Extract from second reading debate (Commons) of the Green Belt (Protection) Bill (private bill) - Mar 15
Saturday, 16 March 2019 09:19
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con):...Clause 1 of the Bill
is designed to require even greater transparency about the loss of
green-belt land. The Campaign to Protect Rural
England has been doing a great job, but a national public
register of all green-belt land in England, and all land removed
from or added to the green belt, would increase that transparency.
Clause 2 seeks to remove the incentives for local authorities to
de-designate green-belt land, as it would allow...Request free trial
Sir (Christchurch)
(Con):...Clause 1 of the Bill is designed to require even
greater transparency about the loss of green-belt land.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England has been
doing a great job, but a national public register of all green-belt
land in England, and all land removed from or added to the green
belt, would increase that transparency. Clause 2 seeks to remove
the incentives for local authorities to de-designate green-belt
land, as it would allow that only if alternative land of the same
or greater area was added at the same time. The replacement land
would need to abut land that is already developed, or that has
above average density of housing. Thereby, the new green-belt land
would increase that amenity for those living adjacent to it. Most
importantly, the Bill would restrict the density of development on
former green-belt land. That would be a disincentive to developers
to develop green-belt land rather than brownfield land...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
|
