the green belt per say is not a particularly effective way of protecting nature.
it's quite damaging.
I agree that we have a fundamental problem with the nature of our development industry in this country
then demand that people commute thirty miles into town to work.
the people who actually need homes - including the quarter of a million people who are homeless in this country - are very, very distant third in that pecking order.
Firstly, the planning system, I think, does have strong tools for protection nature.
nature does not need to justify it's worth at all.
That cannot be an environmentally sustainable or sensible position.
nature needs to be XXX to justify it's worth
they cannot live close to where the jobs are, because green belt policies insist that we build homes off and on greenfield sites beyond the green belt,
Millions of people commute every day across the greenbelt, twice. That is adding hugely to the carbon impact on ... of the economy,
how do we as a society regulate the amount of space that we use for homes, versus other uses?
Things like national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty ... these are all outstanding policies for protecting the really really valuable bits of nature ...
It is intrinsic.
I agree that the development sector needs urgent reform to provide the homes that we actually need, not just profits.
is far too predicated on delivering the highest possible returns, first to the landowners and second to developers, with the community
as we've seen it so far, all it's gone to do really is line the pockets of the developers themselves.
So, I would like to bring you back onto this kind of point about our obligation to nature now that we know more.
we are ensuring that the benefits of development are actually going to go to the people that need it by XXX
we know that we don't continue doing the damage that we have so far by XXX