search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
10 COMMENT


High hopes for low value Green Belt


David Churchill


David Churchill, partner at estate agent Carter Jonas, argues that a more fl exible approach to releasing low value Green Belt land could help meet housing targets without compromising the countryside, or sustainability goals.


BUILDING ON THE EXISTING GREEN BELT WILL ONLY EVER BE PART OF THE SOLUTION


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK


T


hroughout the General Election campaign, the Green Belt was central to the debate about the housing crisis. The Government has committed to building 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. As part of the means of achieving this, it has pledged to adopt a strategic approach to the use of Green Belt land as part of the delivery solution, including building on poor quality, so-called ‘Grey Belt’ land.


In a research report, ‘Rethinking the Green Belt,’ Carter Jonas has moved the debate on a stage, by considering what land might be used and how it might be released. The analysis takes an in-depth look at the subject, determining to what extent land within the Green Belt differs from land outside it; how much of the Green Belt is protected by other


(and perhaps more appropriate) designations, and exploring options for using Green Belt land in order to achieve more sustainable patterns of development.


The rhetoric surrounding the Green Belt can be powerful – and politically charged. Take, for example, the common claim that building on the Green Belt amounts to ‘concreting over the countryside’. While some Green Belts do contain larger proportions of environmentally protected or publicly accessible land, there is also a signifi cant amount of land with little environmental or amenity value – now coined the ‘Grey Belt.’ This raises the question of whether it is necessary to protect so much land, and whether greater fl exibility within the Green Belt would allow for a better allocation of land.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68