A lot of the ‘green’ belt is golf courses. Also, a lot of it isn’t really all that green, certainly not if ‘green’ means something other than the colour (like ‘biodiverse’, for example). It’s very often low-quality, inaccessible, economically unproductive land that would be much better off with people living on it.
Yep, part of the difficulty is that people have a very inaccurate picture of what the ‘green belt’ looks like. When the green belts were drawn (70 years ago!), they inevitably included some already developed land which now can’t be redeveloped. As a result, it currently includes not only low-quality ‘green’ spaces but in some cases car parks, disused petrol stations, dumping grounds next to railway sidings - it’s ridiculous.
A lot of the ‘green’ belt is golf courses. Also, a lot of it isn’t really all that green, certainly not if ‘green’ means something other than the colour (like ‘biodiverse’, for example). It’s very often low-quality, inaccessible, economically unproductive land that would be much better off with people living on it.
I didn’t know that, thanks. I was under the impression that green belt meant somewhat wild, not monocultures of grass and a couple of ornate trees
Yep, part of the difficulty is that people have a very inaccurate picture of what the ‘green belt’ looks like. When the green belts were drawn (70 years ago!), they inevitably included some already developed land which now can’t be redeveloped. As a result, it currently includes not only low-quality ‘green’ spaces but in some cases car parks, disused petrol stations, dumping grounds next to railway sidings - it’s ridiculous.