General Discussion Boards > Environment

Housing, planning, and development in North Mymms

(1/312) > >>

15 October - WHC Cabinet Housing & Planning - Housing need for the borough (numbers), review of promoted sites for home in and around WGC & Hatfield taking account of the Green Belt & Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Studies.

Surely everyone was aware of Government policy when they voted last year. ???
I million extra imigrants ( See press today) They have got to go somewhere :'(
My old saying " when its gone its gone" :'(
Not Party political as they are all the same. ;)

A careful, objective, informed, full, even-handed, comprehensive, ...  review should not be a bad thing ?
The Green Belt was invented for London in the 'Thirties as one of a "bundle" of strategic planning policies in a very different world than now exists.  For example, it was then about the only planning restraint-policy, whereas now there is a whole-raft of sustainability, conservation, TPO, HPO, SSSI, Listed Buildings, AONB, Landscape significance, ... controls which in total affect almost the whole of the country.

Certainly I'm looking forward to seeing what happens next   -  not least the response to   "emotive" ?  "debate-stimulating" ?   by-lines as "Green Belt under threat ".  

For interest, many years ago a surveyor with the old Potters Bar Urban District Council told me that Brookmans Park should never have been built and that this had been said in some report.   The suggestion was the development would eventually merge Potters Bar and Hatfield.  

Have a look at Peter Kingsford's A Modern History of Brookmans Park 1700-1950.  The quote in Chapter 5 click here under the heading town and country planning is presumably the report that my old friend mentioned to me.  

Not a comment either way, just interesting.


Edited by Forum Admin to put the link in.


--- Quote ---Certainly I'm looking forward to seeing what happens next   -  not least the response to   "emotive" ?  "debate-stimulating" ?   by-lines as "Green Belt under threat ".
--- End quote ---

Just to clarify, the headline on the front page poses the question, "Is the green belt under threat?" and the thread's headline is, "Green belt threat?".  The all-important question mark is left off in the quote above making it a statement rather than a question. Of course a headline reading "Green Belt under threat" would clearly be drawing the debate to a premature conclusion and could correctly be termed 'emotive'.
If you read the BBC story, linked to in the original post in this thread, it also reports that the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) has warned that any compromise will open the floodgates to mass development.  In the same report the Government says it has enlarged the greenbelt by 30,000 hectares since coming to power. So it is not a forgone conclusion and it is a subject worthy of debate, especially in an area like this. Hence the question in the post and front page, raised by both sides being put in the BBC story.
In answer to the quote above, and judging by the other contributions on this thread, it seems that "debate-stimulating" is about right.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version