Green belt development plans need clarifying
SIR – Philip Hammond wishes to improve the housing market by permitting development on the green belt (report, November 5).
This is yet another occasion where clarity from the Government as to what can be termed “green belt” would be appreciated.
As a parish councillor in a largely rural parish adjacent to and half within a National Park, I learnt very quickly that individual views of what constituted green belt land differed widely. Many people thought that the green belt was any area of undeveloped land surrounding a town or village, whereas the true definition only covers land included in an order making it so.
The Government needs to be very clear as to exactly what the new proposals cover, otherwise developers will literally have a field day. John H Brook
Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire SIR – We should remember that the green belt serves a vital purpose for large, urban conurbations.
The present discussion seems to assume there are only two types of land: brownfield and green belt. But most of the country is simply open, green fields, much of it under-utilised. There is plenty of opportunity to create entirely new communities within easy reach of good road and rail communications and employment opportunities.
This is where the focus should be. Rodney Howlett
SIR – The Government has yet to realise that net immigration, whether from the EU or elsewhere, is driving the population explosion and consequently the demand for homes.
Until net immigration is reduced to a trickle, the problem will remain, with more and more land covered in concrete and farmland lost for good. Christopher C Dean