The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

REVIEW OF GREEN BELT POLICY IN SCOTLAND

CHAPTER SEVEN ASSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS

ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF POLICY

7.1 In this chapter we bring together the evidence and views that have been derived from different elements of the research, and present an analysis of the current performance and future possible options for Green Belt policy in Scotland. To do this we divide the issues up, as we have throughout the research, according to the four-fold framework that has informed the research as a whole: functions; urban form; nature of regime; land management. Each element or component identified under these headings is assessed. In some cases there is a fairly clear conclusion, in other cases a contingent conclusion, and in others we can only record a range of different views. These elements are, as it were, the building bricks of policy. In the latter part of the chapter we assemble these together into coherent policy packages. Three such packages are put forward for consideration: A involves scrapping Green Belts per se and relying on other tools; B involves incremental improvements to the existing Green Belt mechanism; C involves a selective strengthening of Green Belts reformulated as a two-tier system.

Functions Of Green Belts

7.2 A view which was strongly put to us is that Green Belt should be seen as having an over-arching function, as a tool for managing the long term growth of metropolitan areas. This is a view which we, like our advisory group and policy workshop participants, would accept. However, it is still important to look at more specific sub-functions, to help refine the operation and targeting of Green Belt policy. For example, this can provide substantive criteria for identifying which areas should be designated. We therefore proceed in this section to review each of the specific functions which we have identified in this research.

7.3 Maintain identity of towns through physical boundaries and prevention of coalescence. This was an original and continuing purpose, closely related to the traditional spatial form of a continuous ring. Although this view has its supporters, there is no clear consensus that this is still a valid and overriding objective. The 'pro' arguments are: (a) place identity is important and should be nurtured; (b) LA's in England have sought to extend this purpose through second tier devices like green wedges and buffers; (c) this may be particularly important for historic towns; (d) coalescence is seen as a direct manifestation of 'sprawl', which is undesirable and unpopular.

7.4 The contrary arguments or problems include: (e) the intellectual case for preventing coalescence is weak; (f) sustainable transport points towards corridors or axes of urban extension rather than leapfrogging; (g) there are tradeoffs also with housing supply/affordability and economic competitiveness, which may be too high a price to pay; (h) some housing consumers want lower density suburban environments, which may necessitate a degree of what some would describe as 'sprawl', although better design quality may reduce negative views of suburbs; (i) some green belts are too narrow to achieve separation in relation to growing satellite settlements; (j) some 'satellite' local authorities appear to place scant value on this criterion in their own decisions, rather undermining the claims for 'place identity'; (k) green wedges and buffers do not necessarily amount to a continuous ring; (l) Green Belt does not of itself ensure vitality or conservation of core of historic towns. Some of these arguments ((f), (g) and (h) especially) take one into the central debates about preferred urban forms, discussed further below. We believe there is clear evidence of problems of town cramming, lack of affordable family housing, and leapfrogging of housing demand in the 'high demand' case of Edinburgh (points (g) &(h); see Chapter 5 and School of Planning & Housing 2001, Bramley & Morgan 2003).

7.5 On balance, having regard to these arguments, we believe this purpose constitutes a weak case for traditional Green Belts, seen as a fixed continuous ring around towns/cities. However, it may still be part of the case for a particular urban form 'vision' for an urban region, or part of the 'landscape setting' for a town/city, as picked up below.

7.6 To provide countryside for recreation or institutional purposes. There is widespread support in principle for the recreation aspect of this, and many would argue for strengthening practical effectiveness in this regard. Unlike the previous and following objectives, this one requires a 'positive' element to planning and not just a negative, control aspect. This then gets into problems of land management, access, and funding for improvements. Some would argue that wedges within the urban fabric are more valuable for recreation and amenity for urban dwellers, and that urban greenspace is much more valuable than urban fringe agricultural land (see also Barker report). This is partly based on spatial logic (more people with closer access) and partly on observed experience in some of the 'wedges' in Glasgow and Edinburgh. In some cases this urban greenspace has been seriously eroded as a result of pressures which partly arise from the existence of broader Green Belt containment policies.

7.7 It is accepted that some Green Belt land, particularly that in routine agricultural use, is not currently well used for recreation, although how far this is due to access restrictions is difficult to say. Most people would accept that some Green Belt land (e.g. the Pentlands) is more intrinsically valuable for recreation than other land, and in some instances such as this there is demonstrable demand. Some recreational uses deemed as acceptable (e.g. golf courses and driving ranges) can create quite a bit of ancillary development, which may change the rural character and affect the ecology.

7.8 'Institutional purposes' is seen by some stakeholders as a vague let-out clause which is not well justified. There are examples of landscaped former hospital sites which have become major developments, of educational institutions which have spawned quite extensive science/research parks, and so forth. One suggestion is that this purpose might be redrawn in a narrower, more specific way (e.g. crematoria were suggested as an example of an appropriate institutional use).

7.9 So to conclude we would support this broad function, but argue that it may point to different zoning patterns than some other functions and that it needs more than traditional (negative) Green Belt policy to deliver its benefits. We would also either delete the reference to 'institutional' or redefine it more narrowly.

7.10 To maintain the landscape setting of towns is the third of the traditional objectives included in the 1985 Circular, and tends to overlap with 1. above. This would also seem to command quite widespread support, but it is a rather subjective concept. Is it mainly about viewing the city from outside, or about looking at countryside around when inside the city (this depends partly on the scale of the city)? There is a widespread view among planners that this objective does not entail the rural landscape involved being intrinsically of any particular quality. However, this view can be argued to be questionable, particularly if we are concerned about looking at the countryside from within the city. Even when looking in from outside, this does not necessitate banning all development in the Green Belt, if for example this could be well landscaped or, thanks to topography, inconspicuous. The landscape setting may be particularly important around 'gateways' (i.e. transport corridors). There is no reason why this objective should be confined to large cities - the same issues arise with small towns, most of which do not have Green Belts, which suggests that this can be met by normal policies on development in the countryside. However, this function has been used to justify new Green Belts in sensitive cases such as St Andrews. Overall, we believe that landscape is an important criterion and function of Green Belts, but we take the view that the quality of landscape (albeit subjective) matters in this context, as in others (e.g. recreation).

7.11 Protect higher quality agricultural land and provide for horticultural uses to supply cities. These objectives informed planning policy in the earlier postwar period and bolstered the case for Green Belts, although they were less in evidence even in 1985. Since that time the whole basis of the agricultural economy has further changed and it is no longer possible to sustain an argument for blanket protection of the countryside on this basis. The highest quality agricultural land may still claim to be a material consideration in particular contexts, such as the review of settlement strategy in a Structure/Strategic Plan or development site selection within a Local Plan. But most Green Belt land is not in the highest agricultural quality category anyway.

7.12 Encourage urban regeneration and brownfield redevelopment. Although not mentioned in the 1985 Circular, this objective has in practice been a major driver of Green Belt policy in Scotland (and England) in the period since then (and has indirectly been incorporated into guidance). There is not a complete consensus on whether this objective has been achieved as a result of Green Belt restraint, but our own view would be that policy has been quite effective in this regard. The debate now is around whether it is still necessary for this purpose, given that the development industry has acquired the experience to undertake regeneration and created new markets for urban living. The balance of the argument seems to depend partly on the level of demand in the sub-region. For example there are clear concerns about it being too easy to develop on greenfields near to 'low demand' cities in the North of England, while in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley the previously tight Green Belt restraint has contributed to brownfield take-up (School of Planning & Housing 2001). In the Dundee case study practitioners claim that other policy tools have proved effective, but our view would be that the satellite villages have gained housing development at the expense of the core city, where regeneration has been patchy to say the least.

7.13 More broadly, this objective can still be supported by a combination of appropriate spatial planning, within and outside existing urban areas, and possibly other means, for example fiscal measures, compulsory purchase or Urban Regeneration Companies, although these go beyond the scope of this study. Overall, we concur with the general view that promoting brownfield regeneration is desirable in most (if not all) cases, but would argue that Green Belt or equivalent restrictive policies are more necessary in lower-demand urban regions than in high-demand regions where the incentive for developers to tackle brownfield sites is driven by demand. Paradoxically, local decision-making can lead to the opposite pattern, with more permissive control regimes operating in areas where demand is weak, and a supply of greenfield sites is the carrot to attract developers. In other words, Green Belt may be necessary, but insufficient by itself, to stimulate brownfield development in low demand contexts, whereas in high demand contexts a Green Belt is not strictly needed to attract developers to brownfield sites, though the lack of greenfield alternatives may reinforce the market pressures .

7.14 Encourage sustainable forms of urban development, particularly the 'compact city'. This objective was not mentioned in 1985 but has become more important since the 1990s, in Scotland, England and more widely across Europe - one could also mention the North American 'Smart Urban Growth' movement. While this can be used as an additional argument to support the maintenance of traditional Green Belts, this argument has frequently been challenged within the discourse on sustainable urban form (see below). Research is still seeking to provide firmer evidence to support some of the sustainability claims of the compact city. There is also quite a strong argument that, in the face of growth pressures, traditional Green Belts lead to less sustainable patterns, leapfrogging rather than appropriate urban extensions. In addition, it is argued that traditional Green Belts are a blunt instrument that encourage undesirable town cramming (e.g. building on playing fields rather than brownfields). There is a danger that the argument for sustainable development has been transmuted into a shorthand assumed solution, 'the compact city'. Rather, some have argued that the emphasis should be on promoting a set of outcomes (e.g. vehicle-km, CO2 emissions) and assessing urban form options against their performance in outcome terms. Recent strategic planning is seen as weak in this respect, since it has not attempted such an explicit evaluation nor established serious alternative options (partly due to short time horizons, infrastructural or political constraints). Indeed the importance attached to Green Belts in national guidance rather pre-empts strategic thinking about spatial development for a city-region (as Chapter 4 indicates). What should be strategic can then become tactical, through short-term expediency in reacting to planning applications. The somewhat ironic outcome is that by pre-ordaining a Green Belt as the key spatial strategy, the credibility of the Green Belt and of strategic planning is undermined. So we would conclude that some form of zoning or restraint policy to help 'shape' urban development in a sustainable fashion is desirable and legitimate, but that current Green Belts are not demonstrably justified in these terms.

7.15 Protect the most valuable green environments close to urban settlements. This objective does not feature in the conventional theology of Green Belts, although one could argue that it overlaps somewhat with 2. and 3. above. Some greenspaces should be protected because they have intrinsic merit as ecosystems and as landscape heritage, because they are valued as such by many people, and because they provide recreational opportunities and culturally-valued amenities. This is certainly the argument of conservation organisations and groups, who regard Green Belt status as a stronger protection than some other designations, even when these are in existence. It is also probably an important aspect of the popular perception of Green Belts, even though some professional planners regard this as a misperception. Even other development-oriented lobby groups have respect for this argument, partly because they can see that such protection can enhance the value of the overall urban regional environment and thereby contribute to longer term economic success and development value. Unlike the first and third points above, this objective places considerable weight on the quality of the land involved, whether in ecological terms or in terms of landscape quality. Existing Green Belts clearly contain land of varying intrinsic value, and in practice this has had some bearing on the location of releases (e.g. South East Wedge of Edinburgh). We believe that this objective should receive greater emphasis, and there are pragmatic arguments for aligning this with a reformulated Green Belt policy, although it is possible to pursue this through (a) other specific designations like AGLV, and/or (b) the application of appropriate criteria within development plans.

7.16 Provide a strong tool for the spatial planning and shaping of urban development. There is renewed interest in spatial planning, trans-nationally, nationally through the National Planning Framework, at metropolitan region and at city-region scales and in the masterplanning of new developments. Green Belt-type designations (i.e. 'no-go areas' for development and/or consciously planned recreational or ecological networks) can be an integral part of such planning and its implementation. This objective may provide a general way of re-focussing Green Belt policy within a more strategic spatial planning system. It does not prejudge the form and shape of green zones, which will depend on the local and regional context, but asserts that they are likely to be part of the toolkit. There is widespread support for this notion both in professional planning circles and, importantly, in the development industry, where there is considerable support for more proactive, forward-thinking spatial planning. This is associated with a wish to see planning as less incremental, a wish that may at times be in some conflict with political processes, locally and nationally. Overall, we concur with the widespread view that this is the framework within which future Green Belts should be situated. However, we would add that this is about means and processes, not ends. The desirable ends or outcomes of sound spatial strategy are the kind of things discussed above (identity, landscape, ecology, recreation, regeneration, sustainability). It is a fundamental responsibility of the strategic planning process to evaluate future options for urban form against such criteria and to determine the shape of Green Belts (or whatever such protected areas are called) to achieve the desired strategy.

7.17 Provide a strategic land reserve for future urban development. This is rarely stated as an explicit function of Green Belts, but from our observation of practice in a number of cases it is difficult to escape the conclusion that this has become an implicit or de facto function. Examples would include the periodic strategic releases of Green Belt land to housing or business development in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley, the safeguarding of strategic economic sites in the same region, Dundee's willingness to amend Green Belt boundaries to accommodate growth, or Edinburgh's 'washing over' of strategic sites facilities (e.g. airport) to the west of the City. Our view, reinforced at the research workshop, is that this is an inappropriate function for Green Belts, insofar as these future land requirements can be in any way anticipated. As argued under the 'regime' heading below, it is much preferable to allocate and safeguard land for potential future development as a separate zoning. Frequent incursions of this kind can only serve to undermine confidence in Green Belts per se and the wider planning system as a guide to future urban (and green) structure.

Urban Form

7.18 Optimal Forms of Urban Growth. Given the priorities of sustainable development, and the expectation of some level of urban growth, how should that growth be accommodated? The options include (a) brownfield redevelopment, (b) residential intensification, (c) peripheral urban extensions, (d) corridors/axes of expansion, (e) expansion of small satellite settlements, (f) new settlements. Traditional Green Belt, in the form of a continuous ring, tends to encourage (a), (b) and (e), and prevents (c) and (d), although these might (if properly tested) be the most sustainable forms. Where traditional Green Belts left 'white land' on the inner edge, or regularly reviewed and revised inner boundaries outwards, this could facilitate controlled growth through method (c). This implies a regime of periodic review rather than permanence. Can a different form of Green Belt be conceived which accommodates all of the more appropriate forms of development, particularly (d)? Many commentators have argued that in general option (d) is favoured, as discussed further below. In general, we would suggest that the two functions identified above, of promoting sustainable urban form and providing a tool for spatial planning and shaping of development, together provide a case for some form of zoning toolkit, which could embrace 'no-go' and 'developable' zones among others. However, there can be no prior presumption about the shape of the 'no go' zone: it should depend on the evaluation of options.

7.19 Belts vs Wedges. This is one of the central debates about urban form which is most relevant to Green Belts. Traditional Green Belts tend to be conceived as a girdle around the city, partly because of the traditional objectives to do with coalescence and landscape setting, partly because of the critique of 'placeless suburban sprawl', and partly because of assumptions about the limited scope or need for cities to grow outwards. However, it is interesting to note that some long-established Green Belts, notably Edinburgh's, already contain a number of green wedges reaching into the city (originally identified in the late 1940s). Sustainability arguments about transport tend to lead strongly towards a model favouring urban extensions along corridors oriented to public transport infrastructure, which conflict with the traditional Green Belt concept, partly perhaps because of the fear of 1930s-style 'ribbon development'. (This might therefore be qualified to refer to nodes located on public transport axes).

7.20 There are strong pressures for business development at the edge of cities (notably West Edinburgh), and arguably this should be planned in a way which supports the philosophy of sustainability, for example with good public transport orientation (implying corridors/axes and nodes). Arguments about recreational and amenity access for urban residents also favour a spatial structure of wedges, because this maximises the interface between urban residents and greenspace. Arguments about intrinsic qualities of greenspace may point in the same direction, depending on topography, because these often emphasise river valleys or ridges of higher ground. Both ecological and recreational arguments favour greenspaces being linked in some form of network, although the shape of this may vary.

7.21 Overall, we find the arguments for a general presumption in favour of wedges rather than belts very powerful, particularly given what we perceive as the weakness of the coalescence argument. Nevertheless, this is still a generalisation which need not apply to all cases, which should be assessed in terms of alternative options and outcome performance.

7.22 Depth. Existing Green Belts vary substantially in their depth, some encompassing a lot of satellite settlements and others not doing so. This affects their functional role and the sense of ownership with regard to these smaller settlements. If Green Belt (or its successor designation) is to be seen as a strategic tool of city-region planning this surely points towards a 'depth' approach, which in turn requires sensitivity to the flexibility and expansion space needs of other settlements as well as the core city itself. However, more limited depth may be appropriate where Green Belts are used around smaller historic towns, depending mainly on landscape criteria.

7.23 Connectivity. Whatever its shape and configuration, it can be argued that the whole of a designated set of Green zones in city-region should be viewed as part of an overall system, or 'Green Structure'. This is not just because of its complementary role with urban structure, which should also form a coherent system, but because of interrelationships between the green spaces themselves. Recreational access benefits from connected routes and networks for walking and cycling, for example, and for some species the ecological benefits are increased if the green areas are connected in some way. Ways of interfacing or crossing highways, watercourses and other similar features may be particularly significant here. Both belts and wedges offer connectivity, but in different directions; the optimal model may be more cobweb-like, with both radial and tangential connections.

7.24 Defining Boundaries. At a more micro scale, there are issues about the location and shape of boundaries of Green Belt, particularly on the inner edge where the main built-up area of the city interfaces with the countryside. Historically, boundaries may have been defined in an arbitrary way, or influenced by land ownership considerations. More recently, there have been many examples of boundaries being revised to reflect new realities. For example, it is common to see development extended to the line provided by new bypass roads. Other boundary issues arise where insets are provided for major nonconforming uses such as airports. These boundaries tend to reinforce the characteristic British feature of a relatively hard, (if not always straight) urban edge, which can be argued to be not particularly attractive in landscape design terms. However, this is acknowledged to be a highly subjective judgement, and some historic urban forms (e.g. walled medieval hill towns) combined such features with great aesthetic appeal. There may be a general value conflict between some people's sense of tidiness and others' sense of naturalness. The main urban edge boundary symbolises the clear distinction between town and country, which many people value in a general sense. However, as the land management issues discussed below highlight, urban issues and pressures spill over onto adjacent rural areas, so that the functional reality is one of a gradual transition rather than a truly clean break.

Nature Of The Regime

7.25 Permanence. Should Green Belts be seen as relatively permanent features, to be settled for a generation or more, or simply as having the same duration as the current set of development plans? There is clearly a division of opinion on this issue. The predominant view in the planning profession seems to favour the latter option, on grounds of flexibility and realism (RTPI 2002). This would also seem to be, de facto, the way Green Belts have evolved over time in Scotland, as is shown in the Case Studies, which also showed that Green Belts were far from being a rigid control mechanism. Yet the popular perception seems to be more towards a presumption of permanence.

7.26 If the functional objectives of Green Belts were redefined, as argued above, particularly to include the objective of protecting greenspace/landscape of high intrinsic value, then permanence is strongly implied. There is also the problem of hope value, which is very much encouraged by a lack of permanence. There is some link with the duration of plans themselves; recent Scottish plans have been relatively short term, but future strategic plans may have a longer horizon. The need to accommodate future urban growth may be an argument for impermanence, but if strategic spatial planning were embraced, then this would by definition provide for all foreseeable growth and a margin for contingencies. So long as the fundamental sustainability and other criteria upon which the spatial strategy was based remained valid, then so too should the strategy itself. Some of the examples in the Chapter on international experience demonstrate the robustness of long term spatial strategies of this kind. Therefore, as part of a package involving these reformulated objectives, there would be a strong case for a presumption of permanence. Alternatively, there might be a case for two tiers of Belt, permanent and contingent (see below).

7.27 Process and Criteria for Review. The present position is that review of Green Belt extent, location and boundaries rests within the development plan system (general role and location in Structure Plan, detailed boundaries in Local Plan). There have been reviews in some cases, although these have not all led to major change. Criticisms have been voiced concerning the lack of transparency of these reviews, in terms of both criteria and the treatment of specific parcels of land. It has been suggested that recent Structure Plans have not demonstrably reviewed alternative options in a rational comprehensive fashion, whether because of limited resources or the wish to operate incrementally and keep options open. There is a case for developing guidance more explicitly to cover the criteria and procedures for review, possibly set within the broader context of spatial planning generally.

7.28 National or Local? English Green Belts are perceived as national designations, approved by the Secretary of State, in the context of specific national policy guidance (PPG2), with boundaries recorded by ODPM on their GIS systems. The formal position and status of Green Belts in Scotland is very similar, although the boundaries have not hitherto been formally recorded centrally and there is some perception that they are seen as less of a national issue. Green Belts are approved in general by Ministers as part of the Structure Plan, but specific boundaries are determined in Local Plans. Development control decisions in Green Belts are not routinely referred to the Executive unless the local authority proposes to grant permission for development which they interpret as being a departure from the development plan, comprising the approved Structure Plan and adopted Local Plan taken. If the functions of Green Belts were reformulated as suggested above, there might be a case for giving them more national status, because this would probably strengthen their effectiveness. However, this would be a step away from local autonomy/subsidiarity within the planning system, and as such might be unpopular with local government. The implicit assumption behind such a proposal would be that local government cannot be fully trusted to enforce their own plans. The evidence for this is mixed (see case study evidence on the significant level of development approved in Green Belts). A possible outcome of making Green Belts national designations might be to make some authorities more cautious about proposing them to start with. They might prefer to operate with more flexible, local designations, of the kind that have proliferated in England.

7.29 If Green Belts were to be national designations, central questions would be: (a) how should such areas be determined? (b) how could policy compliance be assured? There seem to be at least four options:

1. through strategic development plans, approved by Ministers: this would not change the present procedures by which Green Belts are justified in structure plans, but would have implications under intended new development planning arrangements whereby only strategic development plans would be approved by Ministers. There would be no mechanism for Ministers to ensure compliance with national policy for Green Belts outside the city regions.
2. through the provision of national planning guidance on Green Belts, updating and replacing Circular 24/1985. Ministers could, through such guidance, establish the general requirements and objectives for updated Green Belts. Like the English PPG2, this could indicate the urban areas where Green Belts should be maintained or new ones established. However, such guidance of itself would not establish in detail the boundaries of Green Belts, nor ensure that national policy was complied with, although national guidance is a material consideration in planning determinations.
3. through a national designation, confirmed by Ministers: given the weaknesses of (a) and (b), the longevity and permanence of Green Belts suggests it would be legitimate to take their designation out of local authority control and establish their requirements through Ministerial Direction. Planning authorities would be required to take account of such areas in the preparation of development plans, and compliance could be assured through notification to Ministers of any intention to grant planning permission within these areas.
4. through a Statutory Instrument, requiring planning authorities to bring forward for Ministerial approval proposed Green Belts in the development plan process: This would be similar in procedure to local authorities seeking Article 4 Directions, and having to justify them with reference to the development plan. This would also require development plans to be more quickly prepared and reviewed, and hence kept up to date, than has been the practice. In this respect it would fit with the aspirations of the proposed development plan arrangements in the Executive's Review of Strategic Planning. Compliance would be assured by local authorities notifying Ministers of any intention to grant planning permission (as in option (c )).

7.30 The main counter-argument to these national approaches is that Green Belt is essentially a local or sub-regional issue, as an integral part of spatial strategy and development plans. In this view, the role of the Executive should be to define system goals and criteria but let local planning authorities assess options and determine the spatial configurations which meet these criteria. As Chapter 6 shows, this is broadly the approach followed in most other countries, where we saw that authorities much smaller than any Scottish Council are entrusted to delineate urban fringe areas to be protected from development. However, within Scotland there is argued to be some difference between 'city-region' situations where a number of separate unitary authorities have a shared interest in the planning framework for the whole sub-region, and smaller towns with only a single planning authority involved.

7.31 It is in the city-regions where it is particularly helpful to have an agreed policy framework establishing zones of restraint where policies will be applied consistently. It is no coincidence that the more important examples of Green Belt issues relate to city-regions rather than smaller free-standing towns. Where only a single authority is involved, it comes down to a question of whether authorities can be trusted to follow their own policies consistently over time. This issue would become much more focused were any form of third party right of appeal (relating to departures) to be introduced. The general view from the professional side seems to favour Green Belt being seen as a local designation. Our own rather more sceptical view would be that there might be a case for national designation in the context of certain scenarios, whether of other designations (such as AGLV) being strengthened or of a two-tier Green Belt (see below). Also, the inevitable delays and gaps in up-to-date Plan coverage mean that national designations provide some fallback cover. Finally, while the decision over whether and where to have a Green Belt might remain local, the meaning in terms of control regime and acceptable development might be strictly and consistently defined according to national guidance and model policy. This is a kind of halfway house.

7.32 Tiers. There are grounds for arguing that not all Green Belt land is of the same status or value, and need not all be treated in the same way, in the long run if not the short run. Once multiple functions of Green Belts are conceded, it is inevitable that analysis will suggest that some areas of Green Belt meet more of these functions better than other areas do. The planning theology may say the intrinsic value of different bits of land does not matter, but planning practice tends to suggest otherwise (e.g. Edinburgh). This line of argument leads to the notion of tiers of Green Belt, essentially distinguishing that which has high intrinsic value, and should be permanently protected, from that whose value is more contingent or ephemeral. There is some analogy here with the Listed Buildings system. The concept can be seen as an expression of the same kind of thing as overlapping designations; there is a greater presumption against development in the top tier areas, just as there is in areas that are simultaneously of great landscape, ecological and recreational value. As explored further below, the second or lower tier of Green Belt might perform the functions of the 'Strategic Gaps' and 'Green Buffers' which have been such a strong feature in England (Elson et al 1999). If the top tier were indeed well and permanently protected, this might help to narrow the gap between popular perceptions of the Green Belt and its professional/practical reality.

7.33 The arguments against this approach are that it adds a layer of complication, promotes arguments about which tier to put land into, promotes speculation about the lower tiers and possibly weakens the policy overall. The Research Workshop explored this issue and did not reach a clear view on the issue. We believe there is merit in considering this seriously as a policy option, within the context of an appropriate package of measures. The 'top tier' would be seen as nationally significant (whether for landscape or impacts on the attractiveness of a place and hence significance to national competitiveness, etc.). The identification and justification for such designations could be explained in the National Planning Framework.

7.23 Overlapping Designations. Currently there are a number of designations of land that may overlap with Green Belts and have some partial similarity of purpose. There is some case for rationalisation on grounds of simplicity /transparency /efficiency. The general perception seems to be that some (national) designations (e.g. National Parks, National Scenic Areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest) carry strong weight but that some other (local) designations (e.g. Areas of Great Landscape Value) are in practice weaker than Green Belt. If Green Belt were strengthened, for example through incorporating objectives of protecting intrinsically valuable greenspace, then it could be argued that other protective designations would become superfluous within Green Belt areas. However, if Green Belt designation retained considerable flexibility in terms of permitted development, some other designations (requiring more restrictive approaches) might still have a role. An alternative general approach would be to strengthen some other designations to protect land of high intrinsic value and to dispense with Green Belt completely (as in Dundee) or downgrade it to the level of a more flexible, contingent tool of spatial planning. These options are accommodated in the packaged alternatives considered below. Overall, neither stakeholder consultations nor the research workshop considered overlapping designations a particular problem.

7.34 Future Development Zoning/Safeguarding. There are important issues to be addressed concerning the way the planning system provides for future development and infrastructure needs, particularly near to growing city regions. When Green Belts were first introduced, they typically left a margin of undeveloped 'white land' between the city edge and the inner Green Belt boundary, but generally these areas have now been developed out. White land has not been a much-used concept recently in Scotland, although there has been some use of the concept of safeguarding in relation to infrastructure needs (e.g. recent West Edinburgh Framework). It can be argued that, if Green Belts are to be used as a strong tool of spatial planning over a longer timescale, then there is a need also to make provision of land for future development and infrastructure needs. This provision must encompass both foreseeable, programmed requirements and also scope for less foreseeable contingencies and for developments or infrastructure investments the timing of which is quite uncertain. If such provision is not made, then it can be predicted that there will be strong pressures to grant 'exceptional' permissions for developments that are seen as essential to economic competitiveness or the maintenance of housing supply.

7.35 It may be inappropriate to use a vague concept like 'white land', but better rather to identify areas and directions for development and to classify these in various ways, including safeguarding for particular purposes or more general phasing contingent on rates of growth (e.g. for housing). If, as appears to be the case, there is seen to be an overriding need to provide high amenity sites for strategically important developments (as suggested in SPP2, para's 17-25), perhaps this should be one of the categories of land to be provided for in this framework. This would then reinforce the credibility and integrity of the Green Belt itself and of the planning system more generally, whereas what sometimes happens at present - using the Green Belt designation as a reserve of land for these purposes - has the opposite effect. Broadly speaking, there was general support for this approach, involving the identification and zoning of land for future requirements, in the Research Workshop, and we incorporate this in our policy packages below.

7.36 Insets vs Washing Over. Practice appears to vary in terms of the treatment of nonconforming urban uses within Green Belt areas. In some cases, such as Edinburgh, major uses of this kind are located within the Green Belt and 'washed over' by the general GB designation (e.g. Airport, Riccarton campus). In other cases, such uses are treated as insets, with more liberal/normal criteria applied to development proposals within the insets. On the face of it, the second approach would seem to make more sense. It may be, however, that the motive for 'washing over' is to give the planning authority more control over developments within the nonconforming locations, which they may feel the need of in the face of intense development pressure. To achieve the same results without 'washing over' may require more tightly specified policies for these inset areas. The general view at the research workshop was that the inset approach was far preferable to washing over.

7.37 Inappropriate Development. If Green Belt designation is to have meaning in practice, it is necessary to specify what kinds of development are normally acceptable or not within them. The existing Circular does this to some extent and authorities generally tend to follow this guidance in the development plans, if not always in their development control decisions. Some specific marginal cases have been clarified by subsequent guidance. This would seem to be an obvious case for 'model policies' to be propounded through national guidance, and the opportunity could be taken to clarify or tighten particular aspects (e.g. the ambiguous category of 'institutional uses'; see also 7.43 below). Tighter and clearer guidance could serve to reduce speculative applications and hope value.

7.38 Exceptions. Current guidance and development plan practice provides for 'exceptions' to the general presumption against (major) development. There is uneasiness in various quarters that this provision is too easily used as a 'get out of jail' card by authorities willing to make opportunistic decisions to capture particular developments, particularly economic developments. This reduces the credibility of Green Belts and increases speculative activity and hope value. A well-functioning spatial planning approach, which provided for future land requirements, would arguably reduce the need to sanction exceptions. 'National' status for Green Belts (entailing call-in powers), or the introduction of a Third Party Right of Appeal, would reduce the opportunities for local authorities to make exceptions, unless they had a very strong case.

Land Management

7.39 Blighting effects of hope value. It is often asserted that Green Belt land is subject to hope value for future development and that this discourages effective management and maintenance of the land in its existing use, contributing to a degraded quality of environment. It is also alleged that in some cases owners allow this to happen deliberately, in order to increase the chances of gaining planning permission because of the perception that this would actually represent an improvement in the environment. There are mixed views from stakeholders and cases studies on how far this really is a problem. There is no particular logic in the first argument, unless the hope value (perceived prospect of achieving planning permission in the near future) is very high. However, we have observed cases where Green Belt land clearly does command high hope value. More generally, there is a presumption against development and the landowner faces no different incentives in the Green Belt than elsewhere to maintain the land. If land is neglected this may be for other reasons. The second part of the argument - that neglect increases the chance of a permission - only works if local authorities give in to this kind of pressure.

7.40 Overall, these problems, if they exist, would be lessened by a clearer planning framework, not least by Local Plans being adopted in a timely manner. Beyond that, Green Belts could be given stronger status and more permanence, with clearer policies on what development is or is not permitted. Developers would still be free to speculate, but the system would offer greater certainty.

7.41 Urban fringe problems for rural uses. Problems of land management arising from severance by roads and by proximity to urban populations, including vandalism, petty crime, fly-tipping and suchlike, are inherent in urban fringe locations. They are not a function of Green Belt designation as such. They may be exacerbated by demands for recreational access, but these can be alleviated by positive measures to accommodate such access (car parks, footpaths, signposting).

7.42 Recreational access. If Green Belts are really to fulfill their recreational function, then there has to be reasonable access for informal recreation, and potential demand may well be greater because of the peri-urban location. This entails costs and a level of planning and negotiation/intervention which both fall ultimately on the local authorities. Current budgetary provision may be inadequate to meet these demands, contributing to potential problems such as those mentioned above and worsening relations with landowners. The new land reform legislation in Scotland will change the position, by introducing a public right of access to most land, and by requiring local authorities to plan for a core network of footpaths and access ways, and to form a local access forum. However, local authorities will still face a resourcing issue about building or maintaining such networks.

7.43 More formal recreational opportunities, such as golf courses and driving ranges, are generally seen as acceptable uses in Green Belts but may entail levels of ancillary development which conflict somewhat with landscape amenity and ecological considerations. There are also some social justice questions about the extent to which public policy should afford special protection through Green Belts to private recreational facilities, some of which may be very exclusive. The international experience reviewed in Chapter 6 suggests that the most effective and inclusive recreational uses of protected spaces around the cities have been where the land has been owned or acquired by public authorities, or where a commercial resource like forests is managed in a way that accepts a social responsibility to provide for recreational uses at the urban fringe.

7.44 Environmental enhancement. To counter the problems mentioned above, and to realise the recreational and environmental objectives of Green Belts, it may be desirable to see some investment in environmental improvements such as tree planting, cleaning-up operations and so forth. Again, there are some costs involved, although voluntary effort may be enlisted, but this requires the cooperation of landowners. Internationally there are examples of using forms of betterment, impact fees or local taxes to help fund such uses. Various measures discussed below attempt to overcome these constraints.

7.45 Rural diversification. In the countryside generally, recent trends in agricultural policy point towards a decline in traditional forms of agricultural activity and employment and a perceived need to facilitate the diversification of the rural economy. This typically entails arguments to loosen traditional planning policies on development in the countryside, to allow at least small scale business uses, tourism and recreational facilities, and suchlike. These arguments may be valid for the countryside in general, although they need to be critically examined in terms of the overall functioning of different rural areas and their relationship with urban economies, in a strategic planning context which takes account of sustainability considerations and infrastructure costs. The current consensus of professional comment on this issue generally favours supportive planning policies for farm diversification, including in Green Belts as much as in the countryside generally (RTPI 2002, TCPA 2002, DOE 1993). We would express a slight note of reservation here, with particular reference to high demand urban regions, where we would have some concerns that such a liberalisation might be exploited by developers.

7.46 Funding limitations and use of planning agreements. We have already observed that desirable improvements to recreational access and environmental improvements entail costs which, ideally, would be borne by the local authorities. Yet local authorities are cash-strapped and find it difficult to spend on services and improvements which go beyond their minimum statutory responsibilities. The Land Reform legislation only requires authorities to draw up a plan of a path network and to maintain a public record of it, not to actually provide the paths. There is often pressure to agree to developments which go beyond the normal permitted scale or scope, on the basis that, through a planning agreement, some environmental or access improvement will be secured. While the logic and motivation for such proposals is understood, it must be pointed out that this flies in the face of the general view that planning agreements should not be used in this way, essentially as a way of selling planning permission which would not otherwise be given. The guidance should stress that development should only be permitted on its merits within the terms of what is normally permitted within the Green Belts. Planning agreements may then be used to secure appropriate and proportional improvements related to such developments.

7.47 Where we see planning agreement type arrangements as being more significant in the future would be in circumstances where new developments are planned alongside Green Belts, possibly in the context of a strategic review of boundaries. Such developments could make substantial contributions to the cost of enhancing Green Networks in adjacent zones, and such requirements should be clearly written in to Local Plan policies/proposals and site briefs. An example of this approach is identified in the international review (para 6.18), and it is clear from the international experience that local development or betterment taxation/charging is an important general source of resources for environmental and access enhancement, just as it is for other infrastructure. While the enhancements might be on different parcels of land for the development, the intrinsic relationship between use, condition and value on the two pieces of land is very strong in this instance (i.e. at the urban fringe) and the case for a significant developer contribution is arguably as strong as with infrastructure such as roads, schools or sewage treatment (which will also typically be sited on different pieces of land).

7.48 Institutional arrangements. Experience in Edinburgh and elsewhere suggests that there may be advantages in encouraging the formation of voluntary collective bodies to play a role in the management and enhancement of Green Belts. These advantages include securing the cooperation and involvement of landowners, tapping into the skills and energies of local residents and people with relevant interests (e.g. in nature conservation), and securing a general level of local interest and commitment. A wider network of 'friends' may ensure a greater level of informal use, maintenance and policing of the local environment. It will also underpin local political commitment to the objectives of the Green Belt and perhaps to local planning more generally.

POLICY PACKAGES

7.49 We have reviewed a large number of elements of Green Belt policies and procedures, putting forward views and arguments about each individual issue and pointing up wider implications. This might suggest that there are many possible permutations of policy, and up to a point that is true. However, it is probably more helpful and realistic to put forward a limited number of policy packages, which represent combinations of the individual elements that logically belong together and reflect a common philosophy or set of assumptions. We therefore put forward for discussion three packages:

1. involves scrapping Green Belts per se and relying on other tools;
2. involves incremental improvements to the existing Green Belt mechanism;
3. involves a selective strengthening of Green Belts reformulated as a two-tier system.

Package A: Scrapping Green Belts, using other mechanisms

7.50 The essential idea here is that Green Belts could be scrapped. This approach assumes that there is redundancy in the system and that valid purposes can be met by other means, particularly other more specific designations (e.g. AGLV, Regional Parks, etc) and a clear spatial strategy spelled out in development plans. The other designations might possibly need to be strengthened and taken more seriously in this context, and certainly the development planning system would need to be functioning effectively.

7.51 Under this approach, it is not quite clear how urban form would be shaped. One possibility would be the clear positive delineation of areas for development. Another would be more reliance on generalised criteria and the application of sequential testing to proposals for development at the Local Plan stage. These approaches could be used to support a generally preferred spatial configuration, such as wedges and corridors. However, there would be less emphasis on particular boundaries; rather, the emphasis would be upon criteria. Two sets of criteria would be key: (a) criteria for large scale development as part of planned urban growth; (b) criteria for treatment of smaller scale applications in the general countryside.

7.52 Some of the designated special protection areas could be treated as permanently protected, and could be subject to national recognition and monitoring. However, the current position is that the major national designations (NSA, National Parks) are not particularly relevant to the main urban regions subject to development pressure, while the landscapes contained within the latter are not regarded as being of national significance.

7.53 As this report was being drafted there were suggestions in the press that the government might scrap Green Belts in England, and compensate by creating new National Parks. The context was the Barker Review of Housing Supply, which points to the need for a large increase in the amount of land allocated to new housing in the South of England, a region where Green Belt represents a significant constraint. One new National Park has been created recently in southern England, but it has to be said that this can be a fraught and long-drawn-out process. Furthermore, obvious candidate areas for National Parks in England would not necessarily be the same as the areas of Green Belt which are at issue in the new housing debate, and are mainly covered at present by the national designation of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. So although this proposal might be seen very loosely as a parallel for our Package A, it is far from clear what it would mean in practice, how realistic it is, and whether it would be a model for Scotland to follow.

7.54 Also arguably relevant from the English situation is the recent debate about reform of the development planning system. It is noteworthy that, after initially proposing for consultation an essentially criterion and policy-based approach to local planning, the Government substantially amended its approach to include a proposals map within the core of the new system. This suggests that map-based designations and zonings are still generally seen as a necessary part of the planning toolkit.

7.55 Returning to our Package A proposals for Scotland, the arguments in favour of this approach include: (a) that it represents a simplification through the removal of an 'unnecessary' layer; (b) that it permits urban form to be reshaped to meet the conditions pertaining now and in the future; (c) that it reflects practice in quite a few other countries, where particular greenspace is protected for positive reasons relating to its intrinsic value; (d) that it would be more honest and even-handed than the present policies, which are frequently if selectively breached by local (and sometimes by national) decisions; (e) that it would oblige local planning authorities to adopt more of a more proactive, thoughtful and creative approach to planning future development; (f) that, based on the experience in Dundee, 'the world would not collapse'.

7.56 There are however quite a few arguments to be set against this: (a) some of the traditional virtues of Green Belts, in terms of sprawl-prevention, landscape setting, and support for urban regeneration might be lost; (b) authorities generally need negative zoning tools as well as positive ones to bring about desirable patterns of development; (c) there could be a large volume of speculative applications and hope value generation, particularly in high demand city regions; (d) protected green areas would be more likely to remain a series of islands than a coherent network; (e) the protection accorded to such areas might on balance be weaker, unless this aspect of the system were strengthened; (f) it could be unpopular in some affected areas; (g) it would mean the loss of planning's best-known 'brand'; (h) some of the benefits of voluntary cooperation and effort around Green Belt areas might be lost.

7.57 This package may seem to be a theoretical construct, but we would point out that one major Scottish City, Dundee, did dispense with its Green Belt two decades ago. This suggests that such a package is feasible in Scotland, although we feel it might be more challenged in a high demand region like Edinburgh. The evidence from the case studies suggests that (a) the Dundee experience indicates some 'costs' in terms of more dispersed development and less urban regeneration, while (b) the Edinburgh experience indicates that lack of Green Belt would expose the system to excessive pressure of speculative applications. Few if any stakeholders seemed to be arguing strongly for this approach, and some were clearly arguing for retention of Green Belt or similar type of designation. Overall, the view of the research team is that, although such a strategy could be made to work, it would probably be less optimal than the alternative strategies sketched out below. This reflects both our own analysis and our interpretation of the views of stakeholders as brought together in the research workshop.

Package B: Incremental Refinement of the Existing Concept

7.58 The second policy package is based on a view that the basic concept of Green Belt retains validity but that it is appropriate to update and fine-tune it to reflect the conditions of the present and foreseeable future. Some of the original functions remain valid and some more recent functions strengthen the case for maintaining Green Belts in broad terms, albeit with some reshaping and some changes in criteria and procedures. This approach is particularly appropriate if it is believed that goals such as prevention of coalescence and support for urban regeneration and intensification remain important. In terms of urban form, this approach is likely to reinforce the continued redevelopment and intensification of core cities plus the expansion of existing satellite settlements plus any new settlements which might be approved. However, where a nascent development axis existed through a Green Belt area this could be reinforced through incremental boundary change.

7.59 Green Belts would continue to be an element of sub-regional strategic plans with boundaries set and reviewed within Local Plans as these were updated. We believe that there would be benefits from clearer national guidance on the criteria for boundary reviews, which could incorporate current thinking on sustainable forms of urban growth. Green Belts would not be permanent but would have the currency of prevailing development plans, which should themselves be of somewhat longer duration. They would be a single tier designation but could coexist with other overlapping designations. They should not be used as a de facto land reserve, but should coexist with the identification of areas for future development and the safeguarding of land for infrastructure or strategic sites. The guidance should strongly discourage the notion of exceptions, and ambiguous references to institutional uses should be removed or clarified. Nonconforming uses should be treated as insets and not washed over by the general Green Belt designation. National guidance on appropriate developments to be permitted within Green Belts should be updated, although local planning authorities could have the discretion to rewrite these to suit local circumstances. These could include model planning agreements for enhancements to access or environmental improvements, although these would be small scale in proportion to any permitted developments. However, planning policies and briefs for larger scale developments alongside Green Belts could incorporate more substantial expectations of contributions of this kind. Ways of marshalling additional resources for recreational access and environmental works in Green Belts may require further attention.

7.60 What are the major arguments in favour of this approach? (a) It represents continuity with existing policy which is familiar to all parties; (b) it provides more assurance that undesirable development outcomes such as sprawl, ribbon development, and a neglect of brownfield urban sites would be avoided; (c) speculative activity and hope value generation would be reduced within the Green Belt; (d) greenspace near cities would be viewed and planned as a whole entity with more benefits of connectivity and landscape value; (e) this policy would be popular with the public in affected areas; (f) existing voluntary effort and collaboration could continue and be built upon.

7.61 What are the drawbacks and dangers with this strategy? (a) the opportunity for more radical and appropriate urban form solutions to the challenge of growth might be missed; (b) provision for growth in housing numbers particularly might continue to be inadequate in high demand city-regions like Edinburgh; (c) this policy would continue to create incentives for town cramming, with adverse impacts on the welfare of urban residents; (d) some argue that Green Belt can be a substitute for thought about appropriate urban form; (e) Green Belts set within reviewable plans could still lack long-term credibility, causing continuing problems of speculation and hope value; (f) the problems of land management might continue to be unsolved.

7.62 The reasons given for not favouring Package A may be seen as primary arguments in favour of Package B (inferences from Case Studies, views of stakeholders, validity of the range of functions, etc.). The Research Team's overall view of this package is that it is definitely preferable to Package A, and an improvement on the present situation, but that it represents a rather conservative approach which does not of itself fully address the challenges of growth and sustainable urban form. It is possible to improve the operation of Green Belts within this framework, but much would depend upon the seriousness with which planning authorities addressed growth needs through the proactive planning of zones of development, as well as the rigour with which boundary reviews were carried out. Limitations of this package include some continuing discrepancy between public perception and the reality of policy, some lingering concerns about the level of protection offered to the most valued greenspaces, and a more general concern that the opportunity to rethink urban form might be missed.

Package C: Two Tier Green Belt Model

7.63 We believe that much of what has emerged from this research could lead to the formulation of a policy package that would represent a distinct development of the existing Green Belt model that would be arguably more fit for purpose in the 21 ^st Century. The central idea here is that there are in reality two kinds of land at issue and that this should be formally recognised through a two-tier Green Belt policy. The first tier would comprise land of high intrinsic value as peri-urban greenspace, by virtue of the combination of its location, topography, landscape, ecology and recreational potential. This land would be designated as Grade 1 Green Belt (or whatever term is used) permanently, with national recognition secured through one of the approaches reviewed above (para 7.29). The second tier would comprise other land currently in non-urban use within the urban region which is designated as a 'no go area' for significant development within the life of the current development plans. Second tier zoning would be applied to land which, taken in conjunction with top tier land, existing built up areas and planned zones for development, would function as strategic buffers or gaps within the emerging urban structure, helping to channel development in the preferred directions. The institution of this new model would provide the opportunity for a thoroughgoing review of all the land potentially in play, without necessarily any prior presumption in favour of the existing Green Belt boundaries.

7.64 The two-tier Green Belt would continue to have regard to the established functions of Green Belts, although the prevention of coalescence function might be somewhat downgraded to a 'contingent on local circumstances' status. Urban regeneration promotion is seen as mainly an issue in lower demand regions. In this model, strategic planning to move towards a sustainable urban form in new development would be treated as a very important overall goal, and the possibility of a traditional continuous 'Green Belt' being breached by a 'Development Axis' would not be excluded. Protection of valued peri-urban greenspace would be the primary and over-riding function of Tier 1, but it would also support other functions, particularly recreation and landscape setting. Being a powerful tool of strategic spatial planning (i.e. shaping urban form in a sustainable fashion) would be the primary function of Tier 2, which in effect also means playing a supporting role in relation to other functions (e.g. urban regeneration), and also in practically linking networks of greenspace together. As in Package B, we would want to see the separate identification, zoning and safeguarding of land for future development and infrastructure requirements, and an end of 'washing over' or widespread exceptions. We would anticipate that the likely outcome of this model would be more emphasis on wedges and networks, rather than the traditional continuous ring around the core city. Model policies for acceptable development might be different for the two tiers, with more flexibility including provision for rural diversification in Tier 2.

7.65 This policy package is essentially a hypothetical construct. However, it is worth making the point that current proposals in Aberdeen, as described in Chapter 5, come quite close to matching this model in important respects. At least one City authority in Scotland has come to see the need to reconfigure its Green Belt, and important elements in its proposals include two categories of greenspace, the concept of a network, and development along particular axes with future development sites identified.

7.66 We believe that this model could achieve most of the benefits of Package B mentioned above, and also some of the benefits we identified with Package A. However, we believe it would offer some additional advantages: (a) public confidence in the ability of the system to protect the most valued greenspaces and landscapes around cities would be enhanced; (b) the opportunity to assess and promote the most sustainable form of urban growth could be seized more positively; (c) adverse impacts of traditional containment on town cramming in the cities and satellite settlements could be lessened through a more generous supply of development opportunities in the identified development zones; (d) speculation and hope value would be effectively eliminated in Tier 1. We believe that the evidence from this study does confirm that the issues identified here are significant and worth addressing.

7.67 As always, there are some potential drawbacks to consider: (a) the two-tier model is slightly more complicated than the other two Packages; (b) establishment of the system would incur some costs in the initial review of land status and strategic urban form options; (c) there would also be more initial change, with associated flak from residents, landowners and developers, than the more incremental package B; (d) central government and the reporters would have a somewhat stronger role in relation to Tier 1, at the expense of local discretion; (e) speculation might increase with respect to Tier 2, which might be perceived as a weaker form of designation; (g) there might be considerable uncertainty and argument about the assignment of land to Tier 1 vs Tier 2.

7.68 Responses to this suggested model raised particular concerns about point (e). Our view of the proposal is that we see Tier 1 as being a stronger designation than existing Green Belt, which this research has shown to be a pretty flexible instrument, to say the least. We would see Tier 2 as being comparable to the existing Green Belt regime - i.e. having the currency of existing development plans. We accept that there could be more speculation in these cases, but suggest that this would not be very different from the present situation. With longer development plan horizons, tightening of exceptions, and positive provision of land for future growth, these problems should be lessened (but the same comment applies to Package B).

7.69 Overall, the research team believes that a two-tier Green Belt model as sketched out here has much merit, and appears to offer a greater balance of advantages over disadvantages than the two alternative packages considered. However, it is a rather more radical change than Package B, which we would also regard as being a reasonable option which offers improvement over the status quo. Package C could entail more risks and uncertainties in the initial phase of implementation.

7.70 There remains perhaps the question of what to call it. Green Belt has the advantage of being a very familiar term in popular usage, and this may be felt to be an over-riding consideration. In Chapter 8 we offer tentative suggestions of 'Green Heritage Areas' and 'Urban Fringe Greenspace' for the two tiers. However, if the term 'Green Belt' is retained it should not be allowed to predetermine urban form. In the twenty-first century, sustainable development, competitiveness and cohesion should be the aims pursued by strategic planning, and a solid analysis of data and evidence is needed to shape the vision into the plan. The professionals in the planning and development industry need to understand the contribution that Green Belt policy has made to urban development in Scotland over the past half century, but they also need to be aware of what happens in other countries, and to have the confidence to plan and to be creative.

« Previous | Contents | Next »