Letter: The Case for Green Belt Development Has Not Been Properly Made

Published on: 7 Sep, 2016
Updated on: 7 Sep, 2016

From Ben Paton

In response to the letter: We Should Be Supporting the Council and Its Local Plan

Simply asserting something does not make it so.

As with many promotions of the draft Local Plan there is no analysis in James Gross’ letter as to how the Local Plan satisfies local needs or complies with law and due process.

The “need” for housing which the writer alludes to is not supported with evidence and reasoned argument. In this he follows the lead of Guildford Borough Council which has refused to take delivery, let alone publish and analyse, the demographic housing model which is supposed to justify the housing number. It is this disregard for due process which dismays residents.

The law states clearly that “exceptional circumstances” must be shown before green belt boundaries can be changed. The council has failed to show exceptional circumstances. That’s not transparent or open and it does not deserve unthinking support. It merits proper scrutiny.

Mr Gross’ letter states: “Few, if any persons writing in to this publication seem willing to enter into a mature debate about the history and purpose of green belt. Firstly there is nothing in UK planning law that suggests that green belt was to be a designation in perpetuity.”

That is not so. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has quite a lot to say about the permanence of the the green belt.

In para 79 it states: “The government attaches great importance to green belts. The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of green belts are their openness and their permanence.”

The law states that the green belt is intended to be “permanent”. It is therefore highly misleading to state that “there is nothing in UK planning law that suggests that green belt was to be a designation in perpetuity”. There is.

Rather than get the law and the facts right, the writer says that: “Few, if any persons writing in to this publication seem willing to enter into a mature debate…” On the contrary, there has been much mature debate which has cited evidence and relevant argument.

It is not mature to ignore facts or to make derogatory generalisations about all those who happen to take a different view.

Critics of the Local Plan have not argued that the green belt is sacrosanct or that growth should be unnecessarily inhibited. They have argued that the law should be respected – in particular the rules which prescribe why and how green belt boundaries may be changed.

And they have argued that development which does not follow the rules and which is unsustainable harms society and impoverishes us all.

The writer states: “The draft Local Plan does take constraints into account.’

Really? Where? The law permits the council to put constraints on the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) which in our case is based on a secret calculation. The Housing Target is the OAN. The council has not set any constraints against the OAN.

The writer makes this bold generalisation: “All of the development areas surrounding the town have been subject to thorough checks, assessments and masterplans.”

Really? Haven’t property developers promoted their developments to the council and sought to achieve the largest number of houses on their particular sites? Haven’t they sought to persuade the council that unsustainable sites are sustainable?

Is it really credible that the council has been infallible and not let any poor developments through the net? Should we just take it on trust? If so, why have a public consultation?

Many of the arguments run by the development lobby are blatantly populist and try to present development as enriching and environmentalism as impoverishing. That trivialises the debate and enlightens no one.

Share This Post