英国绿带系统

《英国绿带系统》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在行业资料-天天文库。

LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125142TemporalchangesandlocalvariationsinthefunctionsofLondonsgreenbeltMarcoAmati∗,MakotoYokohari1UniversityofTsukuba,GraduateSchoolofSystemsandInformationEngineering,Tsukuba-Shi,305-8573Tennodai1-1-1,JapanReceived2June2004;receivedinrevisedform14December2004;accepted15December2004Availableonline19February2005AbstractAgreenbeltisazoneoflandaroundthecitywherebuildingdevelopmentisseverelyrestricted.AlthoughLondonsgreenbelthasahistoryofbeingeffectiveinachievingitspurposes,recentlyplannershavestarteddebatinghowitcouldbereformed.Thegreenbeltsreformersproposerenewingthegreenbeltsfunction.HowevernorecentresearchhasshownthecurrentdistributionofLondonsgreenbelt.TheaimofthisresearchistoexplorewhichfactorsinfluencethefunctionsofLondonsgreenbelt.Wefirstinvestigatethehistoryofthegreenbeltsfunctions.Wethenanalysethegreenbeltscurrentfunctionsbygroupinglocalauthoritiesinrelationtotheirgreenbeltpoliciesusingclusteranalysis.Thehistoryofthegreenbeltsestablishmentrevealsthefundamentalvaluesthatliebehindthegreenbeltsfunctions.Usingclusteranalysiswegroupthelocalauthoritiesaccordingtowhethertheyusethegreenbeltto:controlurbangrowth,enhancelandscapeprotection,improvethelandscapeorwhethertheyconsiderthegreenbelttobeaminorissue.Overallwearguethatanewgreenspaceplanningconceptshouldbeimplementedthatexplicitlyreferstothegreenbeltsroleinrestoringlandscapes.©2005ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.Keywords:Greenbelt;Localplans;Localauthorities;Landscapeprotection;Developmentpressure;Planningreform1.Introductionareas,achievedlargelythroughtheimplementationofgreenbelts.ThepreservationofawidebandofopenOneofthecentraltenetsofpost-warUKplanningspacetosurroundtheurbanareapartiallyexplainswhyhasbeenthestrictseparationofcountrysideandurbanlargecitiessuchasLondonhavestoppedgrowingsincetheSecondWorldWar(Longleyetal.,1992).Despitethegreenbeltssuccessatconserving∗Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+819083329540;openspaceithasbeencriticisedinrecentyears.fax:+81298535572.Firstly,theLondongreenbeltsproscriptiononE-mailaddresses:mamati@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp(M.Amati),myoko@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp(M.Yokohari).developmentislinkedtoachronicshortageof1Tel.:+81298535376;fax:+81298535376.housingintheSouthEast,oneofEuropesmost0169-2046/$20.00©2005ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.12.007 126M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142economicallybuoyantareas(Barker,2004).ThisSecondly,LondonsgreenbelthasbeencriticisedisunderstandablewhenthesizeofLondonsgreenforbeingoutdated.Forexample,studieshaverevealedbeltisconsidered.ThelatestfiguresshowthatLon-thattheecologicalandamenityvalueofwastelandin-donsgreenbeltcovers508,500haandhaslargelysidethecitycanoftenbehigherthanthefarmlandandremainedundevelopedduringthepost-warperiodgolfcoursespreservedbythegreenbelt(Davidsonand(Fig.1,Table1,OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,Wibberley,1977,p.118).Yet,thewastelanddoesnot2003).enjoythesamelevelofprotection.Infact,thegreenbeltFig.1.GreenbeltareasinEngland(OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,2003). M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142127Table1theDeputyPrimeMinister,2001).DespitethenumberGreenbeltsurfaceareainEngland(OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeofproposalsfornewgreenbeltfunctionsandalargeMinister,2003)numberofworksthathavestudiedthegreenbeltintheGreenbeltArea(ha)Change(%)past(Thomas,1970;Munton,1983andElson,1986,199720001993)norecentresearchhasattemptedtoinvestigateEngland1,652,6001,677,4001.5thegreenbeltscurrentfunctions.Instead,thefunc-TyneandWear53,35066,33024.3tionsofthegreenbeltasexpressedinlocalplansYork25,43026,1903.0arecommonlyassumedtofollowthosethatarede-SouthandWest249,240255,6202.6finedinCentralGovernmentguidance(GreatBritainYorkshireDepartmentoftheEnvironment,1995).Theseare:NorthWest253,290257,7901.8Stoke-on-Trent44,09044,0800.0•tochecktheunrestrictedsprawloflargebuilt-upar-NottinghamandDerby62,02061,830−0.3eas;Burtonand7307300.0Swadlingcote•topreventneighbouringtownsfrommergingintoWestMidlands231,290231,5300.1oneanother;Cambridge26,69026,6900.0•toassistinthesafeguardingthecountrysidefromGloucesterand7,0307,0300.0encroachment;Cheltenham•topreservethesettingandspecialcharacterofhis-Oxford35,01035,0000.0London513,420513,3300.0torictowns;andAvon68,66068,7800.2•toassistinurbanregeneration,byencouragingtheSWHampshireandSE82,34082,5000.2recyclingofderelictandotherurbanland.DorsetInadditionthegovernmentsuggeststhattheuseoflandinthegreenbeltshasapositiveroletoplayinmaycausesuchbrownfieldsitesofhigherecologicalfulfillinganumberofobjectives:valuetobedevelopedsoonerbyturningthedevelop-•toprovideopportunitiesforaccesstotheopencoun-mentpressureinwardstowardstheurbanareas(Wyatt,trysidefortheurbanpopulation;1998;Lock,2000;Bovill,2002).•toprovideopportunitiesforoutdoorsportandout-Finally,researchhasshownthatLondonsgreenbeltdoorrecreationnearurbanareas;failstoachieveacompactcity.Atthelocallevelthe•toretainattractivelandscapes,andenhanceland-greenbeltiseffectiveatlimitingdevelopmentinthescapes,neartowherepeoplelive;urbanfringe.Attheregionalscale,Halletal.(1973)•toimprovedamagedandderelictlandaroundtowns;andsubsequentworks(e.g.BibbyandShepherd,1997)•tosecurenatureconservationinterest;andhaveshownthatdevelopmentleapfrogsthegreenbelt•toretainlandinagricultural,forestryandrelatedintodeeperruralareas.Suchdevelopmenthasbeenuses.linkedtoahighercaruseandlongercarjourneys(Curtis,1996).ThepurposeofthisstudyistocontributetotheThefeelingamongplannersthatthegreenbeltisgreenbeltdebatebyexaminingthegreenbeltsvary-unfair,outdatedandinefficienthasledtoavarietyofingfunctions.Wespecificallyaimtoshowhowtheproposalsforitsreform.TheTownandCountryPlan-greenbeltsfunctionhasvariedovertimeandtherela-ningAssociationandtheRoyalTownPlanningInsti-tionshipbetweenthepresentdistributionofthisfunc-tutebothrecentlyissuedstatementsonthefutureofthetioninlocalplanpoliciesandcentralgovernmentplan-greenbelt(TownandCountryPlanningAssociation,ning.First,webrieflyreviewtheworksonthegreen2002;RoyalTownPlanningInstitute(RTPI),2002;beltuptopresent.Second,wetracethedevelopmentseeElson,2002forareview).Bothacknowledgetheofthegreenbeltsfunctionthroughhistorybyref-needtocontroldevelopment.Atthesametime,botherencetoprimaryhistoricalarchivematerial.Third,statementsstresstheneedtoexploregreenspacecon-weclusterthelocalmunicipalitiesaccordingtotheirceptsthathavenewfunctions:e.g.greencorridorsandemphasisonthedifferentfunctionsofthegreenbelt.greenwedges(Turner,1995;Frey,2000andOfficeofWediscussthedistributionofthisclusteringinrela- 128M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142tiontosecondarydataandothercentralgovernmentgreenbeltissubjectedtoandhowtheseaffectitsfunc-plans.tion.2.Reviewofpreviousgreenbeltworks3.Background:historicaldevelopmentofthegreenbelt’sobjectivesStudiesonthegreenbelthavecombinedgreenbelthistorywithpresent-daycasestudiestoshowhowitis3.1.Urbangrowthintheearly1920s:theimplementedinpractice.Thehistoryofthegreenbeltunderlyingreasonforintroducingthegreenbeltiswellknownandreads,asGault(1981)notes,likeawhoswhoofUKplanning.ThiswhoswhohasbeenTheaimofurbanplanningattheendofthe19thdescribedinseveralwell-knownworks.MandelkerCenturywastoimprovehealthandtobeautifythe(1962),Thomas(1970,pp.7783)andCherryandcity(Cherry,1974).However,theunprecedentedur-Rogers(1996,pp.6669)lookinsomedetailatthebangrowththatoccurredduringtheinter-warperiodgreenbeltsinitialimplementation.Gault(1981,pp.changedthisidea.Forexample,theareaunderurban14),describeshowgreenbeltswereimplementedlanduseinEnglandandWalesincreasedfrom6.7aroundthecountryduringtheearlypost-waryears,to8.0%between1931and1939(King,1984).Suchshowingtheroughwayinwhichthelocationofthegrowthwascausedbyanumberoffactors.Agriculturalgreenbeltsboundarieswereinitiallydecided.Muntondeclinefrom1880,risingtaxanddeathduties,andthe(1983)providesageographicaloverviewofLondonsdeathofheirsaftertheFirstWorldWar,allresultedgreenbeltimplementationatthetime.Hefocusesininlargelandestatesbeingbrokenupandsoldduringparticularontheimpactsofthegreenbeltonland-the1920sand1930s.Thesechangesgreatlyincreaseduse,landpriceanddevelopment.Elson(1986,1993)thesupplyofland,allowingthemiddleandworkingprovidesthemostcomprehensiveandrecentaccountsclassesandtenantfarmerstobuylandforthefirsttime.ofgreenbeltimplementationfocusingonanumberOwnersoccupied10%ofagriculturallandinEnglandofcasestudiesandreviewsofthefutureofthepol-andWalesin1914.By1927,thisfigurehadrisentoicy.37%.Atthesametime,arisingstandardofliving,aDespitethescopeoftheseworks,noneexploreshorterworkingweekandimprovedtransportation,ledtheoriginsofthecurrentgreenbeltfunctionsintodemandsfromthemiddleandworkingclassestoac-depth.Thestudieshavelargelyignoredtheinter-cessthecountrysideforholidays,ramblingandotherwarperiod,whichsawtheoriginalimplementationleisurepursuits(Sheail,1981,pp.13;Booth,2003,ofthegreenbelt.Studyingthisformativeperiodispp.105).Asa1926Surreyplanningconsultantsre-importantbecauseitrevealshowthegreenbeltsportnotes,thiswasatimewhenthenaturalrestraintsfunctionsweredeveloped.Inaddition,itshowshowimposedbydistanceandthedifficultyofobtaininglandthegreenbeltwasimplementedduringaperiodofarenowlargelysweptaway(TheNationalArchives:loose-planningcontrolandhighdevelopmentpres-PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalGovernmentsure(Fig.2).Weaimtoshowthattheflexibilityof4/3353).thegreenbeltsfunctionplayedanimportantroleinallowingthegreenbelttobeimplemented.Anun-3.2.Thechangingfunctionofthegreenbeltderstandingofthisprocesswillaidunderstandingofwhatwillbenecessaryforimplementinganalterna-Thefirstgreenbeltpurchasesweremadeasparttivetothegreenbelt.Furthermore,theaboveworksofthefoundingofLetchworthGardenCityin1909,assumethatthegreenbeltsfunctionsimplyfollowswhere500haofagriculturallandwerepurchasedasthatwhichislaiddownintheCentralGovernmentabufferbetweenHitchinandBaldock(Elson,1986,guidance.Suchanassumptionignoresthelargede-pp.89).HowardsgreenbeltwasintendedtohaveangreeofdiscretionthatlocalauthoritiesintheUKagriculturalfunctiontosupplyproduceforthetown.haveformakingpoliciesinlocalplans.Italsoig-ThisaimwaslaterrepeatedintheLondonSocietysnoresthevarietyofdevelopmentpressuresthattheplanforLondon(Webb,1921),whichalsoassumed M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142129Fig.2.ImportanteventsinUKgreenbeltplanning19002004.thatthegreenbeltcouldbepaidforthroughagriculturalAkeydisseminatorofprofessionalplanningideasrents.andopenspaceplans,weretheJointTownPlan-Duringtheinter-warperiodtheMinistryofHealthningCommittees.Theseweredescribedashavingawaschargedwithplanningalongwithanumberofpurelyadvisoryfunction(TheNationalArchives:countyanddistrictcouncilsandanumberofsocietiesPublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalGovernmentandgroups.Aswellasthelocalandcountycouncils,4/3764),takingabroaderviewoftownplanning.ThesesomeinfluentialamenitysocietiessuchastheCouncilJointTownPlanningCommitteesbenefitedplanningbyforthePreservationofRuralEnglandandtheLondonallowingthedifferentlocalauthoritiestoreachagree-Societywerealsoabletoinfluencethegreenbeltsaim.mentsandtoexchangeideasonawiderangeofissues. 130M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142ByjoiningtheseCommittees,localdistrictcouncilsmostinneedofopenspace)ortheNationalPlayingcouldparticipateindeterminingtheaimofavarietyFieldsAssociationcouldbeaskedtopayforgreenofregionalopenspaceschemesincludingthegreenbeltpurchases.Theabove1927GreaterLondonRe-belt.By1923,16JointTownPlanningCommitteesgionalPlanningCommitteereport,statedthattherewashadbeenestablishedinthewholeoftheUK,4ofprobablyroomforobtainingalargerevenuefromthewhichwereintheLondonarea.Threeyearslater,thereprovisionofprivateopenspacesforplayingfields....wereeightsuchcommitteesaroundLondonalone(TheIn1929,Londonwasshowingawillingnesstocon-NationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandtributetoasubstantialextenttothecostoflandforopenLocalGovernment4/3129;TheNationalArchives:spacesoutsideitsownarea(TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalGovernmentPublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalGovernment4/3239a).4/3239b).ThelargestandmostinfluentialoftheJointTownHowever,in1934,theimplementationofthePlanningCommitteesatthetimewastheGreaterLon-LondongreenbeltbecameanationalconcerndonRegionalPlanningCommittee.Thiswasestab-whenlobbyingtheTreasury(TheNationalArchives:lishedin1927andwascomposedof138localauthor-PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalGovernmentities,controllinganareaof2952km2(Thomas,1970).52/1217a).Followingthis,theGreaterLondonRe-Inthe1920s,amongplannersandthegovernment,gionalPlanningCommitteesuggestedthatthegreentherewasawidespreadrecognitionoftheneedforbeltmightbeusefultoAirandArmyMinistriesintimemoreopenspacefortheurbanworkingclasses.Re-ofwar.Accordingly,theaimofthegreenbeltswitchedcruitmentfortheBoerWarattheturnofthe20thCen-toprovidingspaceforaerodromesandbarracks(Thetury,hadbeenthrownintocrisisbythepoorphysi-NationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandcalstateoftherecruitsandtheFirstWorldWarhadLocalGovernment52/1217b).Inallcases,theappealsalsorevealedtheimportanceofmaintainingahealthyforfundingweresympatheticallyreceivedbutwereul-working-classpopulation(Harrison,1981).Thoughthetimatelyunsuccessful.NationalPlayingFieldsAssociationhadbeenestab-Thougha1926LondonCountyCouncilstudyonlishedin1927,itwascleartoplannersandthegov-playingfieldshadindeedshowntheneedforopenernmentthatmoreneededtobedonetoprovideopenspaceinthecity,andaspeechbyNevilleChamber-spaces.lain,theMinisterofHealth,inthesameyearhadnotedIn1927,theGreaterLondonRegionalPlanningthatplayingfieldswerethebestlandforbuilding,Committeebegantoquestionthepurelyagriculturalandweredisappearingfastest(TheNationalArchives:functionoftheproposedgreenbelt.UnwinproposedaPublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalGovernmentmoreflexibleuse,i.e.thelandcouldbeusedforplaying4/3239c),therewasdifficultyinjustifyingthatithadfieldsaswellasforinstitutionssuchasmentalhospi-tobeintheformofabeltaroundLondon.TheTrea-tals.Norwasthegreenbeltmeanttobecontinuous.Insurysreasonedresponsetoarequestforgreenbeltsomeplaces,developmentcouldbepermitted,suchasfunding,highlightedthis.Notonlycouldtheynotgivethatrequiredforarterialroads(TheNationalArchives:soleprioritytoLondon,butfeltthatWhatisimpor-PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalGovernmenttant,[comparedtoprovidingabelt]isthatlargeareas4/3241).ofopenlandshouldbereservedwithinareasonableThoughatthetime,theimportanceofeffectiveplan-distanceofthethicklyinhabitedpartsofGreaterLon-ningwasgainingrecognition,theGreaterLondonRe-don(TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficegionalPlanningCommitteeencountereddifficultyinHousingandLocalGovernment4/3239d).TheAirandfindingmoneytopurchaselandforgreenbeltimple-ArmyMinistriesontheotherhandhadpowerstoac-mentation.Tocounterthisdifficulty,theCommitteequirelandintheeventofanationalemergency(Thebeganacampaigntoargueforthegreenbeltsimple-NationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandmentation.ArguingthatthegreenbeltwasnecessaryLocalGovernment4/3239e).foravarietyofpurposes,theCommitteechangeditsEventually,thegreenbeltwasimplementedthroughaimfourtimesintenyears.BychangingitsaimtoaschemetoloanmoneytotheCountycouncilsaroundplayingfieldsforexample,Londonsresidents(thoseLondonin1935.Themoneyforthisschemecamefrom M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142131theLondonCountyCouncilandwasimplementedoverEnvironment,1995).Thebasicfunctionsofthegreenaperiodof2years.Thisschemewasaconsiderablesuc-belthavebeenaddedtoduringthepost-warperiod.cess.4650haoflandwereapprovedorprovisionallyOverall,theresultsshowthattheprocessinvolvedagreedforpurchaseinunderthespaceof14months.indefiningthefunctionofthegreenbeltduringthepe-Thiswasasubstantialcontribution(19%)toimple-riodoflooseplanninginthe1930swasrational,butmentingUnwinsgreengirdlescheme(Thomas,1970).onlytoacertainextent.AspreviousstudieshavenotedBy1939,theamountofpurchasedlandhadrisento(e.g.Halletal.,1973,pp.52),thegreenbeltsfunction28,600ha(Lowe,1939).wasovertlylinkedtoLondonersneedsforopenspace.TheLondonCountyCouncilsloansschemecon-However,theaboveresultsalsoshowthatinitially,thetainsnospecificationofthegreenbeltsaim.Whenclar-greenbeltsfunctionswereusedasawayofenablingificationwasrequestedinlate1935,theLondonCountythegreenbeltsimplementationinthefaceofcostre-Councilexplainedtheaiminthebroadestterms:ifstrictions.Afeatureofthisprocesswasthatthegreenplayingfieldswerebought,theymustnotbereservedbeltsfunctionwaschangedaccordingtotheconcernfortheuseoflocalplayersonly,otherwisethelandatthetime.shouldbedesignatedforpeopletoroamaboutin(TheAfurtherreasonwhythefunctionsofthegreenbeltNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandchangesoeasilyissuggestedbyconsideringtheuseofLocalGovernment79/1074a;TheNationalArchives:thetermamenityinUKplanning(Mandelker,1962,PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalGovernmentpp.3233).Amenityisatermthathasavarietyofdef-79/1074b).initionsbutcanbeusedtojustifyplanningdecisions.AbercrombiesGreaterLondonPlan(1944)wasItcanrefertotheconvenientdistributionofinfrastruc-inspiredbyUnwinsreportsfortheGreaterLondonture.ItcanalsorefertotheaestheticbenefitsofatractRegionalPlanningCommittee.Abercrombiesetthreeofcountryside.Thegreenbeltshouldalsobeunder-aimsforthegreenbelt:therestrictionofurbangrowth,stoodinthesamewayasamenity.Inotherwordsthethedefinitionofanouterlimitorboundarytorestric-conceptofagreenbelthasaflexiblefunctionthatisun-tions,andtheprovisionofrecreationasaprimaryusederpinnedbyunderlyingvaluesintheplanningsystem.oftheland(Abercrombie,1945).Thesevaluesaredefinedanddiscussedbelow.AftertheGreaterLondonplanthe1947TownandThelegacyofthisflexibilityisthatthefunctionsCountryPlanningActnationalisedlandownersdevel-ofthegreenbelthavebeenaddedtoinresponsetoaopmentrights.Thisallowedthepost-wargreenbelttogreenbeltthreat.Suchacaseoccurredin1984,whenbeeffectivelyimplemented.The1947ActmeantthattheCouncilforthePreservationofRuralEnglandanditwasnolongernecessarytobuythelandand/ortoagroupofMembersofParliamentfromtheUKsCon-compensatelandownerswhentheywerenotpermittedservativePartyreactedtoathreattothegreenbeltbytodevelop.TheActalsointroducedastrongerroleforaddingthefunctionofurbanregenerationtogovern-centralgovernmentintheplanningofthegreenbelt.mentpolicy(Marsdenetal.,1993,pp.125126).Throughaseriesofcircularsandplanningpolicyguid-Uptonow,thereformofLondonsgreenbelthasancenotescentralgovernmentsettheaimofthegreenproceededbyaddinggreenbeltfunctionswithouttry-beltduringthepost-warperiod.Thefirstofthesewasingtounderstandthereasonswhythegreenbeltisim-a1955circularthatestablishedthefollowingaimsforplemented.Tounderstandthereasonswhythegreenthegreenbeltatthenationallevel(MinistryofHousingbeltisimplementeditisnecessarytoinvestigatetheandLocalGovernment,1955):factorsthatdeterminethefunctionsofthegreenbeltatthelocalauthoritylevel.•tocheckthefurthergrowthofalargebuilt-uparea;•topreventneighbouringtownsfrommergingintooneanother;or4.Thepresent-dayfunctionofthegreenbelt•topreservethespecialcharacterofatown.These1955aimsrepresentthecoreofthegreenCentralGovernmentsPlanningPolicyGuidance2,beltsaimsthatarecurrentlysetoutinPlanningPolicyquotedabove,currentlyprescribestheaimsofthegreenGuidance2above(GreatBritain,Departmentofthebelt.Nonetheless,localplannersaregivenalargede- 132M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142greeofdiscretiontodetermineadditionallocalplanthority,wouldnotaffecttheresults.Alsothepoliciespoliciesforthegreenbelt.Theexistenceoftheplan-relatingtotheLondongreenbeltwereassumedtoonlynersdiscretionmeansthatitispossibletohypothesisebecontainedinthededicatedsectionorchapterofthethatdifferenceswillexistbetweenthemunicipalitiesinplan.Thesepolicieswerethenenteredintoadatabase.termsofthefunctiontheyassigntothegreenbelt.ThisAfterobtainingthelatestplanfromeachlocalau-discretionaccountsforthedifferencesinthenumberofthority,thedatawereanalysedinfivesteps:(1)Allpoliciesbetweendifferentlocalauthorities.Forexam-thepoliciesinthegreenbeltsectionwerereadandaple,thegreenbeltsectionoftheplanforMedwayCoun-listof80keywordswasdrawnup.EachpolicywasciltotheEastofLondoncontainstwopoliciesforthelinkedwithoneofthekeywords.Policiesthatmeangreenbelt.Ontheother,handChiltern(1997)ChilternthesamewereaggregatedandpoliciesthatappearinDistrictCouncilsplanintheWestcontains31policies.alllocalauthorityplansweredeleted.(2)Thepoli-Thefollowingpartofthestudyaimstoexplorefurthercieswereclassifiedintooneof12groupsusingtheirthedifferencesinthefunctionofthegreenbeltatthekeywordsandthepolicyswrittenstatement.(3)Thelocallevel.Thisvariationwillbeexplainedinrelationproportionofpoliciesthatfellintoaparticulargrouptosecondarydataandothergovernmentpublications.wascalculated.(4)Thisproportionwasusedasavari-ableinaWardmethodclusteranalysis(Romesburg,4.1.TheUK’slocalplanningprocess1990)toclassifythevariouslocalauthoritiesandmapthevaryingfunctionsofLondonsgreenbelt.(5)TheTheUKslocalplanningsystemhasgonethroughdistributionofgreenbeltfunctionswasthencomparedanumberofchangesinrecentyearsthathaveresultedwithsecondarydata.Thefollowingdescribeseachofinavarietyoftypesoflocalplan(Cullingworthandthesestepsingreaterdetail:Nadin,2002,pp.92114).AlllocalplansessentiallyStep1:WithintheLondongreenbeltsectionofeachconsistofawrittenstatementandaproposalsmap.localplan,thepoliciesareseparatedbyparagraphnum-Thewrittenstatementsetsoutpoliciesforthecontrolofbers(e.g.2.25,2.26,etc.)accordingtoAnnexAofdevelopmentaccompaniedbyareasonedjustificationPlanningPolicyGuidance12(OfficeoftheDeputyaspartofthedevelopmentplan(OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,1996).TheplanswerereadandalistPrimeMinister,2000).of80keywordsdecidedupontoidentifytheindividualpolicies(Table2).Thisinevitablyinvolvedsomeag-4.2.Methodgregationofdifferentwordings(e.g.thoseplanswithpoliciestocontrolmobilehomesandthosecontrol-Localauthoritiesforthesurveywereidentifiedlingcaravanswereassumedtobethesame)andoc-basedontheGreatBritainDepartmentoftheEnvi-curredin14casesoutofatotalof545(2.5%).Policiesronments(1993)mapofgreenbeltareasandamapwhichappearinalloftheplansweredeletedfromtheoflocalauthorityboundaries.Fifty-eightlocalauthor-resultsastheydonotcontributetodifferentiatingthelo-itieswereidentifiedforthesurveyascontainingpartcalauthoritiesinaclusteranalysis(Romesburg,1990,oftheLondongreenbelt.Eachofthelocalauthoritiespp.154155).wascontactedbetweenMarchandJune2002andtheirStep2:Eachpolicyisaccompaniedbyajustifica-latestplanwasobtained.Outofthese,3(5%)planstion,knownasawrittenstatement,ofapproximatelywereobtainedbyvisitingthelocalauthority;27(47%)oneortwoparagraphsinlength.Thewrittenstatementsweresentbypost/emailand21(36%)werefoundonandElson(1993),pp.186193categorisationofgreentherespectivelocalauthoritieswebsites.Planswerebeltpolicyfunctionswereusedtogroupthepoliciesnotobtainedfor7(12%)ofthelocalauthorities.InallintothedifferentcategoriesshowninTable3.Apolicycases,thelatestplanwasrequested.SomeoftheplansthatisingroupIforexamplehasthefunctionofpre-wereundergoingreview,butitwasassumedthatus-ventingagriculturalbuildingsthatinfringetheconceptingplansatadifferentstageinthereviewingprocessofopenness.wouldnotsignificantlyaffecttheresults.Similarly,itStep3:Thepercentageofpoliciesinthedevelop-wasassumedthatwhetherthelocalplancamefromamentplansthatfallintoeachofthegroupsinTable3LondonBorough,adistrictcounciloraUnitaryAu-wascalculated.Thispercentagewasassumedtobethe M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142133Table2Table2(Continued)KeywordsusedtoidentifythepoliciesGroup(seeTable3)Group(seeTable3)VIAccessAdditionstothegreenbeltAllotmentsLandadjoininggreenbeltCountryparksAgriculturalbuildingsGreenwaysExistingbaddevt.HistoricgardensExtensionsLeisureneedsGardencentresGlasshousesVIIndoorsportAreasofoutstandingnaturalbeautyMetropolitanopenareasCountrysideconservationNewbuildingsHorse/equestrianOutbuildingsLandscapeprotectionOutdoorsportOvergrazingProtectoutsidegreenbeltRemovaloftopsoilProtectvisualamenityWaterbodiesRidingschoolsStablesVIIStrategicgapCommunityforestsDamagedlandIILandscapingExcludedvillagesLinearParkInfillingEcologicalimpactMaiordevelopedsitesNatureconservationRevisions/exclusionsSustainableruralitySafeguardedlandWoodlandprotectionWhitelandSubdivisionIXCaravansIIICemeteriesAgriculturaloccupancychangeGypsysitesAgriculturalworkersdwellingsMooringsAgriculturalworkersextracontrolPlotlandsBadappearance=nodevelopmentTemporarybuildingsChangeofland-useFragmentationoffarmlandXGolfcoursesAirportoperationReplacementdwellingServiceareasResidentialbuildingsMotorwaysResidentialcaravansRe-useofexistingbuildingXICommunityfacilitiesIVLowcosthousingAgriculturalprotectionCommercialdevelopmentXIICountrysidemanagementFloodingDevelopmentnexttofarmMineralworkingsFarmdiversificationWastedisposalsitesFarmshopsListedbuildingRe-useunusedruralbuildingsemphasisthateachlocalmunicipalityplacesontheRuralcharacterfunctionofthegreenbelt.RuralfringeStep4:Treatingeachpercentageofpolicy-typeasavariable,SPSSwasemployedtoanalysethedatausing 134M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142aWard-methodclusteranalysis(Romesburg,1990).Alittlebenefitinhavingthegreenbeltexcepttoensureclusteranalysiswasusedbecauseitwasabletoclus-thatdevelopmentdoesnotoccurneartheairport.terthedifferentlocalauthoritiesaccordingtowhethertheiremphasisonthegreenbeltsfunctionsfolloweda4.4.GroupAlocalauthorities(N=8):greenbeltsimilarpattern.underthreat(Figs.3and4)Step5:Theresultofthislocalauthorityclusteringwascomparedwithstatisticsforthedifferentgroups.4.4.1.PoliticalfactorsThesestatisticsweregeneratedusinga1:50,000Thefirstsplitinthedendogram(Fig.3)revealsadis-cadastre(OrdnanceSurvey,2002),amapofthetinctionbetweenthoselocalauthoritiesthatlargelyde-greenbeltboundary(GreatBritainDepartmentofthefendtheLondongreenbeltandthosethatalloworaimEnvironment,1993)andamapofurbanizedareasattocontroldevelopmentthatistakingplace.GroupAascaleof1pixelto110m(MinistryofAgriculture,2000c,pp.910).Thelocationofthedifferentlocalauthoritygroupswasmapped.Thislocationwascom-paredwiththecharacteristicsofthedifferentareas.Statisticsforeachofthegroupswerecalculatedforpopulationchange,%ofurbanland,%landinthedis-trictthatisoutsidethegreenbeltand%ofopenlandthatisoutsidethegreenbelt.Thesedataweretakenfromofficialpublicationsorcalculatedfromtheabovesources.4.3.Results:policiesintheLondongreenbeltSomeoftheoverallfiguresforthenumberofpoli-ciesinthewholegreenbeltareshown(Table4).Over-all,themostimportantpolicygroupinthegreenbeltcanbesaidtobepreservingopenness.Apolicythatfallsintothisclassappearsatleastoncein84%ofthelocalauthoritiesandmakesup20%ofthepoliciesusedoverall(Table4).ThefollowingisanexplanationusingtheliteratureandthedatainTable5,ofthedifferentclustersformedfromtheiremphasisondifferentgroupsofpolicies.Weinterpreteachofthegroupsbyconsideringtwomainfactors.Firstly,Politicalfactorsconsiderthevariousdimensionsofsocial,economic,historicalandculturalaspectsbehindthepolicies.Secondly,Landscapefac-torslookatlanduseintheareaandthechangesinre-centyearswithineachgroup.ToderivetheLandscapefactorsthatinfluencethegreenbeltpoliciesforeachofthegroupsweemployedtheMinistryofAgricultureFisheriesandFoodsEnglandRuralDevelopmentPro-grammereports(MinistryofAgriculture,2000a,b,c).GroupE(N=1,Luton)isanexceptionsinceitsgreenbeltchapteronlycontainsprovisionsforcon-trollingdevelopmentaroundtheairport.ItsfewlocalFig.3.Dendogramfromclusteranalysistodividelocalauthoritiesplanpoliciesrelatedtothegreenbeltshowthatitseesaccordingtotheirpolicytypes. M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142135Table3TypesofpoliciesobservedintheLondongreenbeltGroupPolicycategoryExplanationIPreserveopennessThemainaimofthegreenbeltistopreserveopennessanydevelopmentwhichinfringesthis,e.g.largeagriculturalbuildingsarerarelypermittedIIAllows/controlssomeSomeofthelocalauthoritiesusethegreenbelttodirectdevelopmentintocertainareas.Thisgrowthgroupofpoliciesmakesprovisionsforwhitelandi.e.landthatmaybebuiltonatsomestageinthefutureIIIAnti-speculationDevelopmentforagriculturalorforestryuseisgenerallypermittedinthegreenbelt.Developersseekplanningpermissionbybuildingaresidencewhichisostensiblyforafarmbutthenchangethisdesignationwithcomparativeease.Thesepoliciesaimtopreventthis(Phillips,1996)IVRuralcharacterTheplanslookedatstillviewthegreenbeltashavingaruralpreservationfunction.Thisgroupincludespoliciesthatpreventhigh-gradeagriculturallandfrombeingbuilt-on,controlsthesizeandfunctionoffarmshopsandcontrolstheconversionofruralbuildingsintootherusesVAmenityThisincludesprovisionsforusingopenspaceinnon-agriculturaluses,includingCountryparks,allotments,leisurefacilitiesVILandscapeprotectionThesepoliciesprotectthelandscapebyregulatingequestrianactivitieswhichhaveanegativeeffectonthelandscape(Munton,1983).Also,thegreenbeltisusedtogiveextradevelopmentcontroltoareasofoutstandingnaturalbeautyVIILandscaperestorationSomeofthelocalauthoritiescontainareasintheurbanfringewithadegradedlandscape.Thesepoliciesaimtoencouragetherestorationoflandscapes,e.g.throughtheuseofcommunityforestsVIIINatureconservationThesepoliciesaimtomaintainbiodiversityandruralsustainabilityIXLiminaldevelopmentOftentheurbanfringeisalsoaplacefordevelopmentthatisdifficulttodefine.Caravansandgipsysitesfallintothiscategory,thesepoliciescontrolthepermanenceofsuchsettlementsandtheirlocationXInfrastructureThesepoliciescontroltheinfrastructuredevelopmentssuchasairportsandmotorwaysandtheaddeddevelopmentcontrolthatisneededaroundthemXILocalfacilitiesThesepoliciesencouragelow-costhousinginruralareasandtopromotecommunityfacilitiesXIIUnavoidableurbanCertainactivitiese.g.awastedevelopmentsite,requireanurbanfringelocation.Others,e.g.,fringedevelopmentmineralextractioncannottakeplaceelsewhere.ThepoliciesareintendedtocontrolsuchdevelopmentlocalauthoritiessuchasStevenageandSouthBedford-natedasaPriorityAreaforEconomicRegenerationshiretotheNorthofLondonliealongplannedimprove-bytheRegionalPlanningGuidance.Thurrockliesinmentstocreatearailcorridorofregionalsignificance.thepathoftheplannedThamesGatewayexpansion.ATheselocalauthoritiesarecurrentlyundergoingpublicplannedrailwayimprovementalsocrossesTonbridgeinquiriestohavelandtakenoutofthegreenbelt.ApartandMallingtotheSouthEastofLondon(GovernmentoftheareainSouthBedfordshirehasalsobeendesig-OfficefortheSouthEast,2001,pp.104105).Table4PoliciestypesappearingoverallintheLondongreenbeltGroupIIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXIXIIPercentageofpoliciesmentionedoverall209141389558434Percentagelocalauthoritiescontainingatleastonepolicy847373654939292520141010 136M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142Table5AveragefigurescalculatedforthedifferentgroupsLocalauthoritygroupsTotalpopulationAverage%ofAverage%oflandAverage%%changeurbanlandboutsidetheGBcundevelopedland19812001aoutsidetheGBcA8.5192931B6.0314648C3.835710D6.7351113Totalaverage6332325aBasedonfiguresfromMcGintyandWilliams(2001).bFromamapofurbanareas(MinistryofAgricultureFisheriesandFood,2000).cGB:greenbelt.Froma1:50,000cadastre(OrdnanceSurvey,2002)anda1pixel=110mmap(GreatBritainDepartmentoftheEnvironment,1993).4.4.2.LandscapefactorsditionalprotectionintheNorthbypartoftheChilternsIngeneral,groupAlocalauthorities,areclusteredAreaofOutstandingNaturalBeautyandintheSouthbytotheNorthofLondonandtoitsSouthEast(Fig.4).theKentDownsAreaofOutstandingNaturalBeauty.ThenortherngroupoflocalauthoritiesischaracterisedThepredictedrapidgrowthoftheregionspopulationbyalandscapeoflow-lyingfarmlandandwetpasture.willcontinuetoexacerbatepressureonitsruralchar-Thisgivestheareaamainlyflatappearancedominatedacterthroughinfillingandexpansionofexistingsettle-bylargefieldsofdrainedclays.Thegroupisgivenad-ments.ThequalityofagriculturallandinthegroupisFig.4.Mapshowingdistributionofclassesoflocalauthorities. M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142137onlymoderatecomparedtotherestofEngland,muchthegreenbeltrestrictions.ThecharacteristicpoliciesofitfallswithintheMinistryofAgricultureFisheriesthattheselocalauthoritiesemployareanti-speculationandFooddesignationasGrade3or4(Ministryofpoliciesthatimposeextracontrolsonagriculturalde-Agriculture,2000a).Table5showsthatthepopulationvelopment.Thesepoliciescaneitherbeusedtopreventinthegroupasawholeunderwentsignificantincreasesagriculturaldwellingsbeingdevelopedandlatersoldbetween1981and2001.Thisgroupisalsocompara-asresidences(e.g.Phillips,1996).Alternativelythesetivelyun-urbanisedwithonly19%urbanisation.policiesareusedtopreserveanidealisedruralland-scape.4.5.GroupBlocalauthorities(N=4):greenbeltconsideredaminorissue4.6.2.LandscapefactorsThisgroupisthelargestandcontainsmuchofLon-4.5.1.Politicalfactorsdonsurbanfringe.ThelocaldistrictsinthisgroupareTheplansinthesecasescontaintheminimumofcomposedofalargenumberofaffluentruraldistricts.whatisrequiredbyCentralGovernmentguidanceforThevalueofthelandscapeandtherichnessofbiodiver-policy-makingintheLondongreenbelt,i.e.:preserv-sityitcontainsarederivedprincipallyfromlandscapeingopenness(Fig.3).maintenancebyagriculture.Thesepracticesincludethemaintenanceoflinearfeaturesinthelandscapesuchas4.5.2.LandscapefactorshedgerowsontheuplandareasandditchesinlowlandGroupBlocalauthoritieshave46%oftheirlandareas.Theareacurrentlybenefitsfromadditionalpro-outsidethegreenbelt.ThismeansthattheymayhavetectionbytheChilternsAreaofOutstandingNaturalsparelandfordevelopmentinsidetheurbanarea.ThisBeauty.Nonetheless,itislargelyunderthreatbecausewilltakedevelopmentpressureawayfromthegreenoftheproblemsofnearbyurbanisation,agriculturalandbelt.Alternatively,thesmallareaoflandinthegreenindustrialestaterun-offandotherharmfulpractices.beltmeansthatthelocalauthorityseesthemainpartTheareaisunderparticularthreatfromvillageinfillingofitsplanningeffortsgoineitheramoreruraldirec-andinappropriateconversionofbarnsandruralbuild-tion(e.g.Chelmsford)oramoreurbandirection(e.g.ings.Theareahastobalancethesustainableopportuni-Hounslow).TheLondongreenbeltcanberegardedastiesneededtomaintainaviableruralpopulationwhilstaminorissuefortheseauthoritieswhicharelocatedontakingaccountofthehistoricalvalueofthepresenttheouterandinneredgesofthegreenbelt.landscape.Thelandscapeinthisgroupisdistinguishedbyalargenumberoflinearfeatures,i.e.hedgerows,4.6.GroupClocalauthorities(N=24):demandwallsandditchesinwetlandareas(MinistryofforenhancedlandscapeprotectionAgriculture,2000b).Thoughtheseareasarenotru-ralintermsoftheirremoteness,theyareruralinterms4.6.1.Politicalfactorsoftheiraesthetics,andthegreenbeltisusedtoensureTheauthoritiesinthisgrouptotheWestofLondonthatsuchaestheticsarepreserved.fallwithintheWesternPolicyAreaoftheRegionalPlanningGuidance.Thispolicyareaisdescribedas4.7.GroupDlocalauthorities(N=14):demandbeingasawholeverybuoyant,andcharacterisedbyforlandscapeimprovementpressuresandconstraintswhichcanbemeasured,inparticularwithrespecttothetightnessinthelabour4.7.1.Politicalfactorsmarket,housingandpropertymarketsandtransportTheselocaldistrictscontainalargenumberofpoli-issues...Localauthoritiesinthisareafacethechal-cieswhoseaimistoimprovethelandscapeofthegreenlengeofenablingcontinuedeconomicprosperityinthisbeltactivelyaswellastopreserveit.Inthiscase,areawhilediscouragingnewdevelopmentofatypetheobjectiveistoimprovethelandscapenotsomuchwhichwouldbeunsustainable.(GovernmentOfficethroughpreservation,butmorethroughimprovingac-fortheSouthEast,2001,pp.1617).Thetightnessofcessbyconstructinggreenwaysandnaturetrails.Thethehousingandpropertymarketmeanthatdevelop-underlyingaimofthepoliciesinsuchlocalauthor-ersaremorelikelytoresorttowaysofcircumventingities,istoallowthegreenbelttobeusedbyurban 138M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142citizensinsteadofsimplypreservingthegreenbeltsAswellaslookingatthesuperficialchangesinthebeauty.greenbeltsaim,itisimportanttounderstanditsun-derlyingaestheticaim.Theplannerswhoexpressed4.7.2.LandscapefactorsrevulsiontowardstheurbangrowthatthebeginningThelocaldistrictsintheseareasarethemostur-ofthe20thCentury,sharedthevaluesofalargeland-banised,andcontainalargeamountofurbanfringeowningoraristocraticclass(Matless,1998).Therev-sitesandfragmentedagriculturalland(e.g.Enfield,erenceforthecountrysidethatthisgroupexpressedHillingdon)(Table5).BecauseofitsproximitytoLon-hadgrownoutofthe19thCenturyromanticmove-don,thelocalauthoritiesagriculturehasatraditionofment(MachnaghtenandUrry,1998).Plannerstendedhorticulturalactivity.ThisisespeciallythecaseforthetodistinguishbetweenoldandnewmoneyandbetweenlocalauthoritiestotheNorthofLondon.Theseandgoodlandownersandbadlandowners.ThegoodotherareasnearLondonfaceproblemsfromoveruselandowners,itwasassumed,wouldpreservethelandofpesticides,toploughingofpasturetocompleteaban-outofasenseofloveofthelandandnationalduty.donment.TheopenspacesintheareaarecharacterisedEventually,thesevalues,amongothers,wereincorpo-byabeltofforestedlandscapesinthenorthernurbanratedintothe1947TownandCountryPlanningActfringe.Theseareasareparticularlysusceptibletoland-andthegreenbeltwasoneofthemosteffectivemeansscapeproblems,sinceforestryisanuneconomicactiv-ofgivingthemphysicalexpression.ityintheseareasandthewildlifevalueoftheforestedTherefore,inadditiontotherationalaimofprovid-patchescanbesignificantlyreducedbylackofman-ingmoreopenspaceforLondoners,toanswertheques-agement(MinistryofAgriculture,FisheriesandFood,tionofwhythegreenbeltsfunctionchangesovertime2000c).thefollowingpointshouldalsobenoted.ThegreenOtherlocalauthoritiesinthisgroup,havelargelybeltsfunctionwasusedasawayofensuringitsim-agriculturallandscapesandlieclosertotheoutsideofplementation.Thus,thefunctionchangedaccordingtotheLondongreenbelt.Suchlocalauthoritiesarestillthegroupwhosesupportwasenlistedandaccordingtowithintherangeofthecommuterbelt(e.g.Dacorum,theperiodduringwhichthissupportwassought.SurreyHeathandChelmsford).Toadequatelyunderstandthefunctionofthegreenbeltitisimportanttounderstandthevaluesandmoti-vationsbehindagivenfunction.Uptonow,thevalues5.Discussionhavebeensubsumedandthemotivationsthatliebehindthefunctionshavebeenassumedtoberational.5.1.Whydoesthegreenbeltchangeovertime?5.2.Whydoesthegreenbelt’saimvaryoverThehistoricalsectionofthestudyshowsthatthespace?greenbeltsaimchangedsignificantlyinashortperiodoftime,astheGreaterLondonRegionalPlanningCom-5.2.1.VaryingdevelopmentpressuremitteesearchedforanorganisationthatwaswillingtoTheresultsshowthatthepoliciesvaryconsiderablypurchasetheland.Theaimofthegreenbeltalteredac-inthisapparentlyuniformpolicy.Localauthoritiescordingtotheaimsoftheorganisationthatwasbeinginthebuilt-upurbanfringe,tendtosuffermorefromaskedtofundit.NotableamongtheseistheappealtourbanfringeproblemsandusetheLondongreenbelttheAirandArmyMinistries.AerialbombardmenthadforLandscapeimprovements/damagedland.firstbecomeaconcernduringthe1930s.Ward(1988),pp.37notesthattheRoyalAirForcehadthelargest5.2.2.Localauthoritiesthatusethegreenbelttobudgetofthearmedforcesbytheendoftheinter-waropposethegovernment’splansperiod.HealsoshowsthattherewasawarenessoftheInlocalauthoritiesthatthegovernmenthadallo-vulnerabilityoftheSouthEastUKtoaerialattackascatedtoreceivedevelopmentontheLondongreenbelt,earlyas1935.Thismayhavehadaninfluenceonthink-localauthoritiestendtocontroldevelopmentbyusingingatthetimetostopLondonsgrowthandsoreducethegreenbelttodirectdevelopmentbyusingInfill-itsvulnerability.ingandWhiteland.Suchacontrolcouldbeused M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142139toaccommodatetheextrahousingallocatedbyCen-greenspacewillbeprotected.Increasingly,companiestralGovernmentandrepeatedintheRegionalPlan-demandlocationswithahighqualityenvironmentforningGuidanceforexample.Equallyhowever,thesetheirpremisesandtheiremployees.Itmaybepossiblelocalauthoritiescouldbeusingthegreenbeltdesigna-thatthegreenbeltsfunctionistocommunicateaguar-tiontoresistthegrowththathadbeenallocated.Suchanteethatsuchanenvironmentexistsandwillcontinuecentral/regional-local,conflictsandparadoxesoccurintoexist,insuchdistricts.otherareassuchaslandscapepreservationforexampleInanswertotheabovequestionofwhythegreen(CullingworthandNadin,2002,pp.4650).Consider-beltvariesoverspace,wecanconsiderthatthegreeningthatthequalityofalandscapedoesnotconstitutebeltspoliciesvaryaccordingtothecharacteristicsofareasonfordesignatingaLondongreenbeltitissur-thedistrictwhichplansit.Itcanvaryaccordingtodif-prisingtoseehowmanylocalauthoritiesregardoneofferentdevelopmentpressures,proximitytothecentrethefunctionsofLondongreenbelttobepreservingtheofLondonandproximitytomajortransportcorridorslandscape.andtothecentralgovernmentsplansforLondon.Fur-therresearchcouldconcentrateonidentifyingother5.2.3.Localauthoritiesthatusethegreenbelttofactors.supporttheGovernment’splansInareasthatthegovernmenthasallocatedforspecial5.3.Futuredirectionsfortheplanningoftheprotectionmeasures,e.g.totheWestofLondon,thegreenbeltaroundLondonlocalauthoritieshaveusedthegreenbelttogiveextraprotectionbyusingpoliciessuchasDerelictionnotanThereasonforthegreenbeltsstrengthistheflexibleexcusefordevelopmentandAgriculturaloccupancysystemthatunderpinsit.Thisisaninherentpropertychange.TheaddedboosttodevelopmentcontrolthatoftheUKplanningsystemwhichencouragesacertainthegreenbeltgivesisclearlyseenasaplusinanareavaguenessinthesettingofpolicy.Atthesametimeofhighdevelopmentpressure.thegreenbeltremainsaverysimpleplanningpolicyThestudyfocusedonRegionalPlanningGuidancethroughitsphysicalrequirementthatopenness,shouldasafactorindeterminingthepoliciesinthegreenbeltbepreserved.TheUKplanningsystemsflexibilityal-atthelocallevel.Aswellasthisfactor,thereareclearlylowsthegreenbeltssimplebutvagueaimtobeinter-otherfactorsatworkininfluencingthecontentofalo-pretedindifferentways,allowingthegreenbelttobecalplan.Oneofthesefactorsistheeffectoflocalhis-usedfordifferentpurposesinawidevarietyofdifferenttoryonthedevelopmentplansalthoughitisdifficulttolocalcouncils.generaliseabouttheeffectoflocalhistory.However,Inaddition,thegreenbeltsvagueintenthasper-thegreenbeltpoliciescommunicativefunctioncouldmittedittobeunderstoodbyabroadsectionofgroupsformthesubjectofafuturestudy.Healey(1993)hasandinparticularbysectionsofthegovernmentthatarearguedthatdevelopmentplanshaveshiftedfromdirec-un-relatedtoplanningbut,nonetheless,exertaconsid-tive,moderniststatements,tointeractivestatements,erableinfluenceoverdecisions(e.g.thejudiciary,seeliabletobehighlyinfluencedbytheirexternalenvi-Booth,2003,p.189).Thisflexibilityinevitablyleadstoronment.Thecontentofthelocalplansmay,therefore,conflicts.Incertaincases,thelocalauthoritiesfunctionbeareflectionoftheinfluenceofthedifferentgroupsforthegreenbeltconcurwiththecentralgovernmentsonthepoliciesandthelocalauthoritieswillingnessplans.Inothercases,thelocalauthoritiessetafunctiontocommunicatewithsuchgroups.Thiscanbeseeninwhichmayenableittoopposecentralgovernmentsthecaseofthelocalauthoritieswithpoliciestopre-plans,inthiscasethegreenbeltwasbeingusedtore-ventspeculation(i.e.groupC).Thisisclearmessagesisttheprovisionofhousingbycentralgovernment.tothedevelopersandsmalllandownersandfulfilstheThisflexibilityandthepoweritgivestolocalplannersplanscommunicativefunction.Inaddition,theempha-canbeseenasanimpedimenttoeffectivegreenbeltsisonanagriculturalfunctionforthegreenbeltisawayreform.ofcommunicatingtheruralcharacteristicsofthedis-Theresultsalsoshowthatsomelocalauthoritiesusetricttoavarietyofgroups.Suchcommunicationmaythegreenbeltforlandscapedesignations.Theland-notonlybeusedforassuagingfearsthattheresidentsscapefunctionofgreenspacenearthecitycouldbe 140M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142givenamoreprominentpositioninofficialgovernmenthowthegreenbeltwasestablishedduringtheinter-policy.Thegreenbeltsreformrepresentsanopportu-warperiod.Wearguethatgreenbeltreformwillin-nityforimplementinganecologicalnetworkaroundvolvesearchingbeyondthefunctionsofthegreenbeltLondon.Inotherwords,greenbeltreformersshouldtotheunderlyingmotivationsandvaluesthatsupportstartbyconsideringwhetheranewsetofvaluesexistthegreenbelt.Therefore,itispossiblethatanewcon-thatcouldsupportanentirelynewgreenspaceplan-cept,basedonothervalues,mightbeneededaspartningconcept.Alreadyalargenumberofgreenspaceofthegreenbeltsreform.SuchvaluescouldincludeplanningconceptsexistthatcouldservetheinterestsofthoseofaccesstonatureandrecreationthatunderpinLondonsresidents(e.g.Ndubisi,1997;Fabos,2004´).landscapeplanning.TheimplementationofsuchaconceptwillinvolveAtthelocallevel,thepoliciesassociatedwiththeareappraisalofthegreenbeltslandscapeecologicalgreenbeltappeartovaryaccordingtothedifferentchar-strengths.Thoughtheoriginalfunctionofthegreenacteristicsofthelocaldistrict.Groupsthatlieinthebeltwastoseparatetheruralfromtheurbanareas,inpathofprojectedhousingallocationswereshowntothefutureintegratingtheurbanandruralareascouldallowsomedevelopmentthroughtheuseofpoliciesonbecomeanewfunction.whiteland,excludingvillagesfromtheLondongreenClearlyinsomeareasthegreenbeltperformsause-beltandallowinginfilling.Heavilyurbanizedlocalau-fulfunctionbyprovidingabackgroundlevelofpro-thoritiesintheurbanfringeweremorelikelytousetectionoverwhichotherlandscapeorienteddevelop-policiesinthegreenbelttorestoreandprotecttheland-mentcontrolscanbeoverlain.Ifareformofthegreenscape.Localauthoritiesinbetweenthesetwo,tendedtobeltistotakeplace,itisclearthatinsomeareasthisusepolicy-makingtogainextracontrolsinpreventingbackgroundlevelofprotectionwouldbeuseful,thoughspeculation.Thoughthelocalcouncilsappeartofol-whetherithastooccupyabeltaroundLondonremainslowthecentralgovernment,atamoredetailedlevel,asquestionablein2004asitdidin1934whentheTrea-conflictsandparadoxescanoccur.surynotedthatanimportantobjectiveofconservingInfuture,itisimportantthataccountshouldbetakenlandistoprovideaccessforaslargeanumberofpeo-oftheflexibilityofthegreenbeltpolicyandthepoten-pleaspossible.tialobstaclethatthispresentstogreenbeltreform.AtOnamorepracticalleveltheresultsalsoshowthatthesametime,asimilarstrategyshouldbeusedwhenanyalternativetothegreenbelt(e.g.greenwedgesorattemptingtoimplementanalternativetothegreenbelt.greencorridors)willhavetobeimplementedinasimi-larlyflexiblewayifitistohaveauniversalapplicationoveranareaaslargeastheSouthEast.AtthesameReferencestime,itisimportanttobuildandclarifythisfunctionthroughaniterativeprocessofpartnershipandconsen-Abercrombie,P.,1945.GreaterPlan1944.HerMajestysStationerysus,inthesamewaythehistoricalworkshowshowOffice,London.thegreenbeltsfunctionswereadaptedtospeaktoaBarker,K.,2004.ReviewofHousingSupply.HerMajestysSta-tioneryOffice,London,http://www.barkerreview.org.uk/.varietyofgroups.SuchavaryingfunctionwillbuildBibby,P.,Shepherd,J.,1997.ProjectingratesofurbanisationinEng-supportforthenewpolicyfromamongavarietyofland19912016.TownPlanningRev.68,93124.groups.Thevaryingfunctionwillalsobuildavocabu-Booth,P.,2003.PlanningbyConsent:theOriginsandNatureoflaryoffunctionsthatcaneventuallybeadaptedbylocalBritishDevelopmentControl.Routledge,London.authorities.SuchafindingaddstoTurners(1995)con-Bovill,P.,2002.Looseningthegreenbelt.Planning,1920.Cherry,G.E.,1974.TheevolutionofBritishtownplanning.LeonardclusionthatanewgreenspaceconceptforLondonhasHill,LeightonBuzzard.tobecorrectlymarketed.Cherry,G.E.,Rogers,A.,1996.RuralChangeandPlanning.E&FNSpon,London.Cullingworth,B.,Nadin,V.,2002.TownandCountryPlanningin6.ConclusionstheUK,13thed.Routledge,London.Curtis,C.,1996.Canstrategicplanningcontributetoareductionincar-basedtravel.Transp.Policy3,5565.ThisstudyaimedtoinvestigatethefunctionoftheDavidson,J.,Wibberley,G.,1977.PlanningandtheRuralEnviron-greenbeltandwhyitvaries.Theresultsfirstdescribement.PergamonPress,Oxford. M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142141Elson,M.,1986.GreenBelts:ConflictMediationintheUrbanMinistryofAgriculture,FisheriesandFood,2000b.EnglandRuralFringe.Heinemann,London.DevelopmentProgramme20002006,Appendix7,SouthEastElson,M.,1993.TheEffectivenessofGreenBelts.HMSO,London.ofEnglandRegion.HerMajestysStationeryOffice,London.Elson,M.,2002.Modernisingthegreenbeltsomerecentcontri-MinistryofAgriculture,FisheriesandFood,2000c.EnglandRu-butions.TownCountryPlanning,266267.ralDevelopmentProgramme20002006,Appendix8,LondonFabos,J.G.,2004.GreenwayplanningintheUnitedStates:itsorigins´Region.HerMajestysStationeryOffice,London.andrecentcasestudies.LandscapeUrbanPlanning68,321MinistryofHousingandLocalGovernment,1955.GreenBeltsCir-342.cular,42/55.HerMajestysStationeryOffice,London.Frey,H.W.,2000.Notgreenbeltsbutgreenwedges:theprecariousMunton,R.,1983.LondonsGreenBelt:ContainmentinPractice.relationshipbetweencityandcountry.UrbanDes.Int.5,13Allen&Unwin,London.25.Ndubisi,F.,1997.Landscapeecologicalplanning.In:Thompson,Gault,I.,1981.GreenBeltPoliciesinDevelopmentPlans,WorkingG.F.,Steiner,F.R.(Eds.),EcologicalDesignandPlanning.JohnPaper41.OxfordPolytechnicDepartmentofTownPlanning,WileyandSons,NewYork,pp.945.Oxford.OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,1996.PlanningPolicyGuidanceGovernmentOfficefortheSouthEast,2001.RegionalPlanningNotes12:DevelopmentPlans.HerMajestysStationeryOffice,GuidancefortheSouthEast9.HerMajestysStationeryOffice,London,http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/.London.OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,2000.PlanningPol-GreatBritainDepartmentoftheEnvironment,1993.MapicyGuidanceNotes,12:DevelopmentPlans,AppendixapprovedgreenbeltsbasedonstructureplansandlocalI.HerMajestysStationeryOffice,London,http://www.plans.HerMajestysStationeryOffice,London,http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/ppg12/7.planning.odpm.gov.uk/.OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,2001.StrategicGapandGreenGreatBritainDepartmentoftheEnvironment,1995.PlanningPolicyWedgePoliciesinStructurePlans:MainReport.HerMajestysGuidanceNotes2:GreenBelts.HerMajestysStationeryOffice,StationeryOffice,London,http://www.odpm.gov.uk/.London,http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/.OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,2003.LocalPlanningAuthorityHall,P.G.,Gracey,H.,Clarke,R.T.,Drewett,R.,1973.TheContain-GreenBeltStatistics,http://www.odpm.gov.uk/.mentofUrbanEngland.AllenandUnwin,London.OrdnanceSurvey,2002.OrdnanceSurveyLandrangerSeries,Harrison,M.,1914.HousingandtownplanninginManchesterbe-1:50000.OrdnanceSurvey,London.fore.In:Sutcliffe,A.(Ed.),BritishTownPlanning:theFor-Phillips,D.,1996.Farmershavenothingtofearfromextracontrols.mativeYears.LeicesterUniversityPress,Leicester,pp.106Planning,11561157,February.145.Romesburg,H.C.,1990.ClusterAnalysisforResearchers.R.E.Healey,P.,1993.ThecommunicativeworkofdevelopmentKrieger,Florida.plansenvironmentandplanningB.PlanningDes.20,83RoyalTownPlanningInstitute(RTPI),2002.Modernisinggreen104.beltsadiscussionpaper.2002,http://www.rtpi.org.uk/.King,A.D.,1984.TheBungalow:theProductionofaGlobalCulture.Sheail,J.,1981.RuralConservationinInter-WarBritain.ClarendonRoutledge&KeganPaul,London,pp.156192.Press,Oxford.Lock,D.,2000.Liftingtheblanket.TownCountryPlanning,79TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocal80.Government4/3129.Pepler,G.ReportoftheConferenceoftheLongley,P.,Batty,M.,Shepherd,J.,Sadler,G.,1992.DogreenbeltsLocalAuthorities,11.10.1923.changetheshapeofurbanareas?ApreliminaryanalysisoftheTheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLo-settlementgeographyofSouthEastEngland.RegionalStudiescalGovernment4/3239a.Pepler,G.Informationdistributedto26,437452.participantsofGreaterLondonRegionalPlanningCommittee,Lowe,E.,1939.Open-AirLondon.AnIllustratedGuidetoSome03.1926.480OpenSpacesinandAroundLondonIncludingtheGreenTheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalBelt.LondonCountyCouncil,London,pp.viiviii.Government4/3239b.Unwin,R.GreaterLondonRegionalPlan-Machnaghten,P.,Urry,J.,1998.ContestedNatures.Sage,London,ningCommitteeRecommendations,30.07.1929.pp.172211.TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalMandelker,D.R.,1962.GreenBeltsandUrbanGrowth.WisconsinGovernment4/3239c.LondonCountyCouncil,1926.MinutesUniversityPress,London.ofconferencebetweenLondonCountyCouncilandtheMinistryMarsden,T.,Murdoch,J.,Lowe,P.,Munton,R.,Flynn,A.,1993.ofHealth,N.Chamberlain,21.10.1926.ConstructingtheCountryside.Routledge,London.TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalMatless,D.,1998.LandscapeandEnglishness.ReaktionBooks,Government4/3239d.GreaterLondonRegionalPlanningCom-London.mittee.MinutesoftheDeputationtotheTreasuryinProvidingMcGinty,J.,Williams,T.,2001.RegionalTrends,36.HerMajestysforGreenBelt,30.01.1934.StationeryOffice,London.TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLo-MinistryofAgriculture,FisheriesandFood,2000a.EnglandRu-calGovernment4/3239e.MinutesofaConferenceBetweenralDevelopmentProgramme20002006,Appendix6,EastofGreaterLondonRegionalPlanningCommitteeandAirMinistry,EnglandRegion.HerMajestysStationeryOffice,London.06.03.1934. 142M.Amati,M.Yokohari/LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75(2006)125–142TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalTheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalGovernment4/3241.Unwin,R.PreliminaryIssuesPriortotheGovernment79/1074a.Culpin.LetterfromCulpintoPepler,FirstMeetingoftheGreaterLondonRegionalPlanningCom-13.12.1935.mittee,20.09.1927.TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalTheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalGovernment79/1074b.Ross,W.A.ConversationbetweenSirP.Government4/3353.AdamsandThompson.ReportforMid-HenriquesandW.A.Ross,10.12.1935.SurreyJointTownPlanningCommittee,14.10.1926.Thomas,D.,1970.LondonsGreenBelt.FaberandFaber,London.TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalTownandCountryPlanningAssociation,2002.TownandCoun-Government4/3764.ThamesValley.RegionalConferenceLettertryPlanningAssociationPolicyStatement:GreenBelts.2002,fromMinistertoParticipants,12.6.1922.http://www.tcpa.org.uk/.TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalTurner,T.,1995.Greenways,blueways,skywaysandotherwaystoGovernment52/1217a.Gater,G.H.StatementfromSecretaryofabetterLondon.LandscapeUrbanPlanning33,269282.theConferenceofGreaterLondonCouncilsandCountiestotheWard,S.V.,1988.TheGeographyofInterwarBritain:theStateandExchequer,15.01.1934.UnevenDevelopment.Routledge,London.TheNationalArchives:PublicRecordsOfficeHousingandLocalWebb,A.(Ed.),1921.LondonoftheFuture.LondonSociety,Lon-Government52/1217b.Hardy-Sims,R.DeputationtotheMin-don.ister,01.02.1934.Wyatt,N.,1998.Thetimeisnightoloosenthebelt.Planning,1213.