Scenario 3 Urban extensions, avoiding green belt
From "Vote for your preferred scenarios"
Go to the project
This option would mean seeking to deliver development as urban extensions to the key urban areas of Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury Town, but avoiding the Green Belt. This scenario has been identified because the government attaches great importance to Green Belt and the NPPF makes clear that its boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances to do so are fully evidenced and justified through a Local Plan. For this reason, the role of the Green Belt in planning for long-term growth is subject of much national debate.
Comments(2)
Commenting is not possible because this project is currently not active.
Most recent comments have loaded.
Profile of Catherine Billington
Posted by:Catherine Billington
2 years ago
The Green Belt is small and the diagram is misleading. It was designated Green Belt for good reason. Merging of the towns by uncontrolled urban sprawl would damage all of them by destroying their unique identities. This would likely have a negative impact on economic growth by downgrading the value and attractiveness of each town. Green spaces are insufficient for wildlife corridors and the loss of Green Belt land would have irreversible effects on wildlife.
Gloucestershire Young Planners have reservations about this scenario, primarily due to its potential limitations in achieving the required housing targets. The current Green Belt policy could act as a significant constraint on economic growth and affect social outcomes, particularly for younger demographics struggling with housing accessibility. A more pragmatic approach may be required to balance the need for housing development with the preservation of green spaces.
Share
Posted by
Current status
received
Tags
Housing