Daily Mail, 9th May 2002

Is Mr Dome about to destroy Britain's precious Green Belt?

by Geoffrey Lean

For more than half a century, the 15 Green Belts that gird and discipline our great conurbations - and protect our finest historic cities - have rightly been the envy of the world.

Their encircling, safeguarded greenery - some 60,O0O square miles of it in all - has saved us from the urban sprawl that so disfigures the United States and many other countries.

They have provided a sharp break between town and country, giving travellers a shock of pleasure as they break out of the concrete - and have ensured that rural Britain is accessible from any home in the land.

They have also helped to keep cities vibrant by forcing development to stay within strict boundaries, promoting regeneration within those cities. And they have preserved the character of such gems as Oxford, Cambridge and York, by keeping their settings unalloyed.

Surely, then, we can be sure they will be safe from the depredations of those who purport to govern us.

Sadly, the answer is no. For the Green Belts are as hated by housebuilders as they are loved by the people, and so have repeatedly been under attack from governments that rush to do the bidding of big business.

Betrayal

Yesterday the nation's planners - who ought to be the Green Belts' stoutest defenders - called for them to be 'reviewed'.

The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) rushed out the conclusions of a forthcoming report on Green Belts to try to influence ministers. It argued for a 'modernised policy' that would withdraw their special protection, allowing the same 'limited development' as in other rural areas

Ron Tate, the Convenor of the Institute's Planning Policy Panel, went even further -telling the Daily Mail that preserving Green Belts was 'a very negative policy'.

This is dangerous stuff - but doubly so under New Labour.

Ministers have been quite happy to nibble away at the Green Belt over the past five years. Worse, they have - almost unnoticed - embarked on a dismantllng of the planning system, in what is one of the most serious attacks on democracy by any government over the past half-century.

Under proposals masterminded by the unelected housing minister Lord Falconer - Tony Blair's closest political friend - the power to decide where houses are built will be taken away from elected councils and handed to new, undemocratic bodies, partially made up of businessmen.

And they will deprive Britons of the right to challenge, at public inquiries, the need for nuclear waste dumps, motorways, airports and other controversial developments.

Lord Falconer - fresh from his stint In charge of the laughable Millennium Dome - blithely admits that, politicallY. the plans are 'absolutely explosive'. But he, and his old flat-mate in No 10, are determined to press ahead regardless, to benefit their business admirers.

The RTPI defends its position with well-worn arguments. Much of the Green Belts - and particularly parts nearest the cities - are neither attractive nor well kept, it says.

This is true, but beside the point. They were never designed to safeguard Britain's finest landscapes, but to protect the distinction between town and country. Where they are messy, they should be managed better - not scrapped.

Then, the RTPI adds, their boundaries are often illogical -tongues of green land thrusting deep into built-up areas. True again - but again, wrong-headed. For it is often those very areas that are of most value as preciout green lungs for city dwellers.

More substantially - and more subversively - the RTPI cites the lack of affordable houslag. Fewer houses went up last year than at any time in the past 70 years. And last month, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported that less than two-thirds of the houses needed each year are actually being built.

Demand

This is a real problem, as any young couple struggling to get a foothold on the first rung of the housing ladder will testify. But desecrating the Green Belts will do nothing to solve it.

In the first place, there is no shortage of building land. The very construction companies that are clamouring to be unleashed in Green Belt land are themselves sitting on a huge bank of it.

They refuse to use it because it is going up in value. This keeps up their share prices, because it means their assets are appreciating, and will enable them eventually to sell their houses for even more.

And even if they got Green Belt land, the firms would be unlikely to build affordable homes on it. They would, predictably, far prefer to construct a single million-pound mansion on any given plot than five £80,000 starter homes.

The demand for expensive houses is remarkably strong; there Is a lot of money about, and those that have it are more than willing to invest it in a costly second, or third, house.

Furthermore, if houses are built in the already overcrowded South-East, demand will rise to fill them, exacerbating a range of problems from the loss of the countryside to traffic congestion and pollution.

If, instead, they were directed to parts of the country that sorely need development, like areas of the North-East, jobs and industry would follow, benefiting everyone.

Assault

The public understands this logic, even if governments refuse to do so, and people have consistently risen up to frustrate every attempt to loosen Green Belts.

Lord Falconer sald last night that the Government would not relax its Green Belt policy. But since it came to power, it has sanctioned 120 Green Belt violations - including massive housing developments near Stevenage and Newcastle. Its assault on local democracy is far worse still.

Under plans laid out in, a Green Paper late last year, new 'planning authorities' - which Lord Falconer admits will not be directly elected 'for many years to come' - will take over the powers now exercised by county councils to decide where to site the four million new homes scheduled over the next two decades.

And ministers will effectively be able to impose massive and controversial developments oh local people by - decree. Parliament will decide whether they are needed, and where they should go.

Planning inquiries will not be able to challenge such decisions, but will be restricted to considering 'detailed' issues, like the colour of a new nuclear power station's gates.

So far, these deeply alarming plans have aroused little outcry: partly because people feel that planning is too complex an issue to grasp. But they do understand Green Belts.

So yesterday's report may yet do a service by awakening Britons to the seriousness of the threat, both to the countryside and to their democratic rights. The Government's plans must be fought. And the broad acres of the Green Belts are not a bad place to take a stand, and insist: 'They shall not pass!'