Building in the Green Belt
Shortly before its ignominious defeat, the Conservative government imposed the County Structure Plan on Hertfordshire. This decreed that 65,000 new houses were "needed" in the county by the year 2011. Unfortunately, this policy was continued by its Labour successor and accepted by Lib-Lab pact Hertfordshire County Council and Labour-controlled Dacorum Borough Council.
Party politicians have been squabbling for months in the local press over who is to blame for this massive environmental destruction, but in fact there was a considerable degree of unanimity. I suspect that the real motive is a desire by Freemasons in the Civil Service and in local authorities to look after their fellow creatures in the property development business, no doubt expecting that wealthy developers will "Look kindly" on them in return.
The County Council decided to distribute the new houses throughout the county instead of building a new town on the site of the former Hatfield aerodrome. Cynics have suggested that this decision was prompted by a desire to inflict maximum damage on the Conservatives. The effect on the environment certainly does not seem to have been a major factor in the decision.
While other borough and district councils protested at the quota of new houses handed down to them by the county council, Dacorum Borough Council initially wanted to build more than its share. This was based on a bogus piece of science called the "Dacorum Housing Needs Survey".
Dacorum Survey
I spent three years at university reading scientific papers, and found that they fell into two categories. In some, the authors drew conclusions from the evidence, while in others they first decided on the outcome they wanted and then altered the facts to fit. Dacorum's Housing Needs Survey was one of the latter.
Basically, Dacorum attempted to assess housing need by asking people if they were adequately housed. Thus it was housing demand which the council surveyed, not housing need. I wonder if it would attempt to assess poverty by asking people if they were adequately paid?
We are offered three excuses why so many more houses are needed. None of them stand up to scrutiny. Firstly that people will live longer in the future. Secondly, that more families will break up, leading to more people living alone. Thirdly, that more young people will want to leave the family home at a younger age.
The excuses are derived from extrapolation of current trends. Nobody is able to explain the assumption that these trends will continue. They might as well try to predict the weather for 2011 as the housing need.
In fact, average life expectancy has increased very little over the last few years. How long will it be before the lack of sleep, poor diet and lack of exercise endemic in current society begins to reduce life expectancy?
I see no reason to suppose that the number of broken homes will go on rising. It is also an undesirable trend which should be resisted, not accommodated.
Neither is it logical to predict that more young people will be leaving home earlier by 2011. Population statistics suggest that the number of young people will decline sharply between now and the year 2011. Better use of existing accommodation would be made if they were encouraged to stay in the family home for longer. This might also have a beneficial impact on the social problems, such as neighbourhood nuisance. which are primarily caused by immature people.
The only reliable feature of social trends is their unreliability. For example, it used to be said that new computer technology would lead to us all working less and having more leisure time. Now that the new technology has arrived, those with jobs work longer hours on average, while it is those without jobs who have the leisure time, otherwise known as unemployment.
Profit
Councillors of all political colours have avoided telling us why building on the Green Belt is to be allowed when there is derelict land available. Many local residents, including Tony McWalter, the MP for Hemel Hempstead, believe there is no need to build in the Green Belt at all as there are enough "brownfield" sites to meet local needs for housing.
I asked Dacorum's Director of Planning, Colin Barnard, how many houses could be accommodated on derelict sites in Berkhamsted. In response he sent me three volumes. Having read through them I found that they did not answer the question. I can think of no honest reason for withholding this information.
I suspect that the key to the whole issue is that it is more profitable to build on green field sites than on derelict ones. The intended beneficiaries are Dacorum's cronies in the property development industry, not the people who need housing.
I would particularly like to know how certain, property development companies, which all seem to be controlled by the Freemasons, knew exactly which Grade 3 agricultural land to buy before it was even suggested to the general public that any Green Belt land might be "Released" for development.
Instead of the smaller, more affordable homes which are needed locally, planning law will allow the developers to build the four and five bedroom houses which are most profitable for them. These will inevitably be ugly boxes of low architectural merit. They will be beyond the means of most local people and will instead be bought by the cream of society - the rich, thick and tasteless.
Mr. Barnard told a Hemel Hempstead man that single people would want to buy three-bedroom houses. He said they would want one spare bedroom for guests and another for computer equipment. The idea is risible. Three-bedroom detached houses in the locality often sell for as much as £200,000. In order to pay a £200,000 mortgage, a single person would require a salary in excess of £70,000.
Green Belt houses will be located on the edges of towns, so most of the residents who come into the town centres will drive, adding to the problems of congestion and lack of parking. Many will find it easier to shop at out-of-town superstores, generating further unnecessary car journeys and depriving local retailers of the trade.
Water
An additional problem is that we do not have the water to supply so many new houses. Excessive abstraction from boreholes has already caused local rivers to dry up. Figures from the Chiltern Society show that the water table in the Bulbourne valley has fallen by between three and four metres since 1975. This is having a disastrous effect on wildlife. Species which were locally plentiful fifteen years ago, such as the Common Frog and Song Thrush, are now comparatively rare.
If the Government were genuinely interested in meeting housing needs, it could change the law so developers could be obliged to build smaller, lower-priced homes instead of more profitable four and five bedroom houses. It could also stop landowners from leaving sites derelict and properties empty for long periods of time.
Funding
Unfortunately, the wealthy organisations which own most derelict sites would find this inconvenient. They might then withdraw funding and other support from political parties and government schemes such as the Millennium Dome.
Dacorum has already suffered a great deal of development over the last thirty years. Sprawling estates of low architectural standard and "In-filling" of scarce open spaces against the wishes of neighbours have severely damaged the appearance of the towns. Attractive properties are still being demolished to make way for ugly high-density development. Local people have borne more than their share of new housing already.
Dacorum Borough Council is still engaging in "Consultation" over its plans to allow building in the Green Belt, but it would be unwise to expect any major changes. These would cost too many cronies too much money.
Ian Johnston 2000
Back to The Dacorum Files