Green Wedge Policy in Norfolk - Assignment Example

119254 As an aftermath of Green Belts, Green Wedge and Strategic policies were introduced in Britain, especially in smaller cities, in the new structural plans. There are many proposals to keep strategic gaps and Green Wedge policies in most of the cities instead of Green Belts, as they adapt to any regional geography better and the requirements are minimum. There were discussions for a while for limiting the outside boundaries of all towns and cities so that they could not encroach the countryside and leave the agriculture, forestry and other connected activities to flourish on their own. City councils think that this additional layer of protection is necessary to protect the ecological balance of their cities. It is realised that the strategic gap and green wedge policies are important for the cities, being more flexible than the Green Belt policy. Local landscape planning authorities have seen the need of preserving an uncluttered landscape for conservation, as maintaining environmental balance is highly important for the city dwellers. When Green Wedge policy came into being, Norfolk was one of the selected cities for implementation of the plan. Green wedges are mainly the undeveloped land that is marked by city planners as the protected area, a kind of community land that should not be developed commercially. It comes under the plan of sustainable development in rural areas and will come up again and again as regions that have to be protected. Preliminary survey and assessment of the plans was done in the southern part of England, Norfolk included. Metro political District and Unitary Development Plan policies were excluded mainly because they were already included in the Green belt policies and again including them in the Green wedge policy was found unnecessary. It was already decided that they do not overlap. The preliminary survey did an assessment of all structural plans and policies. Again, most of the Green Wedges were planned in the Southern part of England. Some of the cities have already come under the Green Belt policy and they do not need Green Wedges. People manoeuvring the policy are trying to find suitable patterns for the whole country. They are also regulating to discover suitable features to be included owing to the special requirement of the particular town or city, within the countrywide pattern. Norfolk comes in the second category and number and mode of strategic gaps and green wedges and their requirements had to be planned for the purpose. Some comments and suggestions were welcomed for some time. But, District councils had to make their own plans and policies for implementing this ambitious plan. "In each case the account discusses the number and extent of strategic gaps and green wedges, their purposes, and any key Examination in Public (EIP) rulings which have affected the status of such policies" http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.aspid=1143456 Norfolk Country Council had always been preoccupied with the environmental balance of the county. It has to think about the river valleys, beautiful landscape, woodland and the wellknown Southern Bypass, most of which come under the southern part of the city. After the policy got approved in 1993, it became part of the major Structure Plan that got approved in 1999. there was a proposal in 1989 from the County Council suggesting that a Green Belt should be made around Norwich, and ultimately after much discussion, this proposal was rejected. But a preservation of environmental assets policy was introduced in its place. This policy was not only for preservation of the natural resources, but also for restraining and controlling of encroaching city expansions. This also intends to protect the historical heritage of the area and control the immediate countryside by creating green wedges and strategic gaps to restrict the unbriddled growth and 'ribbon development' of the city. Green Belt Policy for this area was held to be unsuitable because city growth was considered to be within limits and this makes the existing policies sufficient. Another problem came into picture that the Authority is yet to form plans for the surrounding growth of city. Eventually, green wedges proposal was accepted and Green Belt policy was rejected for this particular area. Broadland District Council objected, reiterating that green belt policies attract Government intervention. "Green belt is described as a 'blunt tool'. Green belt 'was' an anchor to the planning system. Principles behind greenbelt are similar to green wedge and strategic gaps," http://www.northeastassembly.gov.uk/global/assets/documents/asset20060316035126.pdf Green wedges are also called 'green infrastructure' of a city. All the elements of ecological balance exist in green infrastrure planning. There were many discussions on the question if regional policy is needed or citywise policy in various parts of United Kingdom. Many advantages were cited in favour of the policy. City people, who are tired of city life, can enjoy Green Community space and it was clear that Norfolk would have impressive Green wedges and strategic gaps. Green spaces of Norfolk area are the open, unused countryside, which is imperative for biodiversity and ecological balance of the region. Green wedges have created 'lungs' of the city. Unlike green belts, which would have been unsuitable for Norfolk, they have more individualistic features, distinctly striking, peculiar to the region. In some places, they are narrow and long and some of them are quite broad with plenty of greenery, water and lovely scenery. Strategic gaps provide critical separation between the close parts of developed areas of Norfolk. These are the real ecological spaces of Norfolk, environmentally conscious and worthwhile even for future. This 'urban fringe' is absolutely necessary for preservation of biodiversity in the surrounding areas. In addition to Norfolk Green wedges were created in other places: eg: Kenton Bank, Newcastle Golf Course/Hollywood Avenue Cemetery / Broadway East Schools, Westerhope Golf Course / New Biggin Hall, Knop Law / Walbottle Brickworks / Percy Pit. Strategic gaps: eg: at Newcastle Great Park / Wideopen / Hazlerigg, Throckley / Newburn/Wal bottle / Blucher. [Based on ibid] But the criticism persists that there is an absence of consistent national policy towards strategic gaps and green wedges. Revised policy of the Regional Planning Committee says: "Where necessary, local authorities should identify strategic gaps in their Local Development Documents that fulfil the criteria set out in Policy CC10. The primary purpose of these gaps must be to prevent coalescence of settlements and maintain their identity. Where a gap crosses local authority boundaries, the Local Authorities should prepare a joint LDD for the gap," http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/meetings/planning/2005/071205/Agenda%20Item%204c%20-%20Strategic%20Gaps.pdf There are a few characteristics of the strategic gap: "a) the gap will prevent the coalescence of settlements each with a resident population greeater than 10,000 persons; b) the gap must be no greater in size than is necessary, and in all cases no greater than five miles at its widest point. Development should only be permitted in a strategic gap where it would not compromise, individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development, the fundamental integrity and purpose of the gap," (ibid). The above guidelines and principles were applied to the work in Norfolk with minimum disturbance to both the urban area and rural area. The research done by DETR in December 2000, and the objectives were to find out the extent and location of strategic gaps and green wedges in development plans, should they be used, if they matched with green belt objectives, and these were found suitable in Norfolk. Strategic gaps and wedges are usually being smaller than green belts, had been found suitable for a city of Norfolk's size. Differentiations between the two were essential to be focussed on the wedge plan. "S/S decisions have sought to differentiate between strategic gaps, green wedges, and green belts" (Ibid) Green wedges are not popular or suitable everywhere. London Green Belt Council suggested: "We must oppose creating green wedges or strategic gaps in existing green belt but we must not overlook the fact that there have always been extremely valuable green wedges inward from the green belt, e.g. down Epping Forest and Hackney Marshes towards London's East End". http://website.lineone.net/greenbelt/LGBC%20notes%20-%20June%202002.htm Wherever purposes overlap, Norfolk had been clearer than other cities. Its developmental pressure was comparatively less and they could manage without much of a problem within almost the fixed time. Where green belt is required to protect a historical city or town, even though Norfolk is comparatively historial, being a smaller size city, it showed that it can continue with comparatively smaller green wedges and does not need green belt. "To this end, topography, and substantial features such as motorway or railway embankments, should be used to much better effect than they have often been in the past. Where this is done, green "wedges" may prove just as efficient as "belts" in achieving the visual separation of settlements" http://www.rtpi.org.uk/front-page-news/2002/q2/27052002b.pdf Most of the work in Norfolk was done with locally available infrastructure. Norfolk has shown that green wedges are no alternative to green belts; but distinct entities on their own right. In the DETR research report on "The Natural and Built Environment" - Green Wedges [policy ENV14] says that they could be applied to countryside too. This concept was brought into development plan. Most of them are identified as urban open space space in the Teeside Survey and Plan since 1969 with the aim of using them to retain open land and maintain local identity between city and countryside. In Norfolk, they included agricultural land, formal and informal open space etc. some of which were used for hospitals and schools. It has been recognised that while they control urban development, and provide spaces for formal and informal recreation, green wedge boundaries are not sacrosanct. Each green wedge tends to have a unique character which reflects its function as in Norfolk area. It has given opportunities for wildlife enhancement, sports fields, golf courses, some of them being strategic wildlife corridors. They have encouraged agriculture, forestry, agriculture supply side industries, agricultural marketing, food processing, and rural tourism and recreation. Because of the overall strategy, Norfolk growth is in Norwich area and the entire area possesses environment and quality of life. Norfolk has shown greater flexibility in preserving her assets. "Because of the greater flexibility introduced by the Green Areas policy there would need to be some safeguards against developments which threaten the countryside," (Beyond Green Belts, p,50). Work on city planning and countryside planning will go on and will be in focus continuously. "The issues of organizing and co-ordinating development, protecting agricultural land, retaining valued scenic resources, and providing for leisure use simultaneously within a locally publicly-accountable framework will not go away," (Elson, 1986, p.265). Green wedges and strategic gaps have provided some much needed alternative. They are the locally important, protected areas, which might go a long way in maintaining the eco balance of the city. Unlike the green belt that runs around the city, green wedges might run through the city. They protect natural and semi natural environment and improve the air quality of the city they support. They prevent the cities from swallowing up the rural areas and prevent the rural areas from being absorbed. They provide recreational opportunities and prevent the rural and urban areas from merging with one another. They came into existence more by accident than design. There was a certain argument in Norfolk that the green wedges are too massive, and sometimes too small, to have any effeft over the city. Certain points are reckoned as too far away from the city. The main future of the green wedges in Norfolk might remain their maintenance of conference facilities, golf courses and recreational tourism opportunities, even though the key statement proclaims: "To recognise, protectand concerve green wedge land for its agricultural, environmental, historic, landscape, recreational and tourism opportunities, and mineral and stone resources." http://www.civilpandemonium.com/index.phpmonth=04&year=2004 It is too early to arrive at a decision about green wedges in Norfolk. It will depend on how the wedges get incorporated in the sustained development of the city. On the whole, despite criticisms, the policy seems to be worth trying. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Beyond Green Belts, (1990), Regional Studies Association, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. 2. Elson, Martin J. (1998), Green Belts, Conflict mediation in the urban fringe, Heinemann, London. 3. Hardy, Dennis (1991), From New Towns to Green Politics, E & FN Spon, London. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.aspid=1143456 2. http://www.northeastassembly.gov.uk/global/assets/documents/asset20060316035126.pdf 3. http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/meetings/planning/2005/071205/Agenda%20Item%204c%20-%20Strategic%20Gaps.pdf 4. http://website.lineone.net/greenbelt/LGBC%20notes%20-%20June%202002.htm 5. http://www.rtpi.org.uk/front-page-news/2002/q2/27052002b.pdf 6. http://www.civilpandemonium.com/index.phpmonth=04&year=2004 7. Read More