Letter: Let’s Avoid Green Belt Hyperbole

Published on: 20 Nov, 2019
Updated on: 20 Nov, 2019

From James Goss

In response to: Where Will be The Space for Trees and the Fields for Crops?

There will be others locally with a better handle on accuracy the figures, but in the foreword to the September 2018 Guildford Borough Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites – main modifications.

This is the part of the Local Plan that went on to be adopted earlier this year. It states: “A range of locations, including five strategic sites, have therefore been identified for development. In accordance with national policy, we are also proposing to inset some of our villages from the green belt. In total, 1.5% of green belt land will be removed and allocated for development during the plan period.”

When considering land use given over to urban areas (ie “development”), the greatest single land use is actually provided by parks and gardens.

When I look at our tiny town centre garden, and see from our sheltered few square meters, how much produce our kids and us actually manage to grow (this year including figs and olives), I dare say that the areas allocated for new homes, will end up being far more productive for local food, than many readers realise. And that is not taking into account our plans for a spot of local ‘guerrilla gardening’ on GBC amenity space in our neighbourhood (something my son has already started as part of his DoE project).

As for tree planting for carbon offsetting, this is generally (although not always) non-compatible with local food production. How about a concerted effort to inject some much-needed urban greening into our town centre, particularly on the approaches into town and on some of our less forgiving urban streets, bringing the benefit of the countryside to a wider populace?

Like any reasonable person, I’m not for profligate misuse of natural resources, including the green belt, but let’s keep debate in perspective and avoid reverting to hyperbole wherever possible.

Editor’s note. A detail within your letter I know, but may I say well done on the olives. Other readers might also like to hear how you managed that?

Responses to Letter: Let’s Avoid Green Belt Hyperbole

James Gross Reply

November 20, 2019 at 3:48 pm

On the olives, we’re blessed with a very sheltered south-west facing walled courtyard garden. High-density living also helps. We’re in the conservation area, so a combination of aspect and urban heat island effect works wonders

A tiny corner of the Mediterranean in central Guildford!

Still, producing fruit takes plenty of care, which means wrapping up the trees in bubble wrap over the winter and attention to soil and watering.

Thank you. Ed.
John Perkins Reply

November 20, 2019 at 11:41 pm

Is the 1.5% figure accurate or not? Even if it is, like all statistics it’s easily misused. Those living in the “inset” villages newly open to development might not think their exclusion from the “1.5%” is entirely honest.
- Jim Allen Reply
  
  November 21, 2019 at 10:26 am
  
  While I don’t support, in any way, the housing numbers and resultant loss of green belt under the adopted the Local Plan, I think it should be understood that Guildford’s action of insetting from the green belt of these villages, GBC was one of the last local planning authorities to take this action in the Metropolitan Green Belt area. So however distasteful this action, it was simply bringing it into line with the rest of the LPA’s around London.
Lisa Wright Reply

November 21, 2019 at 12:58 pm

Mr Goss does make some relevant points. I fear there are not enough trees or green spaces around town as the council don’t want to pay to maintain them.

I understand that residents may indeed plant some vegetables in their new “green belt” gardens but I doubt they’ll have enough room for staples to feed their whole family like potatoes, and definitely not wheat for flour.

Taking the 89% figure quoted. Guildford is actually 45% Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, that leaves 44% as green belt. Once you take out areas already allocated to parks, common land and school fields etc, the green belt figure is even lower still. So, the figure from GBC of only taking 1.5% out of the green belt is totally inaccurate and is, in my opinion, closer to 7% of our residual and available green belt.

Seven per cent doesn’t sound too much to some people either until you realise that the majority of that land is growing our food, including Blackwell Farm, Gosden Farm and Wisley Three Farm Meadows, hence the names. In addition, we also have the impact of the decrease in carbon capture when the green fields and trees are lost whilst encouraging yet further pollution from the expected additional 15,000 + daily car journeys.

Although it would be lovely to think everyone will be growing their food in the garden with the children, I fear Mr Goss and his family are in a minority and it’s highly unlikely that even 10% of residents actually grow anything productive. Perhaps this is something the council could encourage?

So, Mr Goss, and GBC, may like to consider and truly weigh up the pros and cons of concreting our green belt and look instead to the regeneration of our brownfield sites instead.