The right hon. Gentleman puts it extremely well. I agree with him entirely on that point. In fact, the places that I listed were not villages. They are parts of the urban body of Cheltenham. It is the modest green space next to them that separates them from Churchdown and from the city of Gloucester. I have nothing against Gloucester. Some of my best friends live in Gloucester, but I do not and I do not wish to, and neither do the people of Cheltenham. We do not want to become part of one great big agglomeration, and the green belt performs a vital task in keeping them apart.
The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is no longer in his place, said that perhaps every case should be looked at on its merits in terms of the loss of green belt and green spaces, but the whole point of the green belt is its permanence. If it becomes negotiable—if every case can be looked at on its merits—that gives a green light to greedy developers to make a beeline for green belt areas that will deliver them more profit. If Cheltenham were an island, it would be obvious where the environmental constraint lay and there would be no question of impinging on the spaces beyond it. Because what we are trying to defend is not sea, but treasured green space, it suddenly becomes negotiable. The real value of that green space to local people, to the environment and to local food production sometimes gets lost.
Through 2006 and 2007 consultations rolled on. We had workshops in Swindon, which were great fun. We had lots of community and elected representatives going to them. Once again, we were pretty united in our opposition to urban extensions. In 2007 the area was flooded and we expected that the housing numbers might be re-examined, and certainly that the urban extensions in flood risk areas such as Cheltenham and Tewkesbury might be looked at again, but no. As the regional spatial strategy lumbered on, the numbers kept on going up despite the flooding. The proposed urban extensions got bigger and bigger, impinging entirely on green belt on one side of town, and entirely on areas that Government inspectors and planning inquiries had repeatedly rejected for development on the other.
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Martin Horwood
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 1 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
493 c102 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:41:15 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_562476
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_562476
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_562476