Local plan scoping consultation

I am writing to formally submit my response to the Cheshire East Council (CEC) Local Plan Scoping Consultation. I have selected two chapters to which to respond, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.1, and Chapter 3, paragraphs 3.11 to 3.15.

Chapter 2, paragraph 2.1 (Matters to be Addressed) - response

The Interlocking Nature of Spatial Planning, the Fallacy of the 'Grey Belt' Taxonomy, and Design-Led Urban Alternatives

Focussing on and drawing from the experience of, the area of East Cheshire known to me over almost fifty years – an area recently the subject of close examination in relation to Belport's proposed huge new-town development – I make the following arguments. Please be aware that my concern is for the wellbeing of the entire borough and, more widely, for the country as a whole, not solely the area with which I am most familiar, so that this argument is made for both particular and general application; elements of it being of likely equal or similar relevance to other parts of East Cheshire (and, indeed, of the whole country).

 The Interlocking Reality of Spatial Policies

Section 2.1 of the Scoping Report correctly establishes that the matters a Local Plan can address are not isolated workstreams, but interlocking, co-dependent components of sustainable development. A robust Spatial Strategy cannot solve the "locations question" in a vacuum; it must, besides contributing to house-building targets, simultaneously deliver infrastructure equilibrium, climate resilience and environmental enhancement.

When Section 2.1 matters are viewed through this lens of systemic interdependence, it becomes clear that (in the geographical area of focus as, surely, in many others) the Green Belt is crucial to the integral viability of the area and health of its systems. I address the Green Belt (and associated matters) more directly in the second part of my response, responding to Chapter 3. Below are more general remarks on the subject of open space.

 The Strategic Value of Open Space: A National Asset Baseline

Section 2.1 explicitly requires the local plan to address the matter of the protection and improvement of open areas. This must be approached through the lens of natural capital and long-term public interest, rather than localised boundary protection alone.

Regarding the area of focus, the North Cheshire Green Belt in its Pennine Foothills setting, possesses intrinsic qualities valuable to an area far wider than its own territory; valuable, indeed, to the whole country. Much as the Amazon rainforest, for people who may never visit it, holds vital ecological value, besides value for the imagination and sense of what life is about, these open buffers throughout the United Kingdom serve a broader strategic purpose. They function not solely as national carbon sinks, critical biodiversity corridors and guardians of other environmental priorities (see below) but also as crucial lungs for the physical and mental health of populations regional and significantly more distant. Vitally, they carry and promote the invaluable sense of national identity that makes this country the 'green and pleasant land' of history, literature, art, and of our own treasured experience. We sacrifice that at our peril.

 Severe Spatial and Geophysical Constraints (Section 2.1 Baseline)
An objective, evidence-led examination of the physical constraints pertaining to the area of focus demonstrates that allocating to development tracts of Green Belt introduces unmitigable risks (again, equally applicable to other sites; such risk must clearly be investigated wherever necessary):
• Hydrological and Flood Risk: Substantial lands adjacent to the River Dean valley fall squarely within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Sloping landscapes and high surface-water runoff patterns present acute, poorly mapped flood vectors. Large-scale development would eliminate natural floodplain storage, exponentially increasing down-river flood risk for established local communities and, of course, any more recently established.
• Sub-Surface Mining Legacy: The area is structurally compromised by extensive ancient, unlogged coal mining operations. Because historic worked seams and shallow shafts went unmapped, the risk of un-remediable ground instability, void-migration, and localised subsidence is a potentially significant uncertainty. Attempting to build dense, modern footprints on top of an unlogged sub-surface layout violates principles of safe, sound plan-making.
 The Commuter Bottleneck and Why "Growth" is a False Premise
Promoters of strategic allocations have historically argued that local transport assets – in the area of focus, Adlington railway station – make the location attractive for growth. This cannot be taken as a given without examination in detail; for example in the case of Adlington, the following are contestable:
• The Railway Bottleneck: The local station sits directly on the highly congested West Coast Main Line, meaning local stopping services must compete for path alignment with fast inter-city expresses. Because introducing frequent, reliable local stopping services is restricted by this national bottleneck, the station cannot scale to serve a strategic population influx.
• The Dormitory-Town Reality: There is an absence of localised employment opportunities or industrial workspace capable of supporting a major population expansion. Any strategic allocation in this area would inevitably function as a car-dependent dormitory settlement.
 A Positive Alternative: Imaginative Urban Regeneration and Contextual Design

To fulfil the interlocking objectives of Section 2.1 without destroying precious natural assets, the Local Plan must transition from a volume-driven model to a value-and-design-driven model. The most important – a 'win-win' – potential solution to the domestic housebuilding mandate lies within our existing urban fabric:
• Imaginative Regeneration of Town Centres: Rather than consuming rural green space essential, as seen, to the area in focus (and doubtless, similarly, other areas), the Council must prioritise the comprehensive, creative re-purposing of town centres like Macclesfield; a solution that answers the expressed need and intention to revitalise town-centres (see chapter 5 of the scoping document, paragraphs 5.5, 5.6 and elsewhere). Integrating high-quality, high-density domestic dwelling space directly into urban hearts will give purpose and vitality to the presently languishing long-established towns besides breathing life back into the local economy, capitalising upon existing infrastructure, and eliminating car-dependent commuting, besides allowing our towns to once more occupy the role of vital hub to the areas surrounding and helping to define them.
• Rejecting Visual Blight for Exemplary Architecture: Too much modern building development operates on a generic, copy-paste model that blights the neighbourhood into which it is inserted, both visually and imaginatively. Poor design is a long-term economic and social liability.
• The Value of Doing It Well: Conversely, development executed with architectural imagination and strict sensitivity to environmental context actively enhances neighbourhoods. While contextual, high-quality design may sometimes need greater initial capital investment, doing something well is a prerequisite for long-term sustainability. The Local Plan must establish uncompromising, context-specific design codes that mandate architectural excellence and innovation as a condition for permission.
Conclusion
The matters in Section 2.1 are interlocking. The Council cannot solve the "locations question" soundly by adopting a "grey belt" taxonomy that incentivises land-degradation, ignores critical flood and mining risks, and permits unsustainable, car-dependent dormitory settlements.
I urge the Strategic Planning Team to maintain a strict, uncompromised Spatial Strategy that reinforces the absolute permanence of the Green Belt, protects the irreplaceable Pennine fringe, and directs any domestic housebuilding that they do support into innovative, imaginative, high-quality, design-led urban regeneration within and close to our town centres.


Chapter 3: Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation – Response to Chapter 3 (Changes to Green Belt Policy: paragraphs 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15)

Formally now responding to Section 3, Context for the New Local Plan, please note that, appreciating the challenge to the CEC in the new national planning policy, my focus will here be on finding ways of honouring national demand while at the same time honouring other important elements that the council (and indeed the government) continue to deem also of prime importance.

I note, accordingly, two qualifying phrases that stand out:
o that it is 'sustainable' development that the Council is required to deliver (3.1)
o that it is only 'after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs' that changing Green Belt boundaries to accommodate such development may be considered (3.11)

As a resident, I wish to register my strongest support for the absolute preservation of the North Cheshire Green Belt. Protecting this land is of vital importance to the Bollington, Adlington, and Prestbury areas. The Council should prioritise protecting open countryside over speculative developer-led allocations.

 Endorsement of the Five Core Purposes of the Green Belt (Paras 3.11 – 3.15)

The proposed revisions in Chapter 3 must not dilute national planning protections. The government continues to explicitly promote the five core purposes of the Green Belt, which this Local Plan must honour without compromise:

• To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
• To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another.
• To safeguard the countryside from encroachment.
• To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
• To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

In the Bollington/Adlington/Prestbury corridor, these purposes are under acute threat. Green Belt boundaries must remain permanent. Maintaining openness is critical to prevent the coalescence of our distinct rural communities into the Greater Manchester conurbation.

 Doubt Regarding "Grey Belt" Classification

I hold deep concerns regarding any local policy mechanisms that introduce "grey belt" designations to our rural landscape. Rather than protecting the environment, grey belt theory and terminology risks being weaponised to support development. It creates loopholes to exploit green spaces under the guise of low-quality land. And, even more seriously, it tends insidiously to degrade surrounding Green Belt, enabling adjacent areas to be described and then classified as grey belt – the domino effect.

• Developer Exploitation: Classifying rural areas as grey belt invites predatory planning applications on high-yield, productive agricultural fields.
• Erosion of Protections: The introduction of this tier fundamentally undermines the strategic integrity of the Green Belt. It establishes a dangerous precedent for incremental encroachment.
• Brownfield First: CEC must stick strictly to a "brownfield first" strategy. Industrial regeneration must be fully exhausted within urban centres before any greenfield or edge-of-settlement sites are considered.

 Infrastructure Unsuitability: Adlington Railway Station
A core tenet of sustainable development is directing growth toward areas with mature, capable infrastructure. Proposals or policy shifts that imply the Adlington area can absorb substantial new housing are fundamentally flawed due to severe local infrastructure deficits, as highlighted by transport evidence:

• Severe Rail Capacity Constraints: Adlington railway station is unsuited to act as an infrastructure hub for expanded development. It sits on a highly congested main line where adding local stopping services is financially and operationally unfeasible.
• Highway and Service Strain: The local road network (including the A523 corridor) and rural services cannot support an influx of commuters. Forcing growth here will inevitably result in car-dependent sprawl, directly contradicting the Council’s sustainability and climate objectives.

 Alignment with the 'Stop Adlington New Town' Campaign
I fully echo and integrate the evidence-backed objections raised by the Stop Adlington New Town (SANT)group and CPRE Cheshire. While we welcome the previous removal of the 20,000-home New Town proposal from the immediate list, the Local Plan policies must ensure such catastrophic schemes cannot be resurrected through policy erosion. I urge the Council to explicitly adopt the following principles into Chapter 3:

• Protection of Productive Farmland: Guard the 2,500 acres of high-quality, Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land in Adlington that currently underpins local farming and food security.
• Preservation of Ancient Habitats: Protect our irreplaceable biodiversity, including the ancient woodlands, bluebell woods, and species-rich grasslands verified by the Cheshire Wildlife Trust.
• No Strategic Need: Acknowledge that Cheshire East’s strategic housing obligations do not justify massive Green Belt release on the northern rural fringe. Greater Manchester has already identified its own housing supply up to 2042.
Conclusion
I urge Cheshire East Council to reject any wording within paragraphs 3.11 to 3.15 that softens Green Belt protections or opens the floodgates to speculative "grey belt" development. The unique rural characters of Adlington, Bollington, and Prestbury depend entirely on a firm, unyielding commitment to permanent Green Belt boundaries.

Appendix – a personal view

As a citizen [REDACTED] , East Cheshire inhabitant for over fifty years, I have perhaps a rather different perspective from that of younger members of this country's population. What follows may serve to illustrate this, for age enables me to see this country as from a distant perspective; to look on it as if from a great height. And as, from a height, I look down on this country as it is now becoming, I pessimistically envisage it, in a future fast approaching, as below.

Surrounded on three sides by ocean, topped to the north by an altogether wilder space – a space with nature at its heart – a swathe of irregular but otherwise featureless concrete (urban sprawl), is crisscrossed by always-busy roads and blotched with a goodly number of once-fundamentally and satisfyingly integral but now-decaying and semi-redundant built-spaces (old-town centres), exuding (should one leave one's post to venture into one) regret and purposelessness. It's not all waste and gloom: the featureless concrete base sports also a considerable number of areas distinctly less featureless: here and there, built spaces (55 in the whole of England), each with considerable total area, exhibit much of architectural and cultural distinction in the form of magnificent monuments and elegantly extravagant living-space. Each, however, is surrounded with the more or less dull hotchpotch and sprawl of (largely concrete) built-area (sub-city; suburbia). Apart from this, and markedly different, the concrete floor is punctuated by a dispersed group – most rearing upwards, for this in the main is mountainous England, steep, wild and mercifully harder to 'develop' – of vast 'natural' areas (national parks), supporting little human but ample 'natural' life; spaces that, though of very considerable natural beauty, seem to have little point apart from attracting tourism and the practice and display by some of physical exertion ... [This is not to deprecate the national parks; wonderful spaces, beautifully preserved, but holiday space; hardly integral to the daily life and existence of the people.]

That is what England, if more green space is lost, will, I fear, become, though the further-flung territory at its coastal fringes and in the southwest may escape the worst; it is the southeast and the broad inland swathe between the Scots border and the south coast, that will be lost for ever. Few children born today - most, ignorant of their loss - will ever experience it.

I am writing to formally submit my response to the Cheshire East Council (CEC) Local Plan Scoping Consultation. I have selected two chapters to which to respond, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.1, and Chapter 3, paragraphs 3.11 to 3.15.

Chapter 2, paragraph 2.1 (Matters to be Addressed) - response

The Interlocking Nature of Spatial Planning, the Fallacy of the 'Grey Belt' Taxonomy, and Design-Led Urban Alternatives

Focussing on and drawing from the experience of, the area of East Cheshire known to me over almost fifty years – an area recently the subject of close examination in relation to Belport's proposed huge new-town development – I make the following arguments. Please be aware that my concern is for the wellbeing of the entire borough and, more widely, for the country as a whole, not solely the area with which I am most familiar, so that this argument is made for both particular and general application; elements of it being of likely equal or similar relevance to other parts of East Cheshire (and, indeed, of the whole country).

 The Interlocking Reality of Spatial Policies

Section 2.1 of the Scoping Report correctly establishes that the matters a Local Plan can address are not isolated workstreams, but interlocking, co-dependent components of sustainable development. A robust Spatial Strategy cannot solve the "locations question" in a vacuum; it must, besides contributing to house-building targets, simultaneously deliver infrastructure equilibrium, climate resilience and environmental enhancement.

When Section 2.1 matters are viewed through this lens of systemic interdependence, it becomes clear that (in the geographical area of focus as, surely, in many others) the Green Belt is crucial to the integral viability of the area and health of its systems. I address the Green Belt (and associated matters) more directly in the second part of my response, responding to Chapter 3. Below are more general remarks on the subject of open space.

 The Strategic Value of Open Space: A National Asset Baseline

Section 2.1 explicitly requires the local plan to address the matter of the protection and improvement of open areas. This must be approached through the lens of natural capital and long-term public interest, rather than localised boundary protection alone.

Regarding the area of focus, the North Cheshire Green Belt in its Pennine Foothills setting, possesses intrinsic qualities valuable to an area far wider than its own territory; valuable, indeed, to the whole country. Much as the Amazon rainforest, for people who may never visit it, holds vital ecological value, besides value for the imagination and sense of what life is about, these open buffers throughout the United Kingdom serve a broader strategic purpose. They function not solely as national carbon sinks, critical biodiversity corridors and guardians of other environmental priorities (see below) but also as crucial lungs for the physical and mental health of populations regional and significantly more distant. Vitally, they carry and promote the invaluable sense of national identity that makes this country the 'green and pleasant land' of history, literature, art, and of our own treasured experience. We sacrifice that at our peril.

 Severe Spatial and Geophysical Constraints (Section 2.1 Baseline)
An objective, evidence-led examination of the physical constraints pertaining to the area of focus demonstrates that allocating to development tracts of Green Belt introduces unmitigable risks (again, equally applicable to other sites; such risk must clearly be investigated wherever necessary):
• Hydrological and Flood Risk: Substantial lands adjacent to the River Dean valley fall squarely within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Sloping landscapes and high surface-water runoff patterns present acute, poorly mapped flood vectors. Large-scale development would eliminate natural floodplain storage, exponentially increasing down-river flood risk for established local communities and, of course, any more recently established.
• Sub-Surface Mining Legacy: The area is structurally compromised by extensive ancient, unlogged coal mining operations. Because historic worked seams and shallow shafts went unmapped, the risk of un-remediable ground instability, void-migration, and localised subsidence is a potentially significant uncertainty. Attempting to build dense, modern footprints on top of an unlogged sub-surface layout violates principles of safe, sound plan-making.
 The Commuter Bottleneck and Why "Growth" is a False Premise
Promoters of strategic allocations have historically argued that local transport assets – in the area of focus, Adlington railway station – make the location attractive for growth. This cannot be taken as a given without examination in detail; for example in the case of Adlington, the following are contestable:
• The Railway Bottleneck: The local station sits directly on the highly congested West Coast Main Line, meaning local stopping services must compete for path alignment with fast inter-city expresses. Because introducing frequent, reliable local stopping services is restricted by this national bottleneck, the station cannot scale to serve a strategic population influx.
• The Dormitory-Town Reality: There is an absence of localised employment opportunities or industrial workspace capable of supporting a major population expansion. Any strategic allocation in this area would inevitably function as a car-dependent dormitory settlement.
 A Positive Alternative: Imaginative Urban Regeneration and Contextual Design

To fulfil the interlocking objectives of Section 2.1 without destroying precious natural assets, the Local Plan must transition from a volume-driven model to a value-and-design-driven model. The most important – a 'win-win' – potential solution to the domestic housebuilding mandate lies within our existing urban fabric:
• Imaginative Regeneration of Town Centres: Rather than consuming rural green space essential, as seen, to the area in focus (and doubtless, similarly, other areas), the Council must prioritise the comprehensive, creative re-purposing of town centres like Macclesfield; a solution that answers the expressed need and intention to revitalise town-centres (see chapter 5 of the scoping document, paragraphs 5.5, 5.6 and elsewhere). Integrating high-quality, high-density domestic dwelling space directly into urban hearts will give purpose and vitality to the presently languishing long-established towns besides breathing life back into the local economy, capitalising upon existing infrastructure, and eliminating car-dependent commuting, besides allowing our towns to once more occupy the role of vital hub to the areas surrounding and helping to define them.
• Rejecting Visual Blight for Exemplary Architecture: Too much modern building development operates on a generic, copy-paste model that blights the neighbourhood into which it is inserted, both visually and imaginatively. Poor design is a long-term economic and social liability.
• The Value of Doing It Well: Conversely, development executed with architectural imagination and strict sensitivity to environmental context actively enhances neighbourhoods. While contextual, high-quality design may sometimes need greater initial capital investment, doing something well is a prerequisite for long-term sustainability. The Local Plan must establish uncompromising, context-specific design codes that mandate architectural excellence and innovation as a condition for permission.
Conclusion
The matters in Section 2.1 are interlocking. The Council cannot solve the "locations question" soundly by adopting a "grey belt" taxonomy that incentivises land-degradation, ignores critical flood and mining risks, and permits unsustainable, car-dependent dormitory settlements.
I urge the Strategic Planning Team to maintain a strict, uncompromised Spatial Strategy that reinforces the absolute permanence of the Green Belt, protects the irreplaceable Pennine fringe, and directs any domestic housebuilding that they do support into innovative, imaginative, high-quality, design-led urban regeneration within and close to our town centres.


Chapter 3: Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation – Response to Chapter 3 (Changes to Green Belt Policy: paragraphs 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15)

Formally now responding to Section 3, Context for the New Local Plan, please note that, appreciating the challenge to the CEC in the new national planning policy, my focus will here be on finding ways of honouring national demand while at the same time honouring other important elements that the council (and indeed the government) continue to deem also of prime importance.

I note, accordingly, two qualifying phrases that stand out:
o that it is 'sustainable' development that the Council is required to deliver (3.1)
o that it is only 'after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs' that changing Green Belt boundaries to accommodate such development may be considered (3.11)

As a resident, I wish to register my strongest support for the absolute preservation of the North Cheshire Green Belt. Protecting this land is of vital importance to the Bollington, Adlington, and Prestbury areas. The Council should prioritise protecting open countryside over speculative developer-led allocations.

 Endorsement of the Five Core Purposes of the Green Belt (Paras 3.11 – 3.15)

The proposed revisions in Chapter 3 must not dilute national planning protections. The government continues to explicitly promote the five core purposes of the Green Belt, which this Local Plan must honour without compromise:

• To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
• To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another.
• To safeguard the countryside from encroachment.
• To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
• To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

In the Bollington/Adlington/Prestbury corridor, these purposes are under acute threat. Green Belt boundaries must remain permanent. Maintaining openness is critical to prevent the coalescence of our distinct rural communities into the Greater Manchester conurbation.

 Doubt Regarding "Grey Belt" Classification

I hold deep concerns regarding any local policy mechanisms that introduce "grey belt" designations to our rural landscape. Rather than protecting the environment, grey belt theory and terminology risks being weaponised to support development. It creates loopholes to exploit green spaces under the guise of low-quality land. And, even more seriously, it tends insidiously to degrade surrounding Green Belt, enabling adjacent areas to be described and then classified as grey belt – the domino effect.

• Developer Exploitation: Classifying rural areas as grey belt invites predatory planning applications on high-yield, productive agricultural fields.
• Erosion of Protections: The introduction of this tier fundamentally undermines the strategic integrity of the Green Belt. It establishes a dangerous precedent for incremental encroachment.
• Brownfield First: CEC must stick strictly to a "brownfield first" strategy. Industrial regeneration must be fully exhausted within urban centres before any greenfield or edge-of-settlement sites are considered.

 Infrastructure Unsuitability: Adlington Railway Station
A core tenet of sustainable development is directing growth toward areas with mature, capable infrastructure. Proposals or policy shifts that imply the Adlington area can absorb substantial new housing are fundamentally flawed due to severe local infrastructure deficits, as highlighted by transport evidence:

• Severe Rail Capacity Constraints: Adlington railway station is unsuited to act as an infrastructure hub for expanded development. It sits on a highly congested main line where adding local stopping services is financially and operationally unfeasible.
• Highway and Service Strain: The local road network (including the A523 corridor) and rural services cannot support an influx of commuters. Forcing growth here will inevitably result in car-dependent sprawl, directly contradicting the Council’s sustainability and climate objectives.

 Alignment with the 'Stop Adlington New Town' Campaign
I fully echo and integrate the evidence-backed objections raised by the Stop Adlington New Town (SANT)group and CPRE Cheshire. While we welcome the previous removal of the 20,000-home New Town proposal from the immediate list, the Local Plan policies must ensure such catastrophic schemes cannot be resurrected through policy erosion. I urge the Council to explicitly adopt the following principles into Chapter 3:

• Protection of Productive Farmland: Guard the 2,500 acres of high-quality, Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land in Adlington that currently underpins local farming and food security.
• Preservation of Ancient Habitats: Protect our irreplaceable biodiversity, including the ancient woodlands, bluebell woods, and species-rich grasslands verified by the Cheshire Wildlife Trust.
• No Strategic Need: Acknowledge that Cheshire East’s strategic housing obligations do not justify massive Green Belt release on the northern rural fringe. Greater Manchester has already identified its own housing supply up to 2042.
Conclusion
I urge Cheshire East Council to reject any wording within paragraphs 3.11 to 3.15 that softens Green Belt protections or opens the floodgates to speculative "grey belt" development. The unique rural characters of Adlington, Bollington, and Prestbury depend entirely on a firm, unyielding commitment to permanent Green Belt boundaries.

Appendix – a personal view

As a citizen [REDACTED] , East Cheshire inhabitant for over fifty years, I have perhaps a rather different perspective from that of younger members of this country's population. What follows may serve to illustrate this, for age enables me to see this country as from a distant perspective; to look on it as if from a great height. And as, from a height, I look down on this country as it is now becoming, I pessimistically envisage it, in a future fast approaching, as below.

Surrounded on three sides by ocean, topped to the north by an altogether wilder space – a space with nature at its heart – a swathe of irregular but otherwise featureless concrete (urban sprawl), is crisscrossed by always-busy roads and blotched with a goodly number of once-fundamentally and satisfyingly integral but now-decaying and semi-redundant built-spaces (old-town centres), exuding (should one leave one's post to venture into one) regret and purposelessness. It's not all waste and gloom: the featureless concrete base sports also a considerable number of areas distinctly less featureless: here and there, built spaces (55 in the whole of England), each with considerable total area, exhibit much of architectural and cultural distinction in the form of magnificent monuments and elegantly extravagant living-space. Each, however, is surrounded with the more or less dull hotchpotch and sprawl of (largely concrete) built-area (sub-city; suburbia). Apart from this, and markedly different, the concrete floor is punctuated by a dispersed group – most rearing upwards, for this in the main is mountainous England, steep, wild and mercifully harder to 'develop' – of vast 'natural' areas (national parks), supporting little human but ample 'natural' life; spaces that, though of very considerable natural beauty, seem to have little point apart from attracting tourism and the practice and display by some of physical exertion ... [This is not to deprecate the national parks; wonderful spaces, beautifully preserved, but holiday space; hardly integral to the daily life and existence of the people.]

That is what England, if more green space is lost, will, I fear, become, though the further-flung territory at its coastal fringes and in the southwest may escape the worst; it is the southeast and the broad inland swathe between the Scots border and the south coast, that will be lost for ever. Few children born today - most, ignorant of their loss - will ever experience it.