What worth is the Green Belt?

While no one, as far as I know, opposed QEF's application to rebuild and upgrade its own facilities, the enabling development of 76 private homes in a Green Belt area is a matter of concern. It is possibly a sad reflection of the times that a worthwhile charity cannot raise sufficient money except by selling off land to a private developer.

In last Thursday's "Leatherhead Advertiser" (13th November), Andy Smith, Surrey Branch Director of CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England), wrote that CPRE is disappointed at MVDC's decision to allow this development and hopes that "other district councils in Surrey do not use this precedent to justify permission for building on green belt elsewhere." To which I say "Amen."

In her report read to the MVDC planning committee, Fran Smith, chair of the LRA, pointed out that

• The development would "effectively create a hole in the green belt which is against the local plan. It could even make the green belt between the 2 communities vulnerable to development in the future.
• "The large number of cars from 76 homes, nearly 2 miles from Leatherhead will add considerably to the congestion along Randalls Road.

This report was read out to a meeting of the LRA on Monday, 3rd November, (that is prior to the MVDC planning meeting). The meeting was well attended with over forty people present; at least four residents from the Randalls Road area expressed their concern at the current congestion on this major approach to Leatherhead at peak times each day and their opposition to any development that would further worsen an already bad situation. The report was put to the meeting for approval, rejection or amendment. It was overwhelmingly approved with no objection from anyone present.
(The full report is attached to the Minutes of 3rd November meeting.)

I return to Andy Smith's letter; he states that CPRE is "extremely concerned that many councillors seem to misunderstand the nature and purpose of the green belt - perhaps deliberately so." I share this concern. The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belts is their openness. Andy Smith's judgment appears to be confirmed by the quote on page 6 of the "Leatherhead Advertiser" attributed to Cllr Rosemary Dickson: "This is not a beautiful, virgin field; it's scrubby and next to the motorway. Let us use it for a very good purpose ..."

That must sound alarm bells for the parts of the green belt adjacent to Junction 9. It is the openness that is important, not whether it is beautiful or scrubby. Proximity to the M25 should surely put a premium on retaining what openness is left!

But I recall that this is the same councillor that not so long ago also led opposition to the MVDC officers' recommendation regarding the development of a part of the green belt that had been designated an Area of Great Landscape Value and even of an adjacent part designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

So it would seem that too many councillors have misunderstood the nature and purpose of the green belt; it must be used for a very good purpose: if it's scrubby it, let it be used for housing; if it's beautiful, let it be used as a playground for the rich - and sucks to any local plan.