500 signatures reached
To: Gavin Barwell, Minister for Housing and Planning
Stop Gov. threat to Green Belt
Make Green Belt protection solid and permanent.
Why is this important?
The Government’s Housing White Paper (HWP) proposes to loosen Green Belt protection. Local authorities will no longer need to prove ‘exceptional circumstance’ before they build on Green Belt land but merely show they have examined all other reasonable options.
If they have no other option (or say they have not) then building goes ahead.
This change spells the end of the Green Belt.
To help combat this attack on our countryside please present your own response to the HWP (suggested response below)
You may email your response to:- [email protected]
The final consultation date is May 2nd. So this is urgent!!
Give Name, address and group (if any)
HOUSING WHITE PAPER (HWP) RESPONSE
'The Broken Housing Market'
The HWP states that our housing market is broken because “for too long we haven’t built enough homes” (to satisfy demand).
A crucial fault with the HWP is that it assumes demand will continue to increase indefinitely and no steps need be taken (none are proposed) to control or limit that demand.
Furthermore the HWP takes no account of changes in demand resulting from Brexit.
The Government must confront the causes of over-crowding in the UK--house building only temporarily alleviates the symptoms. If this is not done the UK must eventually become one great urban sprawl with massive traffic congestion on all main roads.
Diminishing demand relative to supply will have the additional benefit of bringing house prices down and so making them more affordable.
Response to questions10 and 11.
I strongly disagree with Proposal 10a.
It would be near to impossible for ordinary members of the population (who, in the main, are the objectors to building on the Green Belt) to know whether a local authority had examined all other reasonable options for meeting their development requirements (the word reasonable would create expensive legal actions which the ordinary man could not afford). It would be only too easy for a local authority with their large financial resources and administrative network and an interest in building on the Green Belt to demonstrate that they had examined all other reasonable options when, in fact, they had not.
This proposal effectively brings about the death of the Green Belt.
I strongly disagree with Proposal 10b.
Removing land from the Green Belt equates to the destruction of the Green Belt and the principle of controlling urban sprawl behind its concept.
I disagree with Proposal 10c.
New cemeteries are infrastructure for the use of urban populations and are examples of urban sprawl.
I strongly disagree with Proposal 10d.
Any development, whether resulting from a Neighbourhood Development Order or not, compromises the intended openness and the permanence of the Green Belt and should not be allowed.
I strongly disagree with Proposals 10e and 10f.
The current planning policy given in para 79 of the NPPF which states that the essence of the Green Belt is its openness and its permanence should be strictly adhered to under all circumstances.
If they have no other option (or say they have not) then building goes ahead.
This change spells the end of the Green Belt.
To help combat this attack on our countryside please present your own response to the HWP (suggested response below)
You may email your response to:- [email protected]
The final consultation date is May 2nd. So this is urgent!!
Give Name, address and group (if any)
HOUSING WHITE PAPER (HWP) RESPONSE
'The Broken Housing Market'
The HWP states that our housing market is broken because “for too long we haven’t built enough homes” (to satisfy demand).
A crucial fault with the HWP is that it assumes demand will continue to increase indefinitely and no steps need be taken (none are proposed) to control or limit that demand.
Furthermore the HWP takes no account of changes in demand resulting from Brexit.
The Government must confront the causes of over-crowding in the UK--house building only temporarily alleviates the symptoms. If this is not done the UK must eventually become one great urban sprawl with massive traffic congestion on all main roads.
Diminishing demand relative to supply will have the additional benefit of bringing house prices down and so making them more affordable.
Response to questions10 and 11.
I strongly disagree with Proposal 10a.
It would be near to impossible for ordinary members of the population (who, in the main, are the objectors to building on the Green Belt) to know whether a local authority had examined all other reasonable options for meeting their development requirements (the word reasonable would create expensive legal actions which the ordinary man could not afford). It would be only too easy for a local authority with their large financial resources and administrative network and an interest in building on the Green Belt to demonstrate that they had examined all other reasonable options when, in fact, they had not.
This proposal effectively brings about the death of the Green Belt.
I strongly disagree with Proposal 10b.
Removing land from the Green Belt equates to the destruction of the Green Belt and the principle of controlling urban sprawl behind its concept.
I disagree with Proposal 10c.
New cemeteries are infrastructure for the use of urban populations and are examples of urban sprawl.
I strongly disagree with Proposal 10d.
Any development, whether resulting from a Neighbourhood Development Order or not, compromises the intended openness and the permanence of the Green Belt and should not be allowed.
I strongly disagree with Proposals 10e and 10f.
The current planning policy given in para 79 of the NPPF which states that the essence of the Green Belt is its openness and its permanence should be strictly adhered to under all circumstances.
