Tory plan to concrete our fields. - Daily Mail

Tue Dec 11 11:43:53 GMT 2012

To: AA BOB LOMAS <<mailto:earlgrey at talktalk.net>earlgrey at talktalk.net>

What is the point of a Conservative Party if it's 
planning to concrete our fields?

By 
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/columnist-244/Stephen-Glover.html>Stephen 
Glover
PUBLISHED:Â 23:16, 28 November 2012
Â

The Conservative Party was once the party of the 
countryside. It remained so to a surprisingly 
large degree even when it began to draw much of 
its support from the growing suburbs. No longer. 
It has officially become the anti-countryside party.
First we had David Cameron and the Tory front 
bench encouraging grotesque wind turbines, an 
expensive and inefficient way of generating 
electricity. These monsters in turn necessitate 
miles of unsightly new pylons which desecrate 
large parts of the English (and Welsh and Scottish) countryside.
Now we have a planning minister who wants to 
concrete over more swathes of England. Nick Boles 
says we need to increase the amount of greenfield 
land built on in England by one third to 
accommodate new houses. This amounts to more than 
1,500 square miles, or twice the area of Greater London.
Â
Â

Expensive: David Cameron and the Tory front bench have encourag

Expensive: David Cameron and the Tory front bench 
have encouraged wind farms in the past

Â

Â
In an interview due to be aired on BBC2âs 
Newsnight last night, he opined that developed 
land should rise fromÂ  9 per cent to around 12 
per cent of England. The alternative is that 
âkids are never going to get a place with a 
garden to bring up their grandkidsâ. Thatâs supposed to frighten us.
Mr Boles relishes giving the pot a good old stir. 
When appointed to his present job two months ago, 
he described countryside campaigners who are 
against the development of the green belt as 
âhysterical, scaremongering latter-day 
Ludditesâ. Doesnât he sound a reasonable and moderate chap?

What is the point of the Conservative Party if 
not to conserve the ancient things that are 
precious to most citizens? It is not just the 
ânimbiesâ decried by Mr Boles who care. In 
city, suburb and village there is a shared love 
of our countryside, a widespread feeling that 
what survives of it constitutes one of our few remaining glories.
In other words, the fields, streams and copses of 
England in some way belong to all of us. We own a 
personal emotional stake. Although every single 
blade of grass obviously canât be defended, a 
Tory minister championing the destruction of the 
countryside has embarked on an electoral kamikaze mission.
Â
Â

'Safe for now': Two months ago Nick Boles, planning min

'Safe for now': Two months ago Nick Boles, 
planning minister, said that the green belt was in danger

Â

Â
The wonder of it all is that it is not even 
necessary. No one questions that as a result of a 
soaring population, largely fuelled by 
uncontrolled immigration over recent years, we 
face a serious housing shortage. Fewer new houses 
are being built than at any time since the Twenties.
As a result of the recession, in 2011 only 
115,000 homes were given planning permission in 
England, compared with 212,000 in 2007 at the 
height of the boom. When, or if, the economy 
eventually recovers, house building will begin to rise again.
But there is no reason why the countryside should 
have to be bulldozed in the process. According to 
official estimates, there is suitable so-called 
âbrownfieldâ land available for 1.5 million 
new homes. Some 400,000 of them could be built in 
London, where the pressure for new housing is greatest.
Anyone who travels by rail into one of our great 
cities will see boundless empty acres colonised 
only by weeds and piles of rubbish. Why are these 
not developed first? Network Rail, or whoever the 
owners may be, should be incentivised, and if 
need be forced, to sell unused land.
Admittedly, it is often easier and cheaper for 
developers to move into virgin territory. I hope 
that the Tory front benchâs enthusiasm for 
âgreenfieldâ development is not influenced by 
avaricious developers who also happen to be bankrolling the party.
Nor should we forget that there are an estimated 
three-quarters-of-a-million unoccupied dwellings 
in the United Kingdom. Wouldnât it be sensible 
to make use of as many of these as possible 
before carpeting fields with new houses? Why not 
tax homes which remain unoccupied for a long 
time, as well as unused building land?
Â
There are, in fact, many alternatives to 
destroying more of Englandâs green and pleasant 
land, and I am baffled that Mr Boles, apparently 
supported by David Cameron and George Osborne, 
should be ignoring them. I repeat: whatâs the 
point of a Conservative Party that hasnât any feeling for the countryside?
I donât want to delve too deeply, but I canât 
help wondering whether Mr Bolesâs peculiar 
fervour may not be influenced by some personal 
psycho-drama. His father, Sir Jack, was head of 
the pro-countryside National Trust between 1975 
and 1983, and the young Nick grew up in a series of idyllic rural locations.
Might he not be simply rebelling against his 
background? Whatever the explanation, there is 
neither cause nor justification for increasing 
the amount of land built on by a whopping third.
And you can be sure that, if Mr Boles and the 
developers get their way, most of these new 
houses will be in the South-East of England, one 
of the most densely populated parts of Europe, 
where significantly more than nine per cent of 
land is already given over to building.
If there has to be new development, it would 
surely make sense for it to take place in those 
parts of the country where there is much more 
space, and the economy stands in most need of 
growth. London and the South-East are bulging at the seams.
One way of attracting more people to the less 
populated regions of England would be to 
introduce the much talked of, but so far 
undelivered, local wage bargaining in the public 
sector. Companies would be more likely to move 
into these areas if pay rates were more competitive.
Of course, the pressure for new houses will only 
get worse unless net immigration is brought under 
control. Though very slightly reduced under the 
Coalition, the level is still running at more 
than 200,000 a year, rather than the âtens of 
thousandsâ Mr Cameron promised.
According to the think-tank MigrationWatch, some 
200 houses a day  73,000 a year  are needed as 
a result of immigration. Official figures suggest 
that 36 per cent of new households over the next 
25 years will spring from the same cause.
Â
Â

Concern: People from town and country are worried about proposa

Concern: People from town and country are worried 
about proposals as they want to safeguard the country's heritage.

Â

Â

The short-sightedness of ministers in the last 
Labour government in throwing open our borders 
has served to exacerbate housing problems with 
which this country can barely cope: the 
population of Britain is projected to grow by an 
amazing 17âmillion toÂ 80âmillion in 2050.

I fear that many of the fields and woods of 
England will inevitably be destroyed, but the 
damage can still be kept to a minimum if 
brownfield sites are utilised, and unoccupied homes are pressed into use.

What is so objectionable about Nick Boles is his 
tone almost of exultancy. An expression of regret 
about these pressures on our countryside would be 
in order  as well as a pledge to do whatever 
can be done to resist greenfield development, and 
defend the integrity of our precious land.

Most of us are not nimbies worrying about our own 
backyard. Weâre people from town and country 
who want to safeguard our heritage.
Â

It is astonishing and depressing that most of the 
Tory front bench would seem to be on the wrong side in this struggle.

Read more: 
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2240053/What-point-Conservative-Party-planning-concrete-fields.html#ixzz2DakbdjiJ>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2240053/What-point-Conservative-Party-planning-concrete-fields.html#ixzz2DakbdjiJ 

Follow us: 
<http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline>@MailOnline 
on Twitter | 
<http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail>DailyMail 
on Facebook

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5925 - Release Date: 11/28/12

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20121211/eea749fe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Size: 209 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20121211/eea749fe/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Size: 209 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20121211/eea749fe/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Size: 209 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20121211/eea749fe/attachment-0002.bin>