logo
‘There is not enough room': The village at the forefront of Starmer's green-belt revolution

‘There is not enough room': The village at the forefront of Starmer's green-belt revolution

Yahoo31-03-2025

Ignore the cars haring down the A30 and Grove End is practically picturesque: almost 12 acres of (mostly) green fields, framed by trees and two cottages perched atop the slope, a stone's throw from the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh's royal residence at Bagshot Park. The area, sandwiched between the villages of Bagshot and Windlesham, Surrey, has been protected from development for the best part of a century thanks to its green-belt status. But after the Government's reclassification of 'low-quality' green-belt areas to 'grey belt' – which can now be built upon – Bagshot has found itself on the front line of Sir Keir Starmer's housing strategy. This is, some locals fear, 'the thin end of the wedge'; a plan that could not only shatter the identities of England's historical villages, but become a green light to turn ancient woodlands and nature reserves into tower blocks.
Strategy overhauls and policy rewrites mean that last year's rejected planning application for 135 homes in Grove End has, as of this month, been overturned. This about-turn is 'daft', according to Gill Bensman, whose family has lived in Bagshot since the 1700s. 'It's just ridiculous; there is not enough room,' the 55-year-old tells me from the Half Moon, a pub a mile down the road from the development site. With schools, roads and doctors' surgeries full, 'the infrastructure just really just can't handle it,' she says of pressures that are leading to 'horrendous' pollution and eroding the pleasures of local life. 'It's not a village anymore.'
Ahead of last Wednesday's Spring Statement, Rachel Reeves outlined a £2 billion pledge to build 18,000 more affordable homes in England, which the chancellor said would go some way to 'fixing the housing crisis'. It builds on promises made by Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, who last year called the dearth of housebuilding under the Conservative government a sign of its 'scandalous legacy… We simply do not have enough homes.' Labour has committed to building 1.5 million properties by the end of its election term in 2029; the equivalent of 300,000 per year, a figure not reached since the 1970s.
A big swath of those homes, Labour insists, will come from building on the grey belt – much of which 'isn't green rolling hills but poor-quality scrub-land', Rayner said. According to their 'golden rules' of housing development, 'councils should build on brownfield land [which has been built on previously, and is now either abandoned or under-used] first, and any grey-belt development should prioritise previously developed land – like disused car parks,' according to a spokesman from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 'Our reforms will protect our natural landscapes and deliver the homes and infrastructure we need, so we can restore the dream of home ownership to families across the country.'
The green belt is thought to account for 12.6 per cent of land in England, less than 1 per cent of which could be considered grey belt, according to analysis from Knight Frank. But many remain frustrated that glib wording outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in December is rife for misinterpretation, with irreversible results. In February, Lord Moylan, the peer leading an inquiry into the Government's planning reforms, said that this would result in 'speculative applications to test the boundaries of the definition', with formerly protected areas left to pay the price.
Grove End has never been developed, for instance, and appears to defy a core objective of the green belt – to maintain separate towns, and stop them merging into one another via urban sprawl. 'The way it's worded is really strange,' Richard Wilson, a councillor for the Bagshot ward who sat on the planning committee, says of the NPPF. During the appeal a fortnight ago, 'the barrister for the developer argued that they're literally not towns' – Bagshot and Windlesham are villages – so the existing rules did not apply. Semantics, he explains over the roar of the A30, is 'why we've lost' – plus the cash required by councils to fight developers. 'So much money is involved in this' – Wilson says that hiring a consultant cost the council £8,000, which 'has obviously gone down the drain… It's an arms race that the council can't participate in,' according to the 53-year-old. 'It's a losing battle we're fighting now.'
A spokesman for Somerston Development Projects, Grove End's developers, said that the site 'will bring forward much-needed affordable housing to the area – providing local homes for local people', as well as improving access to Windlesham golf course. Half the homes on the plot will be affordable, according to plans submitted to Surrey Heath council, meeting the minimum requirement outlined in the Government's golden rules for grey-belt development.
Some locals are more positive about the plans. Shirley Day, who has run Bagshot's gift shop for the past 27 years, says: 'It won't affect me, except it could bring in customers.' Day, 80, agrees that there need to be more affordable homes in the area, but has found a growing disconnect between new arrivals and local life. The same has been true of the local Waitrose, opened in 2015 (in a ribbon-cutting ceremony helmed by Michael Gove); and the influx of buyers who poured into the area during Covid. Newer residents tend not to mosey through local spots in the village, she says, instead using the opportunity to live somewhere greener than they did before, commute to work, and engage in little else in the locale. Much as she hopes Grove End will prove useful for business, 'I don't think it will [encourage people into Bagshot],' she mulls. 'No, not at all… It will be good for them [to live in the area], but I can't see it's going to be any different for the village – except the traffic.'
Allan Howland, who runs an estate agent in Bagshot village with his three sons, agrees too that 'we need more housing. But the builders just cram properties in, and it just makes it a very unpleasant place to live.' The area can cope with more development, Howland, 65, says, but Grove End – a comparatively small space hamstrung by its proximity to the Duke and Duchess's residence, protected nesting bird zones and being ringed by the A30 and A322 – makes it a curious choice.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the average house price in Surrey Heath was £443,000 in 2024 (compared with £282,000 in the UK), up 4.7 per cent from the year prior. Nearly a third of UK 25- to 29-year-olds still live with their parents, compared with 20 per cent in the year 2006-07 – and, with building sluggish, skilled workers dwindling, mortgage rates substantially higher than they were during the pandemic and the fall in stamp duty thresholds slashing ownership prospects for many first-time buyers, serious concerns remain about encouraging people on to the housing ladder.
Existing empty homes could be part of the solution. There are more than 600,000 dwellings in England currently vacant, and more than 200,000 second homes in part-time use. 'The planning system is already making great efforts to bring long-term vacant homes back into use, and to enable the redevelopment of brownfield sites. But there simply aren't enough of either to meet the need for new homes,' says Paul Smith, the director of the the Strategic Land Group, a company that helps secure planning permission for landowners. 'Increasing the size of our housing stock to the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] average would need another three million homes to be built' – making the Government's 1.5 million target 'a drop in the ocean compared to that level of need. Delivering an adequate number of new homes will need our towns and cities to grow both upwards and outwards, and grey-belt policy is one of the tools that will help manage that.'
Research in 2019 showed that green-belt policies reduced housing construction in green belts by around 80 per cent, leading to a 4 per cent increase in house prices, and 'a negative welfare cost of about £7.5 billion a year'. While many residents in their vicinity worry that turning green belts grey will hamper the natural environment, Smith points out that other government designations, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Landscapes (formerly Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), are already in situ to protect them.
Within former green-belt areas, however, the reclassification remains hard for some to swallow. 'Why do we need all these houses? Why can't they go up north, where there's more green land?... We don't want any more buildings,' Bensman rails, adding that policies have been rushed in by a Government with little understanding of the places they plan to transform radically. 'The Government can reduce their pay packet, come and live in the area and actually commute up the A30 every day, and just open their eyes.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SIMS: CBC set to get more money and power
SIMS: CBC set to get more money and power

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

SIMS: CBC set to get more money and power

Canada's government news organization is set to get fatter and more powerful. In the middle of the election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed to pay the CBC more money, waving around about $150 million in fresh taxpayer cash. CBC covered that big scoop with a headline calling the CBC 'underfunded.' Think about that scene. Imagine being a CBC employee asking questions at a news conference during the election, with Carney saying that, if he won, the CBC would get more money, while Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he would defund the CBC. The CBC covered this funding story in the middle of the election. That's a conflict of interest so big it would dwarf Godzilla. Journalists should not be paid by the government and that scene in the election is a perfect illustration of why. In the speech from the throne, the Carney government announced: 'The government is determined to protect the institutions that bring these cultures and this identity to the world, like CBC/Radio-Canada.' To get an idea of what that protection could look like, consider the federal government report delivered on Feb. 20, before the election. Former heritage minister Pascale St-Onge said the government should nearly double the amount of money the CBC gets from taxpayers every year. 'The average funding for public broadcasters in G7 countries is $62 per person, per year,' St-Onge said. 'We need to aim closer to the middle ground, which is $62 per year per person.' If the government funded the CBC that way, the CBC would cost taxpayers about $2.5 billion per year. That amount would cover the annual grocery bill for about 152,854 Canadian families. St-Onge also pushed for the CBC mandate to be expanded to 'fight against disinformation.' 'I propose to anchor in CBC-Radio Canada's mandate its role in helping the Canadian population fight against disinformation and understand fact-based information,' St-Onge said. Carney's Liberal party platform pledged to 'fully equip them ( CBC) to combat disinformation, so that Canadians have a news source they know they can trust.' What does this mean? Will the CBC play a role as an official 'fact-checker' in Canada, or is this just clunky language urging the CBC to be more fact-based? What is clear is that the federal government is planning to hand the CBC more money and enshrine its funding into law, taking it out of the annual budget vote and clouding transparency. CBC hasn't improved its accountability after years of scrutiny from Canadians. Former CEO Catherine Tait was being paid about half a million dollars per year. New CEO Marie‑Philippe Bouchard has started her new role where Tait left off, as she is also set to be paid between $478,300 and $562,700. After years of criticism over executive bonuses, the government media company finally said it would get rid of the bonuses but hike the salaries of the executives instead. With so many Canadians struggling to pay for the basics, the CBC needed to read the room and end the bonuses and knock the CEO down a few levels in pay. Taxpayers are forced to spend a lot of money on the CBC, but only a tiny fraction of them choose to watch it. For CBC News Network's flagship English language prime-time news program, the audience is 1.8% of available viewers, according to its latest quarterly report. That means more than 98% of TV-viewing Canadians chose to watch something else. The CBC is a waste of taxpayers' money. Nearly nobody is watching it and it is a severe conflict of interest for journalists to be paid by the government. The CBC doesn't need more money from taxpayers; it needs to be defunded and raise money based on its work.

Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?
Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?

Yahoo

time41 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?

Is Sir Keir Starmer KC – Left-wing human rights lawyer, former director of public prosecutions, and Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – a dangerous Right-wing extremist? Common sense, evidence and reality say emphatically not. Government materials issued as part of Prevent training programmes give a less clear answer. The Prime Minister's warning that uncontrolled migration risks turning Britain into an 'island of strangers' would appear to risk falling foul of the definitions used in a Prevent course taken by thousands of public sector professionals with a duty to make referrals to the scheme. This defines 'cultural nationalism' as a type of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideology, including the belief that 'Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups'. Sir Keir is no more an extremist than any other writer who has expressed concern over the unprecedented scale and pace of migration and cultural change in recent years. Why, then, has the Government risked labelling him as such? The short answer is that, riddled with political anxieties over the composition of terrorism in Britain – 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Police network's live investigations involved Islamism in 2023, compared with 10 per cent for the extreme Right – Prevent has given the appearance of loosening the definition of the latter in order to provide an artificial 'balance' to its work. As the Shawcross Review found in 2023, the programme has adopted a 'double standard' when dealing with Islamists and the extreme Right. The results have been farcical, with an 'expansive' definition of Right-wing extremism capturing 'mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, Right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation' even while Prevent funded organisations whose leaders have publicly made statements 'sympathetic to the Taliban' and referred to militant Islamists as 'so-called 'terrorists' of the legitimate resistance groups'. Such absurdities might be overlooked if Prevent had also proved ruthlessly effective at preventing atrocities. It has not. Prevent has failed to identify dangerous and violent suspects on multiple occasions, including Southport killer Axel Rudakubana, who was referred and dismissed on three occasions before carrying out his attack. A deradicalisation programme that seems to show less interest in deradicalising potential terrorists than in policing Right-wing thought is unfit for purpose. It beggars belief that two years after the Shawcross Review we are once again having the same conversations. Prevent must be reformed – or if incapable of change, dismantled entirely. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

What Washington can learn from a legendary London meltdown
What Washington can learn from a legendary London meltdown

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

What Washington can learn from a legendary London meltdown

In a city where allegiance and proximity to power is everything, the leader's closest adviser portrayed himself as an outsider. He began the year by hiring a bunch of 'weirdos and misfits' and ordering them to rip up the entire 'rotten' system of government. The adviser loved to put noses out of joint and 'own the libs,' while building up his profile in the media as the real power behind the throne. Then, having realized that his easily-distracted and impulsive politician boss wasn't actually committed to building a tech-heavy, libertarian future, the disillusioned adviser quit — dedicating himself to publicly destroying his former employer. If you're British, watching the collapse of Donald Trump and Elon Musk's uncomfortable marriage has echoes of the end of the relationship between Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Chief Adviser Dominic Cummings in 2020. How that psychodrama played out in the UK could have lessons for the US — not least because Cummings eventually succeeded in undermining Johnson's political career, ultimately defenestrating the prime minister through relentless briefings and leaks. When someone who was inside the room and was perceived to be central to a political project says it's all a sham, the damage can be significant. For those who don't know, Cummings was the chief strategist of the successful Brexit campaign in 2016 but then largely disappeared from view when it came to actually defining what Brexit should look like. Unlike Musk, Cummings was a lifelong political operative, albeit one who cultivated a reputation for actually reading books. Three years later, with his political standing inflated by a film in which he was portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch as an insane genius, Cummings returned to maneuver Johnson into Downing Street. Once inside government, Cummings broke all the standard operating procedures of the British state to finally 'get Brexit done' and sever the UK's relationship with the EU in January 2020. When I look back at my occasional text exchanges with Cummings from that era, usually while trying to check stories about the funding of the Brexit campaign or his desire to defund the BBC, they mirror what he said in public. He held a seemingly sincere belief that most of the British media was fake news, that the British state was not fit for purpose, and that the political party he was nominally working for, the Conservatives, was little more than a helpful vehicle for an insurrection. One ally approvingly described the chief of staff of a Conservative government to the BBC as a 'Leninist.' Ultimately, both Musk and Cummings believed that you can run the government as a high-performance start-up and that the defining failure of past civil service reforms was that they hadn't smashed enough things quickly enough. Both also have the fatal flaws of being undisciplined, delighting in picking public fights and getting bored easily. Their independent means also meant they were not as beholden to their political masters as other advisers. Cummings might not have Musk levels of money but he was wealthy in British terms (his father-in-law Sir Humphry Tyrrell Wakefield, owner of a 13th century castle, would write letters in support of his proto-DOGE policies) and connected (his wife was deputy editor of the right-wing Spectator magazine). The overwhelming impression Cummings gave was that politicians were the useful idiots who should give him the runway to remake the state. Iconoclasm was the point. When Cummings quit he took to publishing lengthy Substack posts portraying Johnson as a broken supermarket 'trolley' who veered all over the place based on the last thing someone said to him. Even more effectively, Cummings helped to leak stories about Johnson's pandemic lockdown-busting in a scandal known as Partygate. In an echo of what's happened with Musk, left-wingers who previously thought Cummings was the devil incarnate began cheering him on as he stuck the knife into Johnson. The attacks rang true among Tory MPs and Johnson's ratings never recovered, ultimately leading to his early departure from politics. Many people leaked against Johnson and his circle, but when Cummings did, the pair's previous closeness gave it the ring of truth. Musk and Cummings got opportunities because they went in to bat for fundamentally untrustworthy but opportunistic politicians, in the hope that they would be given the freedom to enact policies with limited scrutiny. The two men have even exchanged notes and acknowledged the similarity of their programs. Ultimately, these were political shotgun marriages — the very thing that made the attachments so powerful at a particular moment in time was ultimately their undoing: In each case, the leader learned that there was no real love there. As Cummings and Musk found, if you hitch yourself to an anti-establishment hero who eschews patronage and loyalty then it's only a matter of time before you find yourself the target. There is a case that a less bellicose, less in-your-face flavour of DOGE could work better — and that such changes are easier when they're not associated with a controversial figure. In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government, elected last year, is pinning its hopes on widespread use of AI technology to improve productivity, for person. And there are even people in Downing Street who quite envies the idea of taking a Musk-style wrecking ball to parts of the state; Health Secretary Wes Streeting recently abolished one of the main administrative levels of the National Health Service in an overnight raid. Attempts by the insurgent, right-wing populist Reform party — headed by Nigel Farage, who has courted Musk's funds — to launch a 'British DOGE' and find excess spending in local government have hit the rocks. Announced on Monday, the program's first leader had quit by Thursday. Cummings said in November that he was hopeful Musk could make the US government operate like Silicon Valley. Cummings was long on diagnosis but short on prescription, the London-based Institute for Government think tank wrote in November 2021. It sought to fill the gap with ideas of its own for civil service reform.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store