The Argument for Garden Cities

The government has really pushed its dedication to new garden cities as of late. this has been enforced by the Wolfson Prize which, this year, challenged people to design a new model for garden cities. My interest in the garden cities relates to my interest in Green Belt and whether we are taking the right approach in releasing Green Belt land (see previous post).

The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) states that, when designation or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, local authorities ‘should take in into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development.’ One argument is that development within existing settlements is sustainable. However, in many settlements, development on the settlement edge is nowhere near within a ten minute walk (800m) of the local train station and possibly not within 400m of a bus stop. Are these suburban and urban edge locations truly sustainable or do people resort to their cars?

Green Belt sites which are located on the edges of settlements can contribute towards any of the first four purposes of the Green Belt. Development on an urban edge may constitute sprawl, may bring settlements closer to merging, may encroach into the countryside (both visually and physically) and may contribute to the preservation of historic towns. As mentioned above, development on the settlement edge may not be as ‘sustainable’ as otherwise though.

When talking about new settlements in the Green Belt, i.e. Garden Cities, the third purpose of the Green Belt is key (see previous blog). New planned settlements, by their definition, are planned and will therefore not contribute to sprawl (as long as defensible boundaries are identified), will not cause settlements to merge and will not impact upon the setting of historic towns. Therefore, only the third purpose is relevant. ‘Encroachment’ is defined as an intrusion or a gradual advance beyond usual or accepted limits. From a landscape architect’s perspective, encroachment can take two forms: physical, i.e. the development is physically extending into the landscape; and visual – the development is present in views of the landscape. Any greenfield development will encroach physically and visually into the landscape but the key question is: to what extent? The physical encroachment of the settlement is decided purely by its size whereas the visual encroachment is decided by its Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) which will vary depending on a combination of the nature of the surrounding landscape, e.g. topography, vegetation etc and the nature of the design, e.g. height, roofline etc. This is unlikely to be any more of an encroachment than that of the combined urban edge sites that might otherwise be development. The physical extent of the development is the same.

An argument of the proposed Garden Cities is that they are unsustainable and would rely on car use to sustain them. I don’t see that this is necessarily the case. During my final year of university, we were tasked with locating 20,000 dwellings between Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury. At the time I was living in a small Cotswold Village containing all of 25 houses. It seemed to me that the Cotswolds had been preserved in aspic, that development was limited and, when it had taken place in the 60s, it had been pretty awful. It occurred to me that the Cotswolds are pretty lumpy and that it wasn’t actually possible to see much of the settlement when you weren’t actually standing within it. It occurred to me that it would be possible to fit a fair amount of development into the Cotswolds without being visually intrusive. I asked my lecturers if I could run my project in the Cotswold AONB and they agreed.

At this same point, it occurred to me that we view development as a negative thing but here I was living in an area which people visited partly just to look at the development! The issue, it seemed to me, was in the quality of the development and the detailed design and layout. Alongside this was my fascination with old maps, particularly disused railway lines, of which there are many within the Cotswolds. It occurred to me that if you reinstated a railway line, you could building on existing settlements along that route and create new ones, creating a sustainable set of small settlements which were well connected to the nearest towns.

Years later, having started my own company writing LVIA and Green Belt Review, I found myself sharing an office with an Architect. He and I got chatting and it turned out that he had a pet project which he and a colleague had been working on for decades. The idea was to create new, walkable settlements along the railway line in areas of open countryside. We both considered the odds of that meeting. The key difference between his theory and the work for my fourth year design project (apart from decades of background research) was that these settlements should be grouped together in clusters so that they formed critical mass. He called this cluster principle 'Connected Cities.' Since he and his colleague started their journey, policy has turned full circle. It seems that the world is starting to see things his way.

Green Belt Policy is Not Fit for Purpose - Discuss

Someone once said to me that Green Belt was the one policy of which everyone was most aware but about which they knew the least. My conversations with both professionals and members of the public lead me to think that this hits the nail on the head. I think Green Belt is a much used and abused policy, especially by those who wish to use it to prevent new development. Now don’t get me wrong, despite the title, I’m not suggesting we get rid of Green Belt altogether or that we build on greenfield land before we build on brownfield sites. I have no intention of throwing that particular baby out with the bathwater. I don’t think that the principle of Green Belt (or similar) is irrelevant, I just think we need to review the details of the policy and how it is applied.

The following is my opinion. It is my professional opinion based on undertaking various Green Belt reviews for both private clients and other, larger, landscape practices and is born out of a concern about the way in which we develop and the way it impacts upon our crowded little island. There are two strands to this argument: a higher argument about the suitability of Green Belt as a whole and how we apply it; and the principles of the new Garden Cities supported by the coalition government and highlighted by such as the Wolfson Prize and how they impact upon the Green Belt.

As part of this exploration, I want to explore the following questions/issues:

·         The purposes of Green Belt need to be clarified for the general public and possibly professionals too – apparently they don’t all read the NPPF on a regular basis;

·         Green Belt is not a quality designation;

·         Green Belt is a blanket policy and is not as effective in some areas as it is on others;

·         The usefulness of Green Belt on urban fringes is being eroded along with its boundaries so that it’s not achieving what is intended;

·         Many Green Belts either lack defensible boundaries or include land which is not required, due to the use of historic boundaries;

·         Unlike LVIA, there is no guidance on methodology for Green Belt Review and no recommendation as to who should undertake them;

·         People who write GBR are rarer than those who write LVIA who, in turn, are rarer than rocking horse poo.

All of this leads on to the following point:

If we’re going to remove land from the Green Belt, why not do it in a single planned way in an area where that land is making less of a contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, rather than hacking away at the edge of towns and further separating people from the countryside?

Discussion

The NPPF devotes a whole chapter to Green Belt issues, stating ‘the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.’ It should be noted that the ‘permanence’ bit is a new addition since PPG2 and is debatable; in fact we are having that debate right now.

Next is the crux of the whole thing: the purposes of the Green Belt.

‘Green Belt serves five purposes:

·         To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

·         To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

·         To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

·         To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

·         To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.’

The last purpose is a key issue and links to the principle that brownfield land should be developed first before greenfield land. When comparing greenfield sites for potential development, this purpose is equally applicable to all and is usually scoped out of any assessment.

Although the NPPF states that, once Green Belts have been defined, local authorities should plan to enhance the beneficial use of the land through increased access, providing opportunities for recreation and to improve the landscape and biodiversity. There is no obligation for them to do so and no recourse if they don’t. Green Belt is not a quality designation. They may contain schools, allotments or even nurseries and areas of stabling for horses. Although these things sound green and pleasant, the reality is that they are often not. Schools contain a variety of buildings of varying quality and often other built structures which can form visual detractors. Many schools have little space which is ‘natural’ and may be limited to mown playing fields and a few lollipop trees. Allotments, whilst wonderful, can often contain visual detractors, albeit it on a smaller scale. Nurseries are no longer rows and rows of lovely green plants but may contain vast areas of polytunnels and greenhouses in varying states of repair. Stable areas are often scrappy and visually detracting with few landscape features and boundaries made up of post and wire or other materials. None of these areas will necessarily contribute to landscape character and may even detract. Green Belt is not necessarily pretty and is not necessarily publically accessible.

Green Belts, according to the NPPF, are not to include land ‘which it is unnecessary to keep open’ but, unless land is under pressure for development, no-one reviews these things. Areas of land are included within the Green Belt which are not necessary, unlikely to be a significant proportion, but they are there. In my experience, this has often stemmed from another key element of Green Belts: boundaries. Green Belt boundaries should be defined clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.’ Such boundaries are often referred to as being ‘defensible.’ The extents of many Green Belts were defined in the 1950s when many current defensible boundaries did not exist. I assessed an area of land where the railway line was the defensible boundary. Since the land was designated, someone built the M6, a fairly substantial defensible boundary. The land between the two transport routes is still allocated as Green Belt but performs none of the functions of the designation. In this case, it is the M6 which prevents sprawl and which protects the countryside from encroachment and not the railway line or the land in between. Now this isn’t to say that this land is not attractive and that it is suitable for development: that is a separate issue. What it does say is that it is not necessary for this land to be included within the Green Belt.

The Green Belt does bring people closer to the countryside, or at least that is the theory. By keeping development in check, the theory is that there will be open countryside close to people’s homes. However, if we keep eroding at the edges of the Green Belt with piecemeal (albeit considered) release, people will gradually become further distanced from the countryside. This is part of the argument behind Green Wedge theory, i.e. that ‘fingers’ of green belt should extend into settlements, ensuring that, however much a settlement extends, there will always be open space nearby. By continually nibbling at the edge of the Green Belt, we make it less effective and take it further away from communities.

Begin at the Beginning

I am a Landscape Architect, or indeed, a Landscape Planner. I say this in the complete knowledge that many of you will say 'A what?'  This blog is partly aimed at those who will know what a Landscape Planner is, those who suspect what it might be, and those who will think I am a garden designer. Regardless of your background, these issues affect each and every one of you to some degree. Each and every one of you lives in the landscape, whether it be full of fields and cows or skyscrapers and KFCs. The built landscape is still the landscape and still falls within the remit of the Landscape Architect.

Landscape Architects specialise in a variety of areas, from detailed Garden and Landscape Designers to strategic scale Urban Designers. I'm never sure who deserves the capital letter and who doesn't so I shall hand them out willy nilly so as not to offend. My specialism is Landscape Planning, basically anything that relates to the planning process and the landscape together. Landscape Architects manage change within the landscape, my bit usually relates to whatever developers are getting up to at any time.

During my work, I have frequent thoughts regarding the future of the landscape. Development pressure is a key issue and is rising within the public awareness on an annual basis. This affects you all in one way or another and someone needs to ask more pertinent questions. Apparently that person is going to be me.