|
Press Release | Become a Golden Supporter |
For Immediate Release: Tuesday 2nd August 2005
Photo Opportunity: Wednesday 3rd August 2005, 1.50pm, near the bridge over the M42, Friday Lane, Catherine-de-Barnes, Solihull. Birmingham Friends of the Earth present a 'Green Belt 50th Birthday Cake', a banana and walnut cake decorated with green icing and candles, to Caroline Spelman MP.
Fifty years
old today and everyone wants a slice of the Green Belt
But campaigners and Meriden
MP tell Government: 'You can't have your Green Belt cake and eat it!'
It's exactly fifty years today (Wednesday 3rd August) since the Conservative Government of Anthony Eden created the Green Belt.[1] Birmingham Friends of the Earth are commemorating the occasion by presenting a special 'Green Belt 50th Birthday Cake', decorated with green icing and birthday candles, to Meriden MP Caroline Spelman.
But a big slice will be conspicuously missing from the cake, representing the threat to the Green Belt from developers who are only too eager to get their hands on a portion of the 209,200 hectares of open countryside between Birmingham and Coventry.[2]
Birmingham Friends of the Earth campaigner Martin Stride said,
"It's fitting that we should be celebrating this occasion with a cake because it seems as though everyone wants a slice of the Green Belt. The West Midlands Green Belt faces threats from motorway widening, airport expansion, housing demands, a motorway service station and a rash of developments along the M42, M40 and M6 Toll corridors."
Caroline Spelman MP, Shadow Secretary for Local Government and Communities, said,
"When the Green Belt was conceived fifty years ago it was to protect our precious green spaces from urban sprawl, but this safeguard is now under increasing threat. Over recent years Green Belt protection has been erased on a whim by unelected regional bureaucrats and consistently sidelined by weaker planning rules. The example I have visited today is a case in point, where the Green Belt is threatened with Government plans for a motorway services station."
"We need more Green Belt around towns and villages, not only to guard against over-development but also to focus urban regeneration. I have called for an urgent review of the environmental impact of the Government's housing policies, which is essential if we are to safeguard the Green Belt for another 50 years."
Mr Stride added,
"Although it had the power to stop them, the Government allowed, between May 1997 and March 2004, 162 planning applications for development in Green Belts to be permitted.[3] Government policy is putting a tremendous amount of pressure on the nation's Green Belt when it should be Government's role to protect the countryside from heedless development.[4] We're using the occasion of the 50th birthday of the Green Belt to tell the Government that they can't have their Green Belt cake and eat it."
Editor's Notes
[1] The Green Belt came about in 1947 when the Town and Country Planning Act allowed local authorities to incorporate green belt proposals in their first development plans. Green Belt policy was codified and extended to areas other than London in 1955 with an historic circular inviting local planning authorities to consider the establishment of Green Belts. Since then, Green Belt policy has been outstandingly successful in delivering its prime objective of urban containment and is one the most well understood and popular planning measures with the public.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister lists the aims of Green Belt policy as to:
See www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0222
Green Belt is vitally important to the West Midlands. By acting to check urban sprawl, Green Belt protects the countryside and prevents neighbouring built-up areas merging into one another. It preserves the setting and special character of historic towns and assists urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict land. In addition, the West Midland's Green Belt is important because of the need to protect good agricultural land, maintain important sites of nature conservation and provide increasing opportunities for recreation and access to open space for the urban population.
[2] See www.odpm.gov.uk/pns//pnattach/20040222/2.xls
[3] See www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/planning/greenbelts/what-is-the-problem.htm
[4] The 2003 Sustainable Communities Plan proposed building an extra 200,000 houses in the South East of England by 2016, with more to follow. The Regional Development Agencies' growth strategy for the Northern Way (a part of the Sustainable Communities Plan) is promoting growth around Liverpool and Manchester airports, also threatening the Green Belt. About 700 hectares (over 2.5 square miles) of Green Belt could be lost if the recommendations for airport expansion set out in the 2003 Air Transport White Paper, The Future of Air Transport, are implemented in full. The Government-commissioned Barker report (2004) proposed nearly doubling the private housing market by building 70-120,000 dwellings a year above existing levels, challenging the value of Green Belt land. Draft changes to national planning policy also threaten to weaken Green Belt policy. See www.cpre.org.uk/news-releases/news-rel-2005/31-05.htm
The recent fortunes of the West Midlands Green Belt
Significant
losses
BNRR (M6 Toll).
The M6 Toll, Britain's first private toll motorway, was built to provide an
alternative to the existing M6 through the West Midlands conurbation. The 27-mile
toll motorway to the north and east of the West Midlands runs entirely through
the Green Belt.
Lucky escapes
National
football stadium. The umbrella group Mind The Gap successfully highlighted
and raised concerns about the proposed National Football Stadium at Bickenhill
in the Green Belt. This resulted in a petition of over 2 000 signatures being
presented to the House of Commons by local Caroline Spelman MP and hundreds
of letters to the Football Association and various Governments departments.
The site upon which the proposed National Stadium is within a triangle formed
by the A452,A45 and M42 within the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull. This site
was also put forward by the City as a location for the new national stadium
in the last round in 1996 and as a site for the Millennium Dome in 1997.
Western Bypasses of Wolverhampton and Stourbridge. The construction of the Western Bypasses was recommended by the West Midlands Area Multi-Modal Study in 2001. The roads were initially seen as essential to the regeneration of the Black Country, but Friends of the Earth and local campaigners believed that they were an attempt to build by stealth the Birmingham Western Orbital motorway, which was rejected by Ministers in the mid 1990s. The case for the Western Bypasses was rejected by the panel of planning experts reporting on Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for the West Midlands. The panel concluded " . the Bypasses could result in attracting employment investment away from the urban conurbation into the adjacent Green Belt areas. Furthermore, we consider that the environmental harm which would result from the construction of the proposed roads would be significant" (para 8.5.32)
Peddimore and Bassetts Pole, Sutton Coldfield. Friends of the Earth supported the 30,000 people who opposed to the development of a 'major investment site' at these two Green Belt sites, which were being promoted in Birmingham's Unitary Development Plan. In May 2003, the Planning Inspector dismissed Birmingham City Council's plans, ruling that Peddimore be returned to the Green Belt. Since then, the City Council too have voted to return Peddimore to the Green Belt. This was great news, but the development could still go ahead, as Peddimore had not been dropped from Regional Planning Guidance.
Future threats
Birmingham Airport second runway.
The a 'wide-spaced' second runway could have required as much as 600 hectares
had Birmingham airport not released its 'Birmingham Alternative' proposals in
October 2002, which was later adopted by the Department for Transport's White
Paper 'The Future of Air Transport Dec 2003'. The Alternative runway would require
290 hectares of Green Belt. An extension to the existing runway is also recommended
by the White Paper.
M6 Toll development corridor. Friends of the Earth has warned that the operators MEL want to attract more traffic to the road by creating a development corridor. Faced with these lower than expected traffic numbers, MEL have embarked on a development offensive in 2004, trying to attract new traffic-generating developments to greenbelt and greenfield sites in the M6 Toll Corridor in an attempt to generate more traffic on the road.
M42 widening. Widening the M42 through the Meriden Gap would damage the Green Belt while failing to tackle the transport problems its supporters are concerned about. A consultation into the widening proposals was undertaken in 1995 but its conclusions never published. In 1997 opposition to road building was at its peak and a large number of road schemes were put on hold. The incoming Labour Government promised a transport revolution with a Road Traffic Reduction Act and a radical Transport White Paper. Unfortunately, since then intensive lobbying has led to the re-emergence of much of the old roads programme, including the widening of the M42 between Junctions 3a and 7, the M40 to the M6 section
M6 widening/M6 Expressways. Plans to either widen the M6 north of the West Midlands conurbation or build a new M6 Expressway toll road would cut through the Green Belt. About half of the proposed M6 expressway between Wolverhampton and Stafford runs through Green Belt; a decision on this new tolled motorway is expected shortly.
Motorway service station, Catherine-de-Barnes. Local pressure group Say No Action Group (SNAG) has made Green Belt issues around the proposed Motorway Service Area at Catherine de Barnes a national issue, reaching the High Court and the House of Commons. The Meriden Gap is under threat not only from a soccer ground but also a Motorway Service Area, ever increasing housing demands, business parks, a technology triangle, the widening of the M42, an ever expanding airport and leisure facilities.