have been as well-received if it had kept its original working-title, the ‘green girdle.’	+	The notion of a ‘Green Belt’ was first mooted in 1580, when Queen Elizabeth I established a three-mile wide cordon sanitaire around London, prohibiting housing development where there had not been a building in living memory. By all accounts this proclamation was widely ignored. It was not until the late nineteenth-century that the idea received any more thought.
		+
		+	In January 1914, Aston Webb, architect of the Victoria and Albert Museum and the facade of Buckingham Palace, told his peers at the London Society that he foresaw, in the year 2014, “a beautiful sylvan line practically around all London.” He named it the ‘Green Belt’. One wonders if the plan would have been as well-received if it had kept its original working-title, the ‘green girdle.’

	The Green Belt was subsequently sanctioned in Patrick Abercrombie’s Greater London Plan (1944) and established in the Town and Country Planning Act in 1947, designed to hold in check urban sprawl and protect the countryside from increasing urbanisation. Ever since, it has been hailed as a victory of post-war planning and now extends more than 30 miles wide in places.		The Green Belt was subsequently sanctioned in Patrick Abercrombie’s Greater London Plan (1944) and established in the Town and Country Planning Act in 1947, designed to hold in check urban sprawl and protect the countryside from increasing urbanisation. Ever since, it has been hailed as a victory of post-war planning and now extends more than 30 miles wide in places.
Line 22:		Line 24:
	The London Society has argued that we “need to move away from the idea that the countryside is a sacrosanct patchwork of medieval hedgerows” towards the recognition of “housing as a need to be met in locations with appropriate environmental capacity.” The Adam Smith Institute has, for example, suggested that at a minimum all Green Belt land within a ten minute walk from a rail station should be released for development.		The London Society has argued that we “need to move away from the idea that the countryside is a sacrosanct patchwork of medieval hedgerows” towards the recognition of “housing as a need to be met in locations with appropriate environmental capacity.” The Adam Smith Institute has, for example, suggested that at a minimum all Green Belt land within a ten minute walk from a rail station should be released for development.

−	This challenges politicians at local and national level and the Conservative Party in particular, who have championed localism in planning matters. If local communities living in the Green Belt had the final say, there would undoubtedly be no development at all, understandably so in many respects. However, decision makers, whether local authorities or the Government, must find a balance between the desire of rural communities to remain untouched by development and the needs of our cities to grow and expand. As a starting point a sensible, measured debate needs to take place. It’s already started within the property industry, but now needs to expand to Government.	+	This challenges politicians at local and national level and the Conservative Party in particular, who have championed localism in planning matters. If local communities living in the Green Belt had the final say, there would undoubtedly be no development at all, understandably so in many respects.
		+
		+	However, decision makers, whether local authorities or the Government, must find a balance between the desire of rural communities to remain untouched by development and the needs of our cities to grow and expand. As a starting point a sensible, measured debate needs to take place. It’s already started within the property industry, but now needs to expand to Government.

	Don’t expect a quick solution, but the argument is building momentum.		Don’t expect a quick solution, but the argument is building momentum.
Line 45:		Line 49:
	* Must cities grow to compete?		* Must cities grow to compete?
	* National parks.		* National parks.
−	* The compact sustainable city.	+	* The compact sustainable city
		+	* Urban sprawl..

	[[Category:Policy]]		[[Category:Policy]]

Editor at 09:16, 19 May 2017

2017-05-19T09:16:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:16, 19 May 2017
Line 41:		Line 41:
	* Green roof.		* Green roof.
	* Greenfield land.		* Greenfield land.
		+	* Making the Green Belt work for London.
	* Metropolitan open land (MOL).		* Metropolitan open land (MOL).
	* Must cities grow to compete?		* Must cities grow to compete?

Editor at 17:17, 19 December 2016

2016-12-19T17:17:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 19 December 2016
Line 41:		Line 41:
	* Green roof.		* Green roof.
	* Greenfield land.		* Greenfield land.
		+	* Metropolitan open land (MOL).
	* Must cities grow to compete?		* Must cities grow to compete?
	* National parks.		* National parks.

Editor at 10:28, 20 May 2016

2016-05-20T10:28:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 20 May 2016
Line 35:		Line 35:
	* Densification.		* Densification.
	* Garden cities.		* Garden cities.
		+	* Gentrification.
	* Green belt.		* Green belt.
	* Green belt planning practice guidance.		* Green belt planning practice guidance.

Editor at 10:05, 7 April 2016

2016-04-07T10:05:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:05, 7 April 2016
Line 40:		Line 40:
	* Green roof.		* Green roof.
	* Greenfield land.		* Greenfield land.
		+	* Must cities grow to compete?
	* National parks.		* National parks.
	* The compact sustainable city.		* The compact sustainable city.

	[[Category:Policy]]		[[Category:Policy]]

Editor at 10:57, 23 December 2015

2015-12-23T10:57:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:57, 23 December 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
−
	Will Savage ([https://twitter.com/wosavage @wosavage]) from [http://snapdragonconsulting.co.uk/ Snapdragon Consulting] assesses what the election might mean for the Green Belt.		Will Savage ([https://twitter.com/wosavage @wosavage]) from [http://snapdragonconsulting.co.uk/ Snapdragon Consulting] assesses what the election might mean for the Green Belt.

−	----	+	-----
−		+
	We all know that Britain is in the grip of a housing crisis, and if history is anything to go by we all know that the Government will miss its housing targets for the coming Parliament.		We all know that Britain is in the grip of a housing crisis, and if history is anything to go by we all know that the Government will miss its housing targets for the coming Parliament.

Line 31:		Line 29:

	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===		=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
−	*Amberfield land.	+
−	*Brownfield land.	+	* Amberfield land.
−	*Contaminated land.	+	* Brownfield land.
−	*Garden cities.	+	* Contaminated land.
−	*Green belt.	+	* Densification.
−	*Green belt planning practice guidance.	+	* Garden cities.
−	*Green infrastructure.	+	* Green belt.
−	*Green roof.	+	* Green belt planning practice guidance.
−	*Greenfield land.	+	* Green infrastructure.
−	*National parks.	+	* Green roof.
−	*The compact sustainable city.	+	* Greenfield land.
		+	* National parks.
		+	* The compact sustainable city.

	[[Category:Policy]]		[[Category:Policy]]

Designing Buildings at 08:41, 5 June 2015

2015-06-05T08:41:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:41, 5 June 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:

−	Will Savage from [http://snapdragonconsulting.co.uk/ Snapdragon Consulting] assesses what the election might mean for the Green Belt.	+	Will Savage ([https://twitter.com/wosavage @wosavage]) from [http://snapdragonconsulting.co.uk/ Snapdragon Consulting] assesses what the election might mean for the Green Belt.

	----		----