This year, Sir William Proby, Chairman of the National Trust set out the main themes and objectives for the Trust over the coming year. These included a very strong message on the need to protect the countryside green belt and open spaces from the threat of development.
The Chairman would like to hear your comments on these issues. Your views are important to us, and the Chairman will receive them all. They will be used to provide a valuable insight into what you think, which will help us shape future policy.
The announcement has raised a lot of questions. We have tried to address these.
To watch the webcast of the AGM, or to read a transcript of the webchat with the Chairman from the day, visit our AGM webcast page.
Tell us what you think
Thank you for all your comments and emails that we have received, your thoughts and opinions mean a lot to us. We have now closed this email feedback and will no longer be responding to any emails sent to the address until the next AGM.
In the press
The Chairman's speech has certainly caught the nation's interest, and stories have appeared in many of the National Papers. Here are just a few of the articles that have been published:
Feedback so far includes...
'Very impressed.
Have always considered joining and having heard your policy have done so as you deserve support
Go for it and wish you every success.'
Ian & Jill
________________________________________________
'I strongly feel there ought to be rules which encourage or possibly force organisations to develop the millions of empty properties in our towns and cities.'
S J Burges
________________________________________________
'I am so pleased that you are focussing on this issue and absolutely the right people to do it as nobody in politics seems to be in touch with the people any more.
I would support buying up the green belt as an urgent, vital way of keeping what is British British. We are a small island and we do not have the ratios of population that other countries in Europe have. I am sure that you would be really surprised by the large number of people who would donate to this cause if the land was owned by the National Trust and kept as rural land or a portion of it turned into parks. Then that would be the end to the shaving off of our resources. Maybe it would be as easy as just selling more memberships with a premium - I'm pretty sure the ad agencies would assist you in this for free.'
Jo Henneberg
________________________________________________
I write as a Member of over 40 years standing and as a practitioner of town planning for 10 years more. I am appalled by the suggestion that the Trust should engage itself in buying up land on the periphery of our towns and cities for the express purpose of preventing greenfield development and thereby frustrating needed development. Of course the profligate use of land resources must be discouraged, and of course particularly historic and beautiful landscapes should be preserved, but this is not to say that no areas of countryside should ever be developed.
Particularly important at the present time is the need to plan for a population that is not only growing in terms of numbers but is also forming itself in smaller households, with the result that the demand for homes is proportionately greater than the increase in population numbers itself.
The results of our failure in the past to plan for sufficient homes is not only spiralling house prices (which have, as we know, a cyclical element) but also the increasing inability of ordinary people, particularly young people, to be able to buy their own homes. If you are any doubt about this matter whatsoever, I suggest you acquire and read the recent report of the Government's National Housing Planning Advisory Unit.
It is therefore vital that land should be made available for housing not only by the recycling of urban land but also by the timely provision of appropriate areas of greenfield land.
May I respectfully remind you that the National Trust is not an arm of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England but has the statutory aim of: 'promoting the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands and tenements (including buildings) of beauty or historic interest and as regards lands for the preservation (so far as practicable) of their natural aspect features and animal and plant life' (my emphasis).
As I see it, it takes a very liberal interpretation of the Trust's statutory objective to include the purchase of land generally just to 'preserve the countryside greenbelt and open spaces from the threat of development' (your words as reported). What you propose is arguably ultra vires and undoubtedly a distortion of the Trust's worthy and historic aims which I have supported for many decades.'
Stephen Crow
________________________________________________
'Thank goodness someone has articulated what so many of us are feeling. We must, must preserve what is left of our green and pleasant land from the acres of tarmac and sprawling suburbia. Governments are too obsessed with targets and short term targets. I don’t trust any of them to be adequate stewards of our countryside. Who says we need all this extra building – do we really? If we put a block on most immigration and encouraged stable family life (fewer lone parent families etc), stopped listening to well paid lobbyists in he housing industry, we would go a long way to reducing the demands on our housing stock. Yes, it probably really is that simple! And politicians wonder why so many ordinary folk have lost trust in them ….. The reduction of public consultation for major building projects and the emergence of unelected regional planning quangos are testament to that.
The more land the NT protects, the better for us all, above it needs to keep its independence from government. It says it all that its membership is one that our out of touch political parties can only dream about. Good luck and thank you for speaking up for the true ‘voice of the nation’.'
Simon Lemieux
________________________________________________
'I could not agree more strongly with Sir William’s courageous stand on the Green Belt and other green areas currently targeted by developers. This beautiful land is as much a part of our heritage as any other of the NT’s property and deserves the same protection; once sold by greedy politicians and built upon, it will be lost forever.
This is definitely a strategy that works: I live near to Bath, where the Trust bought land to protect the city’s wonderful skyline some years ago. I have no doubt it would have otherwise been built upon.
I would be proud to see my subscription used for such a forward-thinking project.'
Dr Rowan Hardy
________________________________________________
'I recently became a member and I cannot tell you how pleased I am that the NT is taking a stand on Green Belt preservation, I think it would be a great idea if you started a separate voluntary fund for members to contribute to, to continue to buy up land for protection against development. This country needs radical steps like this to protect the countryside for future generations. I live in Epsom in Surrey we have seen unprecendented development on Green Belt land. Quite why we need to continue to build and develop I do not understand, all of this is fuelled more by profit than by need. Personally I would take it further, I would advocate the purchasing of brown field sites in urban and suburban areas, with a view to reverting these back to community greenspace.
You have my whole hearted support for this initiative.'
Nick Dean
________________________________________________
'I was absolutely delighted to read the chairman’s comments about our green spaces and the need to protect them from further development.
At last someone is speaking up for the silent majority who do not want to see our green and pleasant land destroyed. It is NOT “nimbyism” –it is a desire to preserve and protect for future generations.
After many years of absence I am now renewing my membership in the light of this speech.
Thank You.'
E.S.
________________________________________________
'I am glad that the National Trust is intending to focus on rural land.
Of course existing towns and brownfield sites should be used first for new developments where possible.
The Government's plans to build many small houses for the growing number of small households is mistaken. High quality, smart, low-level apartment blocks, perhaps with balconies, surrounded by green open spaces are preferable. Such dwellings can offer larger living areas than small houses. Some households do not necessarily need or want houses with gardens, although of course anyone has the option to purchase these from the existing housing stock. Gardens are often neglected. Far better to have more open countryside.
Additionally, where new housing and commercial building on rural land is inevitable, hills and high ground are better left as woodland and open green spaces, since hills and cliffs form our main views. I have noticed that local planning authorities do not necessarily consider this factor when designating new rural sites for development.'
Richard, London
________________________________________________
Back to top
|
