Letters to the editor: Should we build on the green belt?

 
Sign of the times: New Scotland Yard has been sold to Abu Dhabi developers for £370 million
10 December 2014
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

London does not have enough deliverable or developable brownfield land within its borders to deliver the homes required to solve the housing crisis, and the ongoing shortage makes the capital less attractive. This harms our economy.

The green belt was conceived as a planning policy designation: it is not a measure of inherent landscape or ecological value. Much green belt land is of limited natural or visual interest, being used for purposes such as golf courses, or even derelict. It contains under-used train stations, and towns, villages and suburbs that have ossified due to lack of investment.

In his 2050 Infrastructure Plan, Boris Johnson signposted a debate on how London’s needs relate to green belt in the wider South-East but this will only commence in earnest once he has left office. Meanwhile, councils around London preparing their own development plans are struggling to make sense of their role in supporting growth. Releasing some green belt land for development will always be a political hot potato but we have gone beyond the point at which the need to do so can simply be ignored.
Matthew Spry, senior director, Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

The London Society is right to call for a rethink of the green belt. Back in 1875 one of the founders of the National Trust, Octavia Hill, called for a “green belt” around London. Had that happened then, places such as Stratford and Cricklewood would be villages surrounded by protected countryside and London would be a provincial backwater.

London is about to reach its highest ever population. We need to grow, and growth should be in and around the city, not forced out beyond a rigid green belt.
Colin Wiles, fellow of the Chartered Institute of Housing

The London Assembly supports the Mayor’s intention to ensure growth takes place within London’s current boundaries without encroaching on the capital’s protected open spaces. But increasingly there are calls to allow building on these areas. Our green belt is the envy of the world; it is a green lung, provides space for recreation and is a check against unsustainable urban sprawl. Once it is paved over, it is gone for ever.

There are other options. If every brownfield site was developed fully there would be land for 382,500 new homes. Occupying 10 per cent of under-used semi-detached housing in Outer London could accommodate 100,000 people. And if 10 per cent of substandard semi-detached housing was redeveloped at twice its existing density it would accommodate 400,000 new homes.

We should not be giving a gift to developers by letting them build over our green belt instead of regenerating communities by focusing on brownfield.
Nicky Gavron (Lab), chair, London Assembly Planning Committee

Scotland Yard sale makes good sense

What a fuss from certain quarters about New Scotland Yard being sold to foreign investors. Quite apart from the vast sum raised, which can be re-invested into policing London more effectively, the capital has a terrible lack of supply of homes for people to live in. Any investment which ensures that London property is converted into residential units should be welcomed with open arms.

It does not matter if the individual flats are sold to foreign investors either. The Chancellor has now put in place taxes which make it inefficient for non-residents to leave property empty, so these properties will be let out.

In any market where there is more supply, price pressure eases. We should all be encouraging the Government to unlock its other publicly owned building assets around London for development as homes, making life easier for ordinary Londoners.
Patrick Bullick, chairman, National Association of Estate Agents, London Region

We must reduce pollution in London

The Environmental Audit Committee is right — the UK is suffering from a pollution “public health crisis”. Here in London air pollution is responsible for around 4,000 premature deaths annually — and the city suffers from some of the highest levels of air pollution in the UK.

Technology is the first part of the solution. That’s why we’ve designed a “CityAir” phone app to help Londoners lower their emissions and find cleaner routes when levels of pollution are high in the capital — and big City firms are signing up with us to reduce gas consumption, promote walking and cycling among workers and reduce the number of deliveries to their buildings. But we still need to move further and faster on reducing pollution from diesel taxis.
John Tomlinson, deputy chairman, Environment Committee

It is shameful that air quality is so bad that schools have to close. Every year there is talk of the need to reduce pollution but nothing is done. It used to be said that 90 per cent of the pollution came from 10 per cent of diesels.

Spot checks must be reinstated and vehicles taken off the road. Long-term, London must follow Paris and make the capital a diesel-free zone.
Dave Degen, Watford

Setting the record straight on birds

It is regrettable that the UK’s largest bird welfare charity does not seem to understand the law over killing wild birds to prevent serious damage or disease (December 3). Under the Natural England General Licence, a landowner may kill a range of species of wild birds, including the ring-necked parakeet, if the purpose is to protect crops and foodstuffs.

The RSPB spokesman quoted in your story is wrong when he says Mr Marchington has to prove that he has explored alternative forms of control before resorting to shooting these birds. Under the general licence it states that this condition does not apply to non-native species. This species is considered a non-native species by Natural England for the purposes of the general licence.
James Legge, head of political affairs, Countryside Alliance

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in