When we think of the
‘green belt’ we have a tendency to imagine that it consists of a
narrow strip of countryside encircling a major conurbation under
constant threat from unscrupulous developers who want to desecrate it
for profit. This way of imagining it derives largely from the vocal
‘nimbyism’ of the middle classes struggling to preserve a
suburban lifestyle to which they have fled to avoid the urban centres
in which they now have very little interest. They have coined the
phrase ‘urban sprawl’ to increase the emotive pressure on
planning authorities to restrict applications overlooking the fact
that what they call urban sprawl is for the rest of us an increase in
housing stock and a decent place to live.
They are quite happy
for those living in urban high density housing to see that density
increase provided that they themselves can reach the countryside with
the minimum of inconvenience and there is no increase in suburban
housing supply to diminish the value and exclusivity of their own
properties.
But anyone who has
travelled in Scotland can see that the way we imagine the green belt
is a fallacy. There is no ‘belt’ of green space around towns and
cities. What we have is miles of countryside and the briefest of
rail journeys will confirm that. The countryside is not being
concreted over, to the contrary, every new road or road bridge is
hailed as a triumph. There is a desperate need to expand and
improve our transport infrastructure and housing stock.
In short, we are not
short of green but we are dreadfully short of houses and roads.
I believe that the
course we should be taking is to have a good long think about green
belt and planning policy and relax regulations for housing
development and road building. The green belt provisions were
designed largely for south of the border where needs and demands may
be different but I do not believe they meet the needs of Scotland.
We do not have the same geography nor the same problems.
Proposals to build
on brownfield sites, while superficially tempting, will come nowhere
near to meeting the housing needs of the country in its present state
and would only increase the housing density for those already living
in areas of overcrowding and attempts to increase the housing stock
by building upwards have proven disastrous. Far better brownfield
sites should be turned into urban parkland properly managed and
maintained so that those living in already crowded urban conditions
should have access to the chance of recreational use of pleasant
green space, and if that means that the journey into the countryside
for the suburban middle classes takes an extra ten or fifteen minutes
then so be it.
This is not an
argument for a removal of all restrictions on any kind of development
but I think we must look again at how we treat the ownership and
functional flexibility of land and how relaxation of restrictions
could contribute to social and economic development.
