Green belt de­vel­op­ment plans need clar­i­fy­ing

The Sunday Telegraph - - Letters To The Editor - Pa­trick Hick­man-Robert­son

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

Dale, Der­byshire

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

Oxted, Sur­rey

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.