Letter: Better to Give Up Small Pieces of Green Belt than Large Ones

Published on: 11 Apr, 2016
Updated on: 11 Apr, 2016

From Jim Allen

I realise this will upset some, but as the villages are mostly populated by those working outside the green belt, it would actually benefit them if they were able to expand their properties without green belt constraints.

It is logical that their homes (which are not serving a green belt purposes) are inset as opposed to washed over. In this way just a few homes could be built in each village.

It would be a small but necessary sacrifice to maintain the wider preservation of the green belt, allowing it to be protected from the large scale developments and saved for future generations. Five hectares or less, here and there, is better than 100+ hectares in three or four locations.

Responses to Letter: Better to Give Up Small Pieces of Green Belt than Large Ones

Bernard Parke Reply

April 11, 2016 at 5:32 pm

Once the green belt dam is breached it will be “Apres moi le deluge”
Michael Bruton Reply

April 11, 2016 at 6:06 pm

The green belt is the green belt. Surrender chunks of it and goodbye to the rest.

We should remember that the Conservatives in Guildford stood on election platforms in 2011 and 2015 to protect the green belt – not just bits of it.

Nationally, Cameron said green belt protection was for him a ‘line in the sand’. For him in reality – but not probably in his rural constituency with its rolling and beautiful countryside – a very moveable line and very shifting sands, green belt or not.

Having attended the Planning Committee meeting at GBC last Wednesday evening and having been sworn about by Chairperson, Tory Cllr Moseley – one has a clear view of how Guildford Tories view we taxpayers. They view us as a ****** rabble and think that election promises should be cast aside.
Colin Cross Reply

April 12, 2016 at 1:00 pm

Actually Jim Allen has a valid point regarding the Guildford villages all contributing, on a proportional basis, to GBCs target.

The big three strategic sites GBC have in mind now account for about 50 per cent of the overall target. This is totally disproportionate, has no infrastructure substantiation or any sustainability credentials.

We must find another way and as about 15 of our villages are being forwarded for insetting anyway under GBC’s revised Local Plan then we are accepting the inevitable, surely?

Saving substantial tracts of green belt like the Hog’s Back and Wisley for future generations is surely for the greater good?

Colin Cross is the Lib Dem ward councillor for Lovelace
John Perkins Reply

April 13, 2016 at 1:34 pm

For development to be shared fairly, the targets must be fair. There is a suspicion that GBC’s target represents developers’ aspirations rather than any real need.

Roland McKinney has previously offered criticism of it in these pages. Experience has often shown that if you give them an inch they’ll take a mile. Acceptance of small developments in the short term will not prevent later demands for bigger ones.

The older draft Local Plan redefined the boundaries of the various villages, wider than they had been, and then inset them into (ie removed them from) the green belt. The new plan shows those boundaries arbitrarily as boundaries of the green belt. Very convenient.

Personally, I don’t believe Guildford needs many more “executive homes”, though a large number of low-cost, social and genuinely affordable homes would be helpful. And student accommodation is the business of the university, nobody else – it should not even be a part of the target.
Colin Cross Reply

April 14, 2016 at 3:34 pm

The point is that if the major strategic sites at Wisley and Blackwell Farm are removed now from the revised Local Plan then any chance of them going forward in the next 15 years will be extinguished. That will do for starters.

Colin Cross is the Lib Dem ward councillor for Lovelace.