Photo: Ruscombe by Mike Gallagher |
When the infrastructure is better able to support it.
Greenfield development where there are good local transport hubs, and good
local resources already in place may make more sense than adding pressure to
places where the road networks cannot take any more cars, where there are no
schools, and no medical services, for example.
When the greenfield site is not much of a habitat. Arable
farmland may look green, but may also be quite barren in terms of resident
wildlife. Conversely, not all brownfield sites are devoid of wildlife.
Locations reclaimed by nature can be rich with wildlife. We have a lot of sites
in Stroud that are technically brownfield, because they have the ruins of mills
on them. Some of those have become valuable habitats for otters and
kingfishers. Old buildings are also potential roosting sites for bats, owls and
other endangered creatures. Our old railway lines have re-wooded and, are
valuable habitats and leisure spaces.
We might also want to think about the visual impact of
development, about who is going to be affected by it, which views will change,
and how it will impact on communities. In rural settings, we need to think
about whether additional build could help to keep local schools open and other
local resources viable and in place.
The government is championing new build as the solution to
our country’s financial difficulties. The Green Party does not believe that
covering the countryside in tarmac and brick represents a good solution. We
have to balance quality of life against financial gains. We have to think about
what is needed. While we aren’t keen on development for the sake of development,
we are dedicated to doing our best to make sure that we get the right things in
the right places for the right reasons. That means looking at the evidence on
the ground rather than letting wild speculation and unfounded imagination guide
the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment