IF Stephen Lewis wishes to give us his view of the green belt, I am sure no one would dispute his right to do so. To describe his uncritical account of the official view as "an investigation" is a bit much.
Planning law is complex, but its most notable feature is its infinite flexibility. In planning terms "permanence" means "for the time being", and the reassuring phrase "development will not be permitted..." is always qualified by "unless...".
The green belt is protected so long as councillors and officers have the will to protect it, and so long as the ever-changing planning laws give them power to do so. City of York Council is dedicated to balancing the demands of developers (those with clout) against the wishes of residents (those without clout). Consequently, the green belt is always in danger.
Asking councillors and officers if they approve of the green belt is like asking Parliamentarians if they approve of democracy. The question Stephen Lewis should have put is this: "Have you ever proposed, or voted for, development within the green belt?"
The great drawback of the green belt is that it has led to the nationwide loss of our parks and green spaces, and latterly our playing fields, as developers compete for the diminishing available land.
When they have filled every nook and cranny with bricks and mortar, how secure will the green belt be then?
The answer to this problem must surely be rural development. In the meantime, there is an obvious need for a Campaign to Protect Urban England.
William Dixon Smith,
Welland Rise,
Acomb, York.
Updated: 09:36 Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article