1-s2.0-S0264837710000694-main.pdf

Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ l

Land-u druralu

Robert L.a School of Geo ston ub Centre for Ru nue, Wc Department o

a r t i c l

Article history:Received 31 MReceived in reAccepted 14 Ju

Keywords:Green BeltLondonEdgelandsLand-use planRuralurban fr

ate chunctiopen ccon

Greeinkedp aresses rrban

2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction: the ruralurban Fringe in the UnitedKingdom

The notture by geoWhitehandthe Unitedurban sprawrestrict suction on RibAct and theeral majorMunton, 19versal solupost-1945 f(Amati, 200land use coin the fringas one domand rural larepeated in

CorresponE-mail add

(G.M. Robinso1 Tel.: +44 2

1979, 1987), including Martins (1953, iii), that area of interpen-

0264-8377/$ doi:10.1016/j.ion of the ruralurban fringe rst appears in litera-graphers and planners in the 1930s (Audivac, 1999;, 1988) at a time when there was great concern inKingdom (UK) over the loss of agricultural land tol (Amati and Yokohari, 2007; Stamp, 1950) and calls to

h urban encroachments. This led to the 1935 Restric-bon Development Act, the 1938 London Green Beltstatutory establishment of Green Belts around sev-

cities and conurbations in the 1950s (Amati, 2008b;83; Thomas, 1963). The Green Belt was seen as a uni-tion to urban growth, and the concept was adoptedor other UK cities aswell as for others around theworld8a). Increased recognition of the mixture of land uses,mpetition and the multiplicity of conicting interestse came in the 1950s, with the conception of this areainated by transition and competition between urbannd uses and activities. These ideas were subsequentlyseveral attempts atdenition (Bryant et al., 1982;Elson,

ding author. Tel.: +61 8 8647 6047.resses:[email protected] (R.L.Gant), [email protected]), [email protected] (S. Fazal).08 547 2000.

etrating rural and urban land uses peripheral to the modern city,and the notion of a fringe-belt or a zone originating from thetemporarily stationary but slowly advancing edge of a town andcomposed of a characteristic mixture of land use units initiallyseeking a peripheral location (Conzen, 1960, 125). There havealso been spatially more extensive and more regionally focusedconcepts, such as Heringtons (1984) outer city, Bryant et al.s(1982) regional city, Robinsons (1991) the city beyond the cityand Lapping and Furuseths (1999) urban hinterland. These moreextensive areas have long been termed as peri-urban zones inFrance, comprising the mixed land-use zone encountered beyondthe suburbs as one travels outwards from the city centre (Cadene,1990; Pryor, 1968). In turn the dominant processes encounteredin this zone have been described as suburbanization (Br, 2003),peri-urbanization, exurbanization and rurbanization (Bauer andRoux, 1976; Coleman, 1976; Heineberg, 2003; Nicot, 1995).

In recent years Shoard (2002) has referred to the zone intransition from urban to rural in the UK as edgelands, charac-terised by rubbish tips and warehouses, superstores and derelictindustrial plant, ofce parks and gypsy encampments, golf courses,allotments and fragmented, frequently scruffy, farmland (p. 117)(Table 1; see also the description by Gallent and Andersson, 2007,pp. 45). This intermingled seemingly chaotic set of land uses is aproduct of post-war planning legislation that has partly fossilisedsome patterns of use, but it is also a reection of dynamic changeas certain components of these areas have grown as part of

see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.landusepol.2010.06.007se change in the edgelands: Policies anrban fringe

Ganta,1, Guy M. Robinsonb,, Shahab Fazal c

graphy, Geology and the Environment, Kingston University London, Penrhyn Road, Kingral Health & Community Development, University of South Australia, 111 Nicolson Avef Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202 002, India

e i n f o

arch 2009vised form 12 June 2010ne 2010

ninginge

a b s t r a c t

Green Belt policies have helped to creKingdoms largest cities. Their prime fgirdle to separate the urban from the oably dynamic despite relatively strongof one part of Londons Metropolitanlong-term trends in land-use change lthe Green Belt and the adjacent built-uin the United Kingdom (UK) and discudebate about this form of control on uand the edgelands.ocate / landusepol

pressures in Londons

pon Thames, Surrey KT1 2EE, United Kingdomhyalla Norrie, South Australia 5608, Australia

aotic landscapes at the ruralurban interfaces of the Unitedns, to control urban sprawl and preserve an encircling greenountryside, have created edgelands that have been remark-trols on certain types of development. A detailed case studyn Belt, drawing upon analysis of planning registers, revealsto the development controls operated within the context ofa. This paper also outlines the history of the Green Belt policyecently proposed policy changes that have provoked ongoingsprawl and its consequences for the land use of Green Belts

R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279 267

Table 1Land uses in the Green Belt.

A random assemblage of:(1) service fu

(2000) cexiled fro

A range of:(2) commerc(3) noisy and(4) transient(5) bulk-reta(6) light man(7) some pu(8) degraded(9) planned(10) fragmen

interspers(11) areas of

Source: Gallen

complex annotes the wbeen permiconjunctiontimes whento preserveimplicationan entirelylabel this ecities elsewSeoul (BengAdelaide (Gas portrayeanonymous

The onglimit urbansible countrGreen Belt rsubsequentpart of a lanbetweendesharpen thethe extentto the relatiIndeed, Hogof land usethan in somexerted by

This papchanges intan Green Blocal authorBelt land fotain a greeand regionameant thatquite variedland-use asthat contrasa green gird

Green Belts

The UKjunction wi(Howard, 1or green gir

strained urban expansion. It was also to act as a source area foragriculture and recreation, providing rural contact to counterbal-ance the urban setting of the residents in the newly-created garden

Subsdonitiveuntys wen spad forAmaar atRibb

ile hmenaredut wry ofn195olitakm)sivethatKscircueadns fr

(Amao assinesm ed inountor ouin atpeopto seturals plan, 19en Beit exillowthe

lanneses opmeeen Bpossnctions, referred to as the urban dowry Kaika and Swyngedouwomprising the essential apparatus needed for cities to work, butm more central locations;

ial activities;unsociable uses pushed away from people;uses such as markets;il;ufacturing; warehousing and distribution;

blic institutions;farmland;

recreational areas such as country parks;ted residential development (often centred on road junctions)ed betweenunkempt rough or derelict land awaiting re-use.

t and Shaw (2007, p. 620).

d singular developments. In particular, Shoard (2000)ay in which out-of-town shopping centres have oftentted to develop in such edgeland locations, perhaps inwith business parks adjacent to relicts from pre-waragriculture was more dominant. Despite the attemptrurality and create a green lung for the city, theis that the creation of Green Belts has neither createdsatisfactory edge to the city nor is it really correct todge as green. Similar concerns have been voiced forhere as diverse as Vienna (Aubck and Ruland, 1998),ston and Youn, 2006), Tokyo (Tang et al., 2007) andarnaut, 2008). These edgelands are classic non-placesd by Aug (1995; see also Kamvasinou, 2003); they areand lack identity.

oing determination by local and central government tosprawl and to maintain areas of relatively easily acces-yside close to major urban centres has meant that theestraints of the 1950s in the UK have been maintainedly (Bishop, 1998). The Green Belt has been a primed-use planning system that has sought to distinguishnitive sets of urban and rural land uses, and hence tointerface between urban and rural, thereby restricting

of the ruralurban fringe and so possibly contributingve neglect of this area by researchers (Errington, 1994).gart (2005) contends that in the UK the interminglings in the ruralurban fringe has been less pronouncede other parts ofWestern Europe because of the controlsthe land-use planning system.er outlines results from a detailed survey of long-termland use in the south-west fringes of the Metropoli-elt (MGB) that encircles London. It demonstrates howities have had to balance pressures for release of Green

cities.for Lonprohibdon Co3 yearof opeselecte1970;post-wtion ofreconcrural areappe1944, bMinist50/57 iMetrop(1920SuccesBelt soof the U

Thethe spring towtownspose: tGuidelside frofor lanopen cnities fto retawheretowns;agriculsis waMunto

Greers, sowill fotions inwith ping losdevelothe Grtion ofr urban development against the requirement to main-n lung for the city. However, the changing nationall contexts within which the Green Belt has existed hasresponses from local authorities have not only beenbut they have permitted quite substantial changes in

semblages so that the edgelands have had a dynamismts with some of the popular images of the Green Belt asle protecting the countryside fromanurban invasion.

: policies and issues in the United Kingdom (UK)

s rst formally proposed Green Belt appeared in con-th Ebenezer Howards garden city scheme in the 1890s898, 2007). This incorporated an encircling Green Beltdle around a garden city as protection against unre-

creation of nbeing creatof the South(Fothergill,poned or cuand mediumalternativeonus on estgrowth, andrehabilitation the estatable to pay h

One argutated by relderelict lanopment (Haequently, several Green Belt schemes were advocated, but pre-World War Two, land acquisition costs werefor municipal authorities, though under the 1935 Lon-Council (LCC) Green Belt loans scheme 2 million over

re allocated to assist local authorities in the purchaseces, offering to pay up to 50% of the cost of any landa Green Belt or green ring around the capital (Thomas,ti and Yokohari, 2004, 2007, p. 317). A forerunner oftempts to control urban sprawl was the 1935 Restric-on Development Act, which appreciated the need toouse and road construction with the preservation ofity (Sheail, 1979, p. 501). The concept of a Green Beltin Sir PatrickAbercrombies (1945)Greater London Plan,as not formally enshrined in development control untilHousing and Local Government circulars 42/55 and5and1957 (MHLG, 1955, 1957) (Fig. 1). Thedesignatedn Green Belt girdle started at approximately 12 milesradius from Charing Cross in central London (Fig. 2).

governments have increased the size of Londons Greenat its present size of 513,770ha it remains the largest14 Green Belts.lars specied three purposes for Green Belts: to checkof further urban development, to prevent neighbour-om coalescing, and to preserve the special character ofti, 2007). Another Circular in 1984 added a fourth pur-ist in urban regeneration, and in 1995 Planning Policyon the Green Belt referred to safeguarding the country-ncroachment (DCLG, 1995). It stated explicit objectivesGreen Belts: to provide opportunities for access to theryside for the urban population; to provide opportu-tdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas;tractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near tole live; to improve damaged and derelict land aroundcure nature conservation interest; and to retain land in, forestry and related uses. Signicantly, little empha-ced on amenity values of Green Belts (Ferguson and79).lt designation has carried no additional planning pow-

sts as an indicator that, inprinciple, planningauthoritiescertain guidelines concerning development applica-designated areas (Elson, 1986). It has proved popularrs as a means of controlling urban sprawl and prevent-f farmland (Munton, 1981). The restrictions placed onnt have raised both prices of land and housing withinelt and fostered speculative land holding in anticipa-ible development schemes. This may also apply to theew employment opportunities; for example, with jobs

ed beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt in outer parts-East region and adjacent regions, notably East Anglia

1986;Gunn, 2007).GreenBelt restraintsmayhavepost-rtailed business expansion plans, especially for small-sized rms whose growth is not easily diverted to

locations. The severe restraints have placed a particularablished industrial estates to accommodate industrialhence the importance of inlling, refurbishment and

onon theseestates (Towse, 1988,p. 329). Thepressureses have favoured certain types of rms, especially thoseigher rentals and not requiring large amounts of space.ment is that national economic growth will be facili-axing Green Belt restrictions, especially by reclaimingd to permit selective release of land parcels for devel-ll, 1985). However, developersmay have been deterred

268 R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279

from pursuthe prospelaunched bsome schemruns througRobinson, 1

Green Bthem by fagroupswho1983, pp. 3the designaincome groneeds maymaintenancsome locali

The succied in spatiargued thattan fringe loFig. 1. The UKs Green Belts.

ing major development schemes in the Green Belt byct of having to meet the costs of planning appealsy local authorities, as happened in the late 1980s withes following the opening of the M25 motorway, whichh the Metropolitan Green Belt, (Gant and Talbot, 2000;994, pp. 293294).elts have had a social impact on communities withinvouring middle-class commuters and high incomecanmore easily afford the risingpropertyprices (Cloke,10315). The development controls associated withtion may also have restricted services, placing lower-ups at a disadvantage, though some attention to localhave led to provision of housing for such groups and/ore of a balanced age and socio-economic structure inties (e.g. Healy, 1980).ess of urban containment policies has been quite var-al terms. For example, Murdoch and Marsden (1994), even in areas where the appearance of the metropoli-oks relatively unchanged, the pace of change was still

rapid. This rvert some ause. One reand furthertied the siagainst thisa viable agrhave oftenactivities pronmental capparent ththey were ovalue (p. 14late 1990s,course memsuch develoappeared, ocation, for e2000).eects the ongoing pressure on local authorities to con-reas of farmland to housing, industry and recreationalsult has been ongoing piecemeal erosion of controlslosses of agricultural land to development. They iden-gnicant role of large private landowners as bulwarksdevelopment, and especially their desire to maintainicultural industry. However, local planning authoritiespermitted land-use changes from agriculture to otherrovided that these meet specied aesthetic and envi-riteria (p. 128). In the early 1990s this was particularlyrough conversion of farmland to golf courses, providedn land of lower agricultural, landscape and ecological9). This golf course boom gave way to bust in thepartly because of insufcient take-up of the new golfberships and tighter controls by planners regarding

pments. Nevertheless, a range of other leisure uses hasften encouraged by farmers as part of farm diversi-xample equestrian-related activities (Gant and Talbot,

R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279 269

One of thceived andpreserve ththe countrynot been acGreen Beltfulls the fuated landscor enhanceIn effect, Ghave ignorecharacter wthat mightGreen Beltningmeasumight suggoverriddenGreen Beltbuilding toland lost incated by asHence Elsonbelt. Morebeen diverttermed leahigher denFig. 2. The Metropolitan Green Bel

e limitations of the Green Belt policy is that it was con-still largely continues to operate as a mechanism toe integrity of the built-up areas on one side of it andside on the other (Shoard, 2002, p. 137). Yet this hascompanied by any real concern for the land within theitself (DETR, 2001, para 1.5). The Green Belt thereforenction of a rebreak between more genuinely appreci-apes rather thanactingasa stimulus to thedevelopmentment of the land uses and landscapes in the edgelands.reen Belts and other policies preventing urban sprawld the possibility that edgelands might have a variedorthy of closer attention and with particular demandsbenet from more proactive planning. Moreover, theitself has proved to be a somewhat more exible plan-re than its associationwith restrictions ondevelopmentest, as controls enshrined in this legislation have beenin various instances (see Gallent et al., 2006). Henceboundaries have often been shifted to enable furthertake place around the edge of the built-up area. Thethis fashion to urban development has been reallo-signing a new piece of countryside to the Green Belt.(2003, p. 104) has referred to the take and give green

over, sprawl or new urban developments have oftened elsewhere, beyond the Green Belt (in what has beenp-frogging), and also back into the city in the form ofsity there (see evidence cited in Hall, 1973a; Drewett

and Heiderdesignationits locationcils have simBelt, labellienvelopes

This exGreen Beltfuture of thneed for mEast, have bBelt restricttype of tranis a responthrough buUK, particueconomy (A2003; Amat

Land-use w

Althougpressured tdetailed codevelopmedistinctivet.

mann, 1973). The overall area protected by Green Belthas therefore remained approximately the same but

has shifted. To facilitate this type of change, local coun-ply changed land-use designations within the Green

ng areas as land for non-conforming uses or as urbanand then releasing them for building development.ibility in what can be permitted in the context of thehas contributed to ongoing arguments about the verye Green Belt policy. The headline gures regarding theore new homes in the UK, and especially in the South-een accompanied by fresh calls for relaxations onGreenions ondevelopment and reneweddiscussion about thesition landscapes that should be created. In part thisse to New Labours concern to achieve social justiceilding more affordable housing and to ensure that thelarly the South-East, remains competitive in the globalllmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones, 2000; Allmendinger,i, 2007).

ithin the edgelands: the Shepperton area

h edgelands can be identied as a landscape form inracts of the urban fringe, for historical reasons thenguration of present-day land use and processes ofnt represent the outcome of an interaction betweensets of local circumstances, including the physical

270 R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279

environment, and the framework of development control. As a con-sequenceofurban-generatedpressures, theseprocesses interact, indifferentways and at contrasting geographical scales, on open agri-cultural landand thepre-existingbuilt environments in edgelandsthat are situated within a statutory Green Belt.

The outcomes of these pressures are explored in more depthbelow in a particular edgeland tract of residential develop-ment, in Shepperton, situated in Spelthorne Borough Green Belt(Greater London) where differentiated pressures for modicationto an existing, and in places low-density, housing stock remainunabated as a consequence of metropolitan demands for new liv-ing standards and lifestyles and improved household positioningin nancial markets.

Firstly, though, and as a context for this micro-level study, keyfeatures of the physical setting and land use are introduced andrelated to metropolitan demands for agricultural produce, miner-als and building materials, water supply, recreational utility andresidential space.

Background: the pattern of land uses

Writing in1974,DavidThomasclaimed that few seriousworkershave had the courage even to attempt to make comparative assess-ments of rurban land or of slurb (slopped over suburb) (Thomas,1974, p. 19). Hewas highlighting a need for intensive land use stud-ies of representative areas of the edgelands that successfully teaseout the complex and formative relationships produced by inter-actions between human agency and societal structures (Bryant,1995; Gallent and Andersson, 2007). That important objective hasguided the following micro-level study of the sequential processesof what Whitehand (1967; Whitehand and Morton, 2003) termedfringe-belt formation and modication, completed in part of theBorough of Spelthorne, in the county of Surrey, which had beendesignated as Metropolitan Green Belt in 1956 (in the Middle-

sexDevelopment Plan) (www.getmapping.com). In using a specicexample, the aim is to reveal processes that are illustrative of theedgelands in general, whilst recognizing that a study for a largerarea would be necessary in order to make broader generalizations.The choice of Spelthorne Borough and the focus on the Green Beltand urban settlement around the village of Sheppertonwithin thisBorough reects detailed local knowledge by the authors and pre-vious work done in the area (e.g. Fazal, 2004). Amati and Yokohari(2006) classied Spelthorne into a group of local authorities withGreen Belt (located mainly west and south of London) that had thelowest level of percentage population change recorded from 1981to 2001 amongst ve different groups of local authorities, the high-est percentage of urban land (35%), a lowproportion of land outsidethe Green Belt (7%) and the lowest percentage of undeveloped landoutside the Green Belt (10%). They recognise strong demand forenhanced landscape protection in these local authorities to con-trol developers endeavouring to circumvent strict developmentcontrols.

Created by local government reform in the early 1970s,Spelthorne Borough (area 5116ha; population in 2006, 92,315)lies approximately 25km south-west of Central London, separatedfrom the built-up edge of the metropolis by a belt of open land.Urban land uses cover 35% of the Borough; the remaining 65% isdesignated as Green Belt. The core of the study area (Fig. 3) com-prises part of . . . the Thames ood plain where the sands and gravelsoverlying the London clay have produced good quality agriculturalland.. . . The extensive deposits of sand and gravel have resulted ina legacy of wet gravel pits and poorly restored land. . .. The effectsof urban development, major roads, reservoirs and electricity pylonshave further fragmented the area, so that no countryside areas. . .arefar from urban features or the hard edge of urban development(Spelthorne Borough Local Plan, 1991). Situated on the Thamesgravels, the Borough is low-lying with 7% of the land (and 2800homes) liable to ooding in a 1 in 100 years ood event (Spelthorne

area.Fig. 3. Location of the study

R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279 271

Borough Cosubject of thThames in tysis of hist2004), air p2000), locaretrospectivcators of m

In this pstimulatedFig. 4. Representative land use within the Metropolitan edg

uncil, 2009, paragraph 5.14). Shepperton village, theis case study, is situated on the north bank of the Riverhe south of the Borough. Fig. 4, prepared from an anal-orical cartography (Oliver, 1993; Beech and Mitchell,hotographic imagery (Surrey: The Photographic Atlas,l history archives, regional newspaper collections ande interviews, demonstrates the existence of key indi-

etropolitan inuence in the local landscape.articular part of Londons edgelands, gravel extraction,by house-building cycles and post-war reconstruction

in London, ha century, aconstructioHeathrow Ainfrastructument of Grsites have iand contou(with approincluding aelands: Shepperton 2008.

as been a signicant force in landscape change for overnd in the early 1970s new sites opened to service then of the M3 Motorway and subsequent extensions atirport, including (recently) Terminal 5, and its relatedre. Since 1956, however, with the rigorous enforce-een Belt policies, planning conditions for worked-outncluded complete restoration for agriculture, landllring as golf courses, the maintenance of open waterpriate landscaping) for diverse recreational pursuits

ngling and sailing, zonation as tranquil areas for nature

272 R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279

conservation and a swan sanctuary, and much-needed marinadevelopment. Local communities feel threatened by the site listingin the Draft Surrey Minerals Plan (2006), which initially includedthe three sittal reasons,a 44haholdCouncil, 200

Since 19taken advanCompletionholding facilter-beds apressure (Blinking LonLondon orbtage of landIn a similarnecklace otentativelyto the regioately east o

These frsures ofmeHerald, Mayulatory framthe pace ofoughs, whiceffective plcant rural laBelt regulaand modic2004; WhitFor instancoccupied brecreationbeen demoSheppertonfactory mantioned mandevelopmegardens anLondon undagreed for tnoisy andhave beensure of demand nurserishops, aquaof campingrecently-opmodation achanges anda healthy tand recreatafuentmecations for cto Green BHerald, Apr

Prior toto Sheppertculture, smparklandeset al., 2000)river to senviding man

Trimble, n.d.). The railway replaced this barge trafc, adding to therange and volume of material transported to and from the area,including commuters who moved to new housing built close to

rtonexpaleadoximemeapeanding tantetaciculted bg; anoddGre

bseqg dens Inativeing) (Mfeatuo, c

ife anof We ti

creteof thand

ncreausin1987mainerm,ng st.

lling

e 1rneolitasuccntaining taph 1inest plad anpelthhouted inling i

e strarciaevelorned Poing aal Spstinges represented in Fig. 4. For technical and environmen-however, the shortlist includes only Site 1, comprisinging specialising in vegetable production (SurreyCounty6).00, public utilities serving the London region havetage of metropolitan fringe locations (see Hall, 1973b).of the Queen Mary Reservoir in 1926, one of severallities in west London, and associated pumping houses,nd water treatment installations, again illustrates thisrooking, 1988). In the early 1970s the M3 motorway,don and Southampton, and intersecting with the M25ital, scythed through the Green Belt, taking site advan-lled gravel workings and degraded agricultural land.vein more recent controversial proposals to create a

fwaste incineration plants around theM25 orbital havepartnered one installation, with a 35m-tall chimney,nally-important waste recycling plant located immedi-f Charlton village (Surrey County Council, 2005).inge belt characteristics attest to the sustained pres-tropolitan growthon the edgeland countryside (Surrey21st, 2008). Since 1956, however, within a strict reg-ework, Green Belt designation has effectively slowed

land-use change. Unlike the neighbouring London bor-h became heavily urbanised before the imposition of

anning control, Spelthorne District still retains signi-nd uses, fossilised by the strict interpretation of Green

tion. However, pressure for change at the local scaleation of the earlier fringe-belt still exists (Jones et al.,ehand and Carr, 1999; Whitehand and Morton, 2006).e, in conformity with Green Belt policy, land formerlyy large country houses has been allocated for publicand supervised sports grounds; some mansions havelished and sites re-cycled for housing development;Film Studios has re-occupied the site of a wartimeufacturing barrage balloons (built around a requisi-sion house and its parkland); pockets of residentialnt have been approved on small non-viable marketd the wartime industrial sites of rms relocated fromer strategic dispersal policies; change of use has beenhe conversion of former agricultural homesteads intoanti-social uses such as catteries and kennels; sitesdesignated for residential caravans to ease the pres-and on lower-cost accommodation; market gardens

es have diversied to meet urban demands with farmtic centres and franchised units for specialist salesequipment and furniture; and permissions given toened golf courses to provide suites of licensed accom-nd catering services for special events. These ongoingmodications to earlier land uses and buildings reect

hreshold of economic demand for specialist servicesional opportunities from a highly mobile and relativelytropolitan population. To be successful, however, appli-hanges in landusehave to conform in scale andpurposeelt objectives (Murdoch and Marsden, 1992; Surreyil 27th, 2005).the completion of the railway line from central Londonon in 1864, the area was dominated by intensive agri-all agricultural hamlets, and the riparian mansions andtatesofnotables connected to state andempire (Althorp. Small-scalemarket gardeners andorchardists used thed produce by barge to the city, with return runs pro-ure and other soil dressings for the elds (Baird, 1793;

Sheppeurbancyclesthis prof piectownscWhiteh

Dursignicsemi-ding agrcolonisoodin1988;Gpertonbut suhousinWomespeculside livStationtionalWar Twyour w40minthe samtion acneedsLondonagain isity ho(Blair,land reshort-tfattenihorses

Contro

SincSpelthoMetropicy byhas coprecedparagrThe StasequenretaineBelt (SThrougcentratas inlBelt.

CorcommeLocal D(Spelthgies an(includRegionthe existation. Subsequent phases in economic growth andnsion set within the phased framework of buildingto further pressures for change on agricultural land inate edgeland countryside, and were allied to episodesal modication of existing land uses in the growing(Carter and Lewis, 1990, pp. 112119; Daunton and, 1978; Whitehand, 1972, 1974, 1990).he inter-war period speculative house-building had aimpact on the landscape. Initially, ribbons of standardhed houses along the main roads linked up the exist-ural settlements; plotlands fronting the Thames werey modest bungalows raised on piers to avoid occasionald larger estates lled-in areas of backland (Brooking,ard, 1990). The extensive clearance of orchards at Shep-en in 1928, initially for intensive market gardening,uently allocated for estates of bungalows to satisfymand, typies this process (Middlesex Federation ofstitutes, 1996). Newspaper advertisements placed bybuilders commonly promoted the virtues of country-supported by good rail services to London (Waterlooiddlesex Chronicle, April 16, 1938). Indeed, one promo-re, printed immediately before the outbreak of Worldlaimed that Shepperton offers the greatest security ford family, out of the danger zone in the country, yet withinaterloo (Middlesex Chronicle, October 8th, 1938). Atme the core of Victorian settlement at the train sta-d sets of retail and public services to meet the dailye commuters work-day ows that focused on centralintervening points of employment. Housing demandssed following World War Two and larger higher den-

g estates, both speculative and municipal, were built; Bryant, 1995; Lawrence, 2006). Some agriculturals, but often as parcels of poorly-fenced land leased,by absentee landlords, forwinter cereal productionandore cattle (Shoard, 2003) or rented out as grazing for

development

956 the pattern of development in non-built-uphas been strongly inuenced by its inclusion in then Green Belt. The strict application of Green Belt pol-essive local authorities (county and district councils)ed the spread of development that characterised thehree decades (Spelthorne Borough Local Plan, 2001,.6). The rst detailed plan for what is now Spelthorne,and Sunbury Town Plan, was approved in 1956. Sub-nning reviews in 1965, 1974, 1991 and 2001 haved reinforced stringent local polices towards the Greenorne Borough Local Plan, 2001, paragraphs 1.121.15).this period major building development has been con-the main urban settlements, such as Shepperton, and

n the outlying villages and hamlets enclosed by Green

tegies and policies for dealingwith new residential andl development have been recently re-articulated in theopment Framework (LDF) adopted in February 2009Borough Development Plan Document: Core Strate-

licies, 2009). These propose that local housing targets40% component of affordable housing) advised in the

atial Strategy for the South-Eastwill bemet fromwithinurban area by encouraging redevelopment, inll and

R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279 273

Fig. 5. Case st NE ofBelt policy ens of theOld Charlton L rone a

the converstargets unti(Spelthorneand Policies

Such poGreen Beltthose adopPlan, 2001,been set ougration of ndetached viaspects asings, accessand otherspecic guiings in thewith dwellDevelopmeparagraphs

The role of p

ContentDistrict (anvides an inwithin Shepa representand Countrbuilding cybuilders, anUntil 1965of variable

e motteeudy locality for analysis of development control 19472009. NB. All the land to thehrined in previous local plans; likewise, the land north of the B376 and to the westane are also longstanding Green Belt. Much of this land is in the 1:100-year ood p

ion of existing dwellings. It is intended that housingl 2026 will be met without infringing on the Green Belt

becomcommiBoroughDevelopment PlanDocument: Core Strategies, 2009, paragraph 6.17).licies for development control and protection of theare consistent with national policy guidelines and

ted in previous local plans (Spelthorne Borough Localparagraphs2.12.34).However, revisedguidelineshavet in Spelthorne Policy EN1 for the design and inte-ew development within the existing urban areas andllages situated within the Green Belt. These cover suchbuilding identity, harmony with neighbouring build-, landscaping, the minimisation of energy consumptionsustainability issues. In parallel, Policy EN2 providesdance on rebuilding and extension of existing build-Green Belt, including small parcels of land (plotlands)ings fronting the river Thames (Spelthorne Boroughnt Plan Document: Core Strategies and Policies, 2009,10.910.13).

lanning registers

analysis of the public planning registers for Spelthorned pre-1975 Sunbury-on-Thames Urban District) pro-sight into the processes of residential developmentperton. The results of this exercise, which focuses on

ative sector of Shepperton village since the 1947 Towny Planning Act, reects the localised impact of nationalcles, the investment behaviour of prescient speculatived national and local policies for development control., these registers are available as microche, but areclarity and completeness. Thereafter, online records

map, and nof conditionare append

The repdevelopmethe north ofby the railwM4 motorwinvestigatiotypies theone dimensity housing2009; Googrelated to nstructuresnised. Thismatters, forrecurrent adrens nurspermissionproperty. Tacross theing the exteeffects of nopment intdetermined

Three dFirstly, the Oway stationthe construthe River Ash is Green Belt, and has been retained from earlier GreenM3. The parcels between the M3 and Lois Drive, Marion Avenue andrea; some land to the extreme north lies in the 1:20-year ood area.

re detailed, specifying dates of plan submissions anddecisions, a brief summary of the application and site

ame of the applicant or agent. In latter years, full details attached to grant of approval or reasons for rejectioned, and cross-referenced to current planning policies.resentative area selected for detailed examination ofnt control processes contains 333 properties. It lies toShepperton railway station and is bounded on the eastay line and River Ash, and on the west and north by theay (Fig. 5). Local knowledge gained from previous eldns and Googles Street View conrm that this localityresidential landscape of Shepperton village, except inion, the inclusion of post-World War Two local author-(Gant and Talbot, 2000; Sunday Times, March 29th,le Maps, 2010). A total of 589 planning applicationsew building or modications to existing permanent

in the period 19472009 were identied and scruti-analysis excluded applications relating to non-buildingexample the continued use of piggeries, signage, the

uthorisation to use rooms in two large houses as chil-eries, the erection of excessively high radio aerials, andto locate residential caravans within the curtilege of ahe applications studied were distributed fairly evenlyperiod, but with consistently higher proportions dur-nded periods 19641970 and 19992008. As yet, the

ew and more relaxed regulations for permitted devel-roduced by government on 1st October 2008 cannot be(Communities and Local Government, 2008).istinctive morphological regions can be identied.ld Charlton Road, which leads due north from the rail-and divides the study area. Until the early 1970s, whenction of the M4 blocked this road, it provided the main

274 R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279

Table 2Shepperton study area: Digest of planning statistics.

Key statistics Old Charlton Road Lois Drive/MarionAve/Barbara Close

Crescent Road/StationRoad/Ruxley Ave/LindenWay/Sampson Court

Overall

Properties examined 107 110 116 333Properties with at least one Planning application 82 65 95 242% properties with at least one Planning application 76.6 59.1 81.9 72.7Total planning applications 175 135 163 473Average planning applications/unit in housing stock 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.4Total refusals for planning consent 27 5 38 70No. of properties with refusals 15 3 26 44Ratio of planning refusals:units in Housing stock 0.14 0.03 0.22 0.13

vehicular link through agricultural land between Shepperton vil-lageand thehamletofCharlton. It is linedbygroupsofVictorianandEdwardian redbrick houses with large rear gardens, interspersedby short rows of semi-detached housing built in the 1930s, andclutches of bungalows dating from both the 1930s and early 1960s.To the west of this spine, and skirted by the M4 Motorway, LoisDrive, Marion Avenue and Barbara Close comprise small estatesof detached (mainly) two-bedroom bungalows with spacious gar-dens (but, originally, without garages) constructed by speculativebuilders in the late 1930s (MiddlesexChronicle, October 8th, 1938).Sandwiched between the Old Charlton Road and River Ash in theeast are Crescent Road, Station Road, Linden Way, Ruxley Avenueand Sampson Court. In the Victorian era this zone featured a few(relatively large) isolated houses and modest agricultural cottageswith large gardens and small plots of accommodation land. Pro-gressively, during the late nineteenth century and early twentiethcenturies, housing built under contract has covered swathes of

the available land; more recently, this process has included thesub-division of wide property frontages to permit further in-llingconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood. Furthermore,in the late 1990s property developers have successfully mergedthe tail sections of several long gardens with plots of accommoda-tion land to permit the building of Sampson Court, a cluster of sixats/maisonettes and Ruxley Avenue, a gated development of vemore exclusive, detached, homes.

Summary of change 19472009

Table 2 summarises key outcomes of development control since1947. Almost three-quarters of properties (including those builtsince 1947) have been the subject of at least one planning appli-cation. The average number of planning applications submittedfor properties in the study area is 1.4: Old Charlton Road has thehighest average, 1.6. Several, and longer-running suites of applica-

Table 3Shepperton study area: approved changes to properties.

Description of change Old Charlton Road(N=107)

Lois Drive/MarionAve/Barbara Close(N=110)

Crescent Road/StationRoad/Ruxley Ave/LindenWay/Sampson Court(N=116)

Total changes(N=333)

%

Single-storeSideRearSide and rFrontConservat

Two-storeyRearSide/ankSide and rSide + singRoom abo

Ground ooRearFlank+ reaand aboveRoof-spac

GarageErect newExtendReplaceErect doubAdd habitaConversioErect car p

VariousPorchWindowFence/walUnspecie

New-build/rHousing uTotal appry11 1840 34

ear 5 5

ory 9 19

13 1earle-storeyve existing garage 9r (and part rst oor)

18r 2 1garage

e modication (dormer structure) 13 8

garage 21 319 23le 2 2ble room 8 5

n to accommodation 10ort 1 5

2l/gateway 1d alterations 1 1eplacementnits 7 1ovals 182 13611 40 7.737 111 21.43 13 2.51 1 0.2

11 39 7.5

16 16 3.19 23 4.47 7 1.41 1 0.21 10 1.9

4 22 4.23 6 1.22 2 0.4

19 40 7.7

17 69 13.36 17 3.33 0.61 5 1.01 14 2.72 12 2.32 8 1.5

5 5 1.01 3 0.62 3 0.61 3 0.6

37 45 8.7200 518 100.0

R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279 275

tions to secure planning consent for higher density development,have typicaof an existand (sequethe construCharlton Roapplicationbeen less aWar Twowbut levels oof applicatiAvenue tarcrete) garagconversiondence of angeographicopment ageplanning coership hasapplication

In essenrelated toplanning gucent Road/Lre-submitteopment prowith regarddesign.

Table 3storey extefor 32% ofdistributedtrum. A varbungalows,storey exteof occupierbearing onwrap-arouing garagealong Old Cwere favouespecially atwo-storeywidth constments. Maimprovemeing signicaand erectio

Throughsubstantialthe modesthe prolethis cost-efof single- aspace.

Overall,provision oon the estafabricated,brick-builtever, are ador the direcmodicatioels of car odemands of

Discussion: an uncertain future for the Edgelands?

example fromSpelthorneBoroughdemonstrates thatGreensignn Lonedgege, bingof diith

ationingvoteWoto pt of lds diimpod toand px pap areen ths hay locothwand Yf pla

ipalitres

gue tng oven thBeltsarioueGae eytmemenof respit

st then uras athis pBelt ce cono impns ooreor anenabss inen abing oboth

Greeallye on (Gaticlet, angworBeltlly involved the demolition or substantial re-modellinging dwelling, the merger of adjacent parcels of landntially- and usually radically-modied) proposals forction of multiple housing units. One property in Oldad, for instance, has a sequence of fteen planning

s covering the period 19601999. Other proposals havembitious. For instance, immediately following Worldhen restrictions on buildingmaterials remained in forcef car ownership were growing, a signicant stream

ons from residents in bungalows in Lois Drive/Mariongeted the erection of pre-fabricated (asbestos or con-es. In this case and, later, with regard to roof-spaceand the introduction of dormer windows, there is evi-

imitation and neighbourhood effect evidenced byal location, and the recorded roles of property devel-ncies and architects, rather than the owner, in securingnsent. As Whitehand (2001) observes, change of own-often led to proposals for building modication ands for planning consent.ce, the 70 recorded refusals for 44 properties weremore complex proposals in breach of (then) currentidelines. These refusalswereheavily clustered inCres-indenWay, but several applicationswere subsequentlyd following signicant changes in the density of devel-posed, and reduced ambition on the part of the initiator

to building mass and non-conforming features in

provides more detail on the changes effected. Single-nsions, mainly at the rear of properties, accountedthe 518 successful applications. These were widelythroughout the area and across the architectural spec-iant, the (mainly glass) conservatory, was favoured inoften as a garden-room extension to the lounge. Two-nsions were custom-built to meet the specic needss for space and utility. Site characteristics have a strictarchitectural style and nal dimensions. Investment innd side andank extensions and building over an exist-are the more common forms of two-storey extensionharlton Road; in contrast, two-storey rear extensionsred in Crescent Road and Linden Way. On some sites,long Old Charlton Road, hybrid part single- and partdevelopments are a favoured solution imposed byrictions of the building plot and domestic light require-keovers to properties invariably led to other minornts, someofwhichwarrantedplanning consent, includ-nt changes to style of window, the addition of porchesn of new and higher fences and walls.out the area, modication of roof-space involving bothre-design with the addition of dormer structures andt insertion of sky-light windows without modifyingof the roof, are common. In semi-detached housing,fective modication often complements other formsnd two-storey conversion to create additional interior

15% of successful planning applications related to thef a garage or car port. This was especially commontes of pre-war bungalows where early post-war, pre-asbestos and concrete garages have been replaced byand larger (double) structures. More signicant, how-ditions of habitable accommodation to existing garagest conversion of garage space into living space. Thesens represent an incremental response to increasing lev-wnership, stage in family cycle, and the exible spacemodern lifestyles.

TheBelt deyears ithese of chanendowsitionmaps wdesignple, takarea deSecondrelatedamounorcharing indevotementscomplebuilt-u

Givchangetionsboccur bAmatitence omunicBelt, inthey archangi

GivGreenbeen vtion (seboth ththebesgovernponentcase decontrabetwee1980sAdd toGreenthat thhas alsdecisioBelt. Mcalls foand tobusinehas beproducwithin2002).

Thethey rebecomBritainrst arsuppor(CullinGreenation and strong controls on development for over 50dons ruralurban fringehavenot fossilised landuses inlands. Green Belt policy has controlled certain aspectsut the assemblageof landuses createdhasbeen chaotic,the edgelands with a seemingly haphazard juxtapo-fferent uses. Simple comparison of current land-useones from the period immediately before Green Beltshows substantial changes (Fazal, 2004). For exam-

the section of the edgelands represented in Fig. 4, thed to houses and gardens has nearly doubled since therld War, and new non-rural land uses have emergedublic utilities, industry, gravel pits and reservoirs. Theanddevoted to agriculturehas fallenbynearly70%,withsappearing entirely. In contrast, new land uses increas-rtance in the last 50 years include golf courses, landequestrian use, schools and their playing elds, allot-ublic utilities. This makes for a much more diverse andttern of land use, but with a doubling in the size of thea and a near vefold increase in urban land uses.e presence of the Green Belt designation whilst theseve occurred, it is apparent that different interpreta-al authorities havepermittedquite extensive changes to

ithin the Belt and along its urban edge. This is noted byokohari (2004, p. 135) who also observe that the exis-nners discretion means there are differences betweenies in terms of the functions they assign to the Greenponse to variable pressures for development. Hencehat Green Belts have developed multiple functions, buter time and space.is multi-functionality and the extent of change withinit is not surprising that in recent decades there haves calls for reforming or even abandoning the designa-llent et al., 2006). Its retention partly reects its value ines of the public, who still seem to view the Green Belt asans of controllingundesirable urban sprawl, and centralt, for whom the Green Belt has been an ongoing com-gional, strategic planning. The latter has remained the

e the changing context of that planning. For example,initial desire in the 1950s to dene a clear boundary

ban and rural to the intention to use Green Belts in thekey part of the strategy to foster urban regeneration.eriodic intent to focus on recreational amenity that thean provide (e.g. FLUFP, 2010, pp. 2425) and it is cleartext of strategic planning has not only changed, but itinged upon local authority responses when faced with

n what land uses to allow and where within the Greenver, that overall context is shifting again, with renewedoverhaul of planning to address rising housing demandle market opportunities to be more readily taken byan environment in which traditional regional policyandoned. Hence Green Belts remain an emotive issuengoing policy debate and strong differences of opinionlay andprofessional planning circles (RTPI, 2007; TCPA,

n Belts were neither a landscape designation nor havebeen a tool for preserving greenery, and yet they havee of the most widely supported planning policies inllent et al., 2008, p. 248).More specically, they are theof theplanning creed. They arehallowedbyuse, populard fears of what would happen if they were weakenedth and Nadin, 2006, p. 183). And yet the future of theand the edgelands is uncertain. For example, in 2006

276 R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279

the government introduced a new, free-standing Green Belt Direc-tion (Circular 11/05), whereby certain development applicationswould automatically be referred to the Secretary of State. It wasargued by sment to allo2008) and,tection, whspeculators(Amati, 200the TreasurBarker Reviewhich calleariesmore oGreen Beltment for TGreen Belt tStansted (DpromotedeBelt (Cullin

In Mayredrawing oland to be rof governmcable to theHertfordshiAs with prethe Green Bunder this dand possiblmine theabby theCPREfor modern

The Eastsuch prograegy targets2021, withfor buildingreviewed thther revieware expectein the draftof Green Beof Oxford. TBarker Repo

A reviewand localStrategy/Lany plannlocation.

Local planGreen Betowards aing areas,to replace

Governmenhancinels for proso-called

Thus thealongside rgreen girdltorywithingreen wedg

initially inNorthAmerica in the1920s (Adams, 1921) andapplied invarious American and Canadian cities subsequently (Little, 1995),perhaps most notably in Vancouver (GVRD, 1996). In the UK, green

s weansf urbn tral autaddipedmmrmlarbanes toivelyRodru (19th cwithxes,. 48

ped iUKshe shchested wonclonserng tof theunctthe phereed sens, dedemuthohave stahandnd tn-mBeltanceof v

gelanntialnal unt incentted ptcomre iswill brdabelanhav

is difp inof Gnt nve pYet c

paceome that this gave greater opportunities for govern-w building development in the Green Belt (CPRE, 2007,at best, gave mixed messages about Green Belt pro-ich confused local planning authorities and encouragedto purchase land in the hope of future development7). Further threats to the Green Belt have come fromy-sponsored Review of Land Use Planning in 2006, thew of land use planning in England (the Barker Report),d on local authorities to review their Green Belt bound-ften, and so perhaps threatened the permanence of the

(Nathan, 2007; Barker, 2006). Meanwhile, the Depart-ransport has proposed the removal of land from theo expand the airports at Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton andfT, 2003), and draft government regional plans haveconomicgrowthat theexpenseofpreservationofGreengworth and Nadin, 2006, p. 61; WCL, 2006).2008 the government approved the largest potentialf Green Belt boundaries for decades. The move enables

e-designated so that it can be sold to developers as partent house-building targets. The initial decision, appli-Metropolitan Green Belt in Bedfordshire, Essex and

re, may form the basis for reviews across the country.vious reviews, the likelihood is that the boundaries ofelt will be redrawn, thereby retaining the overall areaesignation but permitting greater urban consolidatione sprawl in other locales. Potentially, this could under-ilityof theGreenBelt topreventurbansprawl, as argued(2005, p. 4) andas is implicit in theRTPIs (2002) agendaising the Green Belt.of England Regional Spatial Strategy is the rst of ninemmes to be approved by the government. The Strat-the building of 508,000 new houses in the region byGreen Belt land to be reviewed in order to release land. The intention is that where Green Belt boundaries areere should be sufcient release of land to avoid fur-before 2031. Forthcoming regional spatial strategies

d to incorporate reviews of the Green Belt as suggestedSouth-East Regional Plan, which advocates a review

lt boundaries to accommodate 4000 new homes southhis is also a reection of the recommendations of thert, of which the three key ones were:

of Green Belt boundaries by regional planning bodiesplanning authorities as part of their Regional Spatialocal Development Frameworkprocesses to ensure thated development takes place in the most sustainable

ning authorities should ensure that the quality of thelts is enhanced by adopting a more positive approachpplications that canbe shown toenhance the surround-e.g. by creating open access woodland or public parkslow-grade agricultural land.

ent should consider the best ways of protecting andg valued green space in urban areas. Different mod-tecting such space should be evaluated, including thegreen wedge approach.

re is a possibility is for green wedges to be createdibbons of built environment as opposed to the currente approach. Indeed, just as Green Belts have a long his-the thinkingofplanners, the sameapplies to ideasaboutes (Freestone, 2002), with wedge schemes developed

wedgeas a meheart onot beeby loca

Andeveloit is cowith fanew umunitiexcess2008;Garreaof growciatedcomple1996, pdeveloof thecially tapproaintegra

In cnew Ctemptisome oin conjundersentedpresumrantedLondonstronglocal alocallyvativesin thesions, adecisioGreenaccorddegreethe eddiffereadditioernmerole ofuncharany ou

Thepolicyof affothe edgarguedYet itdevelosurveyrepresethat hablages.open sre propounded by the Countryside Commission (1999)of creating a network of green spaces running from thean areas into the wider countryside, though this hasnslated into design specications that can be taken uphorities in their development plans.tional factor to consider is the type of housing to beat these ruralurban interfaces. In continental Europeon for high-rise apartment blocks to be juxtaposednd whereas in the United States there is a growing

ism movement propounding the need for village com-be created that counterbalance the dehumanising,

car-oriented mega-malls of the edgelands (Garrapati,iguez et al., 2006; Talen, 2005). In North America,91) has used the term edge cities to refer to the impactorridors along major highways, which have been asso-shopping malls, industrial parks, campus-like ofcehospitals, schools, and a full range of shops (Fishman,5) in urban fringe locations. Whilst not so nearly welln theUKor so space-consuming as the edge cities,manyedgelands now possess many of these features, espe-oppingmalls andbusinessparks, anddifferentplanningmay be needed if these complexes are to be betterith other elements in the edgelands.

uding this paper immediately after the formation of avative-Liberal Democrats government in the UK, it isspeculate whether there will be a new trajectory forrecent changes in the edgelands, which have occurred

ion with evolving Green Belt policies being encouragedrevious New Labour government. The arguments pre-with have stressed that Green Belt policies and theirrm implementation have tended to give an unwar-

e of stability in patterns of urban-fringe landuse aroundspite the presence of a dynamic urban economy andands for housing. However, different interpretations byrities and the multi-faceted land use pressures facedproduced quite variable outcomes. Given the Conser-

ted intention to place more responsibility and powers of local authorities with respect to planning deci-

he Liberal Democrats support for bottom-up local levelaking, this might further weaken the one size ts allmodel. Greater provision for local authorities to act inwith local circumstances may further accentuate theariability both within Green Belts and in all parts ofds. In particular this may be the case with respect toresponses to regional housing strategies. Of course anncertainty is caused by the presence of a coalition gov-which the two partners have different attitudes to theralist planning and local democracy. The UK is enteringolitical territory and it is extremely difcult to predictes regarding planning policy.certainly the possibility that some aspects of Green Belte relinquished, for example in order to tackle shortagesle housing. This could change not only the nature ofds, but also their extent and intensity, which we havee been reduced by the presence of Green Belt policies.cult to speculate on just how the edgelands mightthe absence of the Green Belt controls. Amatis (2008)reen Belt policies around the world reveal how theyormative, rationally determined and universal policiesroduced remarkably similar edgeland land-use assem-hanges in policy have not necessarily eliminated greenin the edgelands (Watanabe et al., 2008), though reduc-

R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279 277

tions in the controls on new development can certainly reduce theamount of green space in the edgelands (Buxton and Goodman,2008) and also extend the area of chaotic land use typied by lin-ear sprawl asuch negatiland Consedominant fforeseeablepolicies likeremote. ThiBelts in redment: theUK] is aboutrates up tofor resident

Throughmentationof the landbe followedBorough Pllandscape aGreen Belt.where enhthrough couvisual impaconcerted imusewithin Gfor cities, asprawl butspaces on tbe seen asand as part2007). Andment of edagenda.

Acknowled

The authUniversitiesFazal to undanonymoustributed toThe Figures

References

Abercrombie,Adams, T., 192

to substituArchitects

Allmendinger,Research 2

Allmendinger,tory of pla

Althorp, J., Polperton. Su

Amati, M., 200London Gr579594.

Amati, M. (EdAldershot

Amati, M., 20Amati, M.shot/Burli

Amati, M., Yokin establis412.

Amati,M., Yokof London

Amati, M., Yokohari, M., 2007. The establishment of the London Greenbelt:reaching consensus over purchasing land. Journal of Planning History 6 (4),311337.

M., Run. Hol, I., 199? In: Fn Frin., 1995o, Lon, 1793on.., 20tut.or., 200O, NoA., 20tle-Wti, M./Burli., Rou.,Mitcers G

n, D.Nral are., 2009.D., 1omas210.., 198

. (Eds., V., 1ury..R., 19ral St.R., RuanageM., Gic poliate, AP., 19its. Et., Lewteent.J., 19New Y, A.,434.ities.planM.R.Gsactioside Cin and05. Gr07. Mn to Pnder Torth,ed. R,M.J.,istoricent foanceent foy guident fonitedon., P., Hes of mlen an.J., 19arch C.J., 19on..J., 198Octob.J., 20on.n, A.J.,ral St2004.ol of EThamlongmajor transport arteries (Bassok, 2008). It is fear ofve occurrences that continues to inuence middle Eng-rvative-supporting voters, whose voicemaywell be theactor in maintaining strong Green Belt controls for thefuture. Hence the possibility of moves to adopt newly to promote unconned and unfettered edgelands iss view is reinforced by the success attributed to Greenucing the loss of agricultural land to urban develop-conversion of Greeneld land to developed uses [in the5000haper year,which is about a third of the post-war

1975. Just over half of this greeneld land is developedial uses (Bibby, 2009, p. 512).out England, local authorities recognise that imple-of Green Belt policy does not guarantee the qualityscape therein and hence additional measures have toto address this issue. For example, in the Spelthorne

an, Rural Environment plans address integration ofnd nature conservation issues within the designatedThese plans also identify areas of degraded landscapeancement of the landscape is to be fostered, in partncil-funded landscaping projects, e.g. so as to reducect of reservoir embankments. It will only be throughplementation of this sort of positive planning for landreen Belts that theywill bemaintained as green lungsnd continue to provide not only a control on urbanalso development of multi-purpose attractive greenhe ruralurban interface. Such spaces may in futurepart of a more integrated process of spatial planningof a wider network of green spaces (Lloyd and Peel,only then can it be said that the effective manage-

gelands has gained its rightful place on the planning

gements

ors are grateful to the Association of Commonwealthfor their award of a Fellowship that allowed Shahabertake the research on which this article is based. Tworeferees contributed very helpful suggestions that con-reshaping some of the arguments presented herewith.were expertly drawn by Claire Ivison.

L.P., 1945. Greater London Plan, 1944. HMSO, London.1. Reserving productive areas within and around cities: a proposalte agricultural wedges for zones. Journal of the American Institute of9, 316319.P., 2003. From new right to new left in UK planning. Urban Policy and1 (1), 5759.P., Tewdwr-Jones, M., 2000. New labour, new planning? The trajec-nning in Blairs Britain. Urban Studies 37 (8), 13791402.lard, N., Pollard, C., Ward, P., 2000. Lost Houses of Sunbury and Shep-nbury and Shepperton Local History Society, Sunbury.7. From a blanket to a patchwork: the practicalities of reforming theeen Belt. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (5),

.), 2008a. Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-rst Century. Ashgate,and Burlington, VT.08b. Green Belts: a twentieth-century planning experiment. In:(Ed.), Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-rst Century. Ashgate, Alder-ngton, VT.ohari, M., 2004. The actions of landowners, government and plannershing the London Green Belt of the 1930s. Planning History 26 (1/2),

ohari,M., 2006. Temporal changesand local variations in the functionss green belt. Landscape and Urban Planning 75, 125142.

Aubck,Wie

AudivactiersUrba

Aug, MVers

Baird, T.Lond

Br, Jinsti

Barker, KHMS

Bassok,SeatAmashot

Bauer, GBeech, C

ReadBengsto

natuBibby, PBishop, K

P., Th186

Blair, A.MB.W

BrookingSunb

Bryant, Cof Ru

Bryant, Cits M

Buxton,publAshg

Cadene,con

Carter, HNine

Cloke, Pdon/

Coleman411

Communwww

Conzen,Tran

Countryside

CPRE, 20CPRE, 20Campaig

or UCullingw

14thDaunton

of HDepartm

GuidDepartm

policDepartm

the ULond

Drewettarea1. Al

Elson, MRese

Elson, MLond

Elson, Mner (

Elson, MLond

Erringtoof Ru

Fazal, S.,Schouponland, G., 1998. Paradies(t)rume, parks, grten und landschaften inzhausenverlag, Wien.9. Unsettled views about the fringe: ruralurban or urban-rural fron-uruseth, O.J., Lapping, M.B. (Eds.), Contested Countryside: The Ruralge in North America. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 732.. Non-Places: Introduction to an anthropology of Super-Modernity.don/New York.. General view of the agriculture in the County of Middlesex. J Nichols,

03. Entwicklung von urbanisierung. http://www.berlin-g/pdfs/Baehr Urba-nisierung Entwicklung.pdf.6. Barker reviewof land use planning. Final report-recommendations,rwich (www.barkerreviewofplanning.org.uk).08. Instruments to preserve open space and resource lands in theashington Metropolitan Regiona US alternative to Green Belts. In:(Ed.), Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-rst century. Ashgate, Alder-ngton, VT, pp. 149164.x, J., 1976. La rurbanisation ou la ville parpille. Seuil, Paris.hell, R., 2004.Maps for family and local history. TheNational Archives,uide, no. 26.., Youn, Y.C., 2006. Urban containment policies and the protection ofas: the case of Seouls Green Belt. Ecology and Society 11 (1).. Land use change in Britain. Land Use Policy 26 (Suppl. 1), 213.998. Countryside conservation and the New Right. In: Allmendinger,, H. (Eds.), Urban Planning and the New Right. Routledge, London, pp.

7. Future landscapes on the rural urban fringe. In: Lockhart, D., Ilbery,), The Future of the British Countryside. Geo Abstracts, Norwich.988. SheppertonStory. Sunbury andSheppertonLocalHistory Society,

95. The role of local actors in transforming the urban fringe. Journaludies 11, 255267.sswurm, L.H., McLellan, A.G., 1982. The Citys Countryside: Land andment in the RuralUrban Fringe. Longman, London.

oodman, R., 2008. Protecting Melbournes Green Wedgesfate of acy. In: Amati, M. (Ed.), Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-rst Century.ldershot/Burlington, VT, pp. 6182.90. Lusage des espaces priurbains, une gographie rgionale desudes Rurales 118/119, 225267.is, C.R., 1990. An Urban Geography of England and Wales in the

h Century. Edward Arnold, London.83. An Introduction to Rural Settlement Planning. Methuen, Lon-ork.

1976. Is planning really necessary? Geographical Journal 142 (3),

and Local Government, 2008. New Permitted Development Rules.ningportal.gov.uk/housing.., 1960. Alnwick: Northumberland. A study in town plan analysis.ns of the Institute of British Geographers 27, 1122.ommission, 1999. Linking town and country: policies for the country-around towns. CCP 546, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham.een Beltfty years on. CPRE, London.ajor Development Threats to Green Belt. CPRE, London.rotect Rural England (CPRE), 2008. Green BeltsRobustly Protectedhreat? CPRE, London.B.,Nadin,V., 2006. TownandCountryPlanning in theUnitedKingdom,outledge, London.Whitehand, J., 1978.Debate:buildingcycles andurban fringes. Journalal Geography 4, 175191.r Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 1995. Planning Policy2: Green belts. HMSO, Norwich.r the Environment, Transport, the Regions (DETR), 2001. Planningance note 2: Green Belts. The Stationery Ofce, London.r Transport (DfT), 2003. The Future Development of Air Transport inKingdom South East: Consultation Document, second edition. DfT,

idermann, U., 1973. Migration and social polarisation: a study of veegalopolis. In: Hall, P. (Ed.), The Containment of Urban England, vol.d Unwin/Sage, London/Beverly Hills, pp. 385444, two volumes.79. The Leisure use of Green Belts and Urban Fringes. Social Scienceouncil and The Sports Council, London.

86. Green Belts: Conict Mediation in the Urban Fringe. Heinemann,

7. The urban fringewill less farming mean more leisure? The Plan-er), 1922.03. Green Belts: Conict Mediation in the Urban Fringe. Heinemann,

1994. The peri-urban fringe: Europes forgotten rural areas. Journaludies 10, 367375.Land use Dynamics in the London Metropolitan Fringe: A Case Study.arth Sciences and Geography, Kingston University London, Kingstones.

278 R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279

Ferguson,M.J.,Munton, R.J.C., 1979. Informal recreation sites in Londons Green Belt.Area 11, 196205.

Fishman, R., 1996. In: LeGates, J., Stout, A. (Eds.), Beyond suburbia: the rise of thetechnobur

Foresight Landment Ofc

Fothergill, S.,green beltning restraSchool of G

Freestone, R.,Schuyler, DPress, Balt

Gallent, N., Anscape Rese

Gallent, N., Shfringe. Jou

Gallent, N., AnPlanning a

Gallent, N., Junledge, Abin

Garreau, J., 199Gant, R.J., Talb

8286.Garnaut, C., 20

in South Acentury. A

Garrapati, S., 2the United

Goddard, S., 1Library (St

Google Maphttp://map

Gunn, S.C., 20housing A595616.

Greater VancoGVRD, Van

Hall, P., 1973(Ed.), Thedon/Bever

Hall, P., 1973bEngland, vtwo volum

Hall, P., 1985.Healy, P., 1980

DepartmeHeineberg, H

http://wwHerington, J.MHoggart, K., 2

Citys HintAshgate, A

Howard, E., 1London.

Howard, E., 201902 editi

Jones, P., Comfning (June

Kaika, M., Swyof urban tResearch 2

Kamvasinou,transitionasioning La

Lapping, M.B.,Fringe in N

Lawrence, P.HSunbury a

Little, C.E., 199Lloyd, M.G., Pe

a tradition(5), 6396

Martin, W.T., 1Location. U

Ministry of Hodon, Circu

MHLG, 1957. GMiddlesex Ch

1938. ParkMiddlesex Chr

1938. BunMiddlesex Fe

Memory. Cbury/West

Munton, R.J.C., 1981. Agricultural land use in the London Green Belt. Town andCountry Planning 50, 1719.

Munton, R.J.C., 1983. LondonsGreenBelt: containment inpractice. Allen andUnwin,on., J., M

n and, J., MM., 20re of CH., 19in. Un., 199ety forJ., 196n, G.Mraphy

n, G.Mand Pz, D.Aical aional4.

02. Mown Pronme.rtpi.

., 197eption512.

M., 20M., 20ging F

M., Mane Bot: Corne BoCoun

ne DisCounc.D., 1raphiimeseraldl 2005erald,he Phountyston uountyn, Sur., 2005ledge., WoervatiD., 19(1), 14D., 19D., 1, Subutern CdCou, Lond.J., 19aint:332.N. (Epertoe, T.,n Beltmati,rshot/nd, J.Wns ofnd, J.Wsactiond, J.tive. Iessesnd, J.Wtives 3nd, J.Wter Lo7101nd, J.Wift voob. The city reader, Routledge, London and New York.Use Futures Project (FLUFP), 2010. Executive Summary. The Govern-e for Science, London.1986. Industrial employment and planning restraint in the London. In: Towse, R.J. (Ed.), Industrial/ofce development in areas of plan-intthe London Green Belt, Proceedings of a Conference Held at theeography. Kingston Polytechnic, 11 April 1986, pp. 2740.

2002. Greenbelts in the city and regional planning. In: Parsons, K.C.,. (Eds.), From Garden City to Green Belt. Johns Hopkins University

imore, pp. 6798.dersson, J., 2007. Representing Englands ruralurban fringe. Land-arch 32, 121.aw, D., 2007. Spatial planning, area action plans and the ruralurbanrnal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (5), 617638.dersson, J., Bianconi, M., 2006. Planning on the Edge: The Context fort the RuralUrban Fringe. Routledge, Abingdon.tti, M., Kidd, S., Shaw, D., 2008. Introduction to Rural Planning. Rout-gdon/New York.1. Edge city: life on the new frontier. Doubleday, New York.ot, P., 2000. Wall posters from eldwork. Teaching Geography 25,

08. The Adelaide parklands and the endurance of the Green Belt ideaustralia. In: Amati, M. (Ed.), Urban Green Belts in the twenty-rstshgate, Aldershot/Burlington, VT, pp. 107128.008. Critical appraisal of three ideas for community development inStates. Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (4), 382399.990. Sunbury, Shepperton and Littleton 18001961. SheppertonNicholas Parish Church Appeal).s, 2010. Street View. Shepperton, Surrey TW17, UK.s.google.co.uk/.07. Green belts: a review of the regions responses to a changinggenda. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 50 (5),

uver Regional District (GVRD), 1996. Liveable Region Strategic Plan.couver.a. Megalopolis England: the pattern of urban growth. In: Hall, P.containment of urban England, vol. 1. Allen and Unwin/Sage, Lon-ly Hills, pp. 294384, two volumes.. Londons western fringes. In: Hall, P. (Ed.), The containment of urbanol. 1. Allen and Unwin/Sage, London and Beverly Hills, pp. 447483,es.The people: where will they go? The Planner 71, 312.. The implementation of selective restraint policies. Working Papers,nt of Town Planning, Oxford Polytechnic, No. 45.., 2003. Grundiss Allegeneine geographie: stadtgeographie.w.millennium.fran-ken.de/fsi/html/skripte/HeinebergStadtgeo.pdf.., 1984. The Outer City. Harper and Row, London.005. City hinterlands in European space. In: Hoggart, K. (Ed.), Theerland: Dynamism andDivergence in Europes Peri-urban Territories.ldershot/Burlington, Vt, pp. 118.898. Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. S. Sonnenschein,

07. Garden cities of to-morrow. Routledge, London, reprinted fromon.ort, D., Hillier, D., 2004. Focus on the fringe. Town and Country Plan-), 781.ngedouw, E., 2000. Fetishizing the modern city: the phantasmagoriaechnological networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional4 (1), 120138.K., 2003. The poetics of the ordinary: ambiance in the movingl landscape. In:Dorrian,M., Rose,G. (Eds.),Deterritorialisations:Revi-ndscapes and Politics. Black Dog Publishing, London/New York.Furuseth, O.J. (Eds.), 1999. Contested Countryside: The RuralUrbanorth America. Ashgate, Aldershot.

., 2006. The Years of Change. Growing up in Sunbury and Shepperton,nd Shepperton Local History Society, Sunbury.5. Greenways for America. JohnsHopkins University Press, Baltimore.el, D., 2007. Green belts in Scotland: Towards the modernisation ofal concept? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 5046.953. The RuralUrban Fringe; A Study of Adjustment to Residenceniversity of Oregon Press, Eugene.using and Local Government (MHLG), 1955. Green Belts. HMSO, Lon-lar 42/55.reen Belts. HMSO, London, Circular 50/57.

ronicle (incorporating Staines and Sunbury Chronicle), 16th Aprilwood Estates. p. 13.onicle (incorporating Staines and Sunbury Chronicle), 8th Octobergalows at Shepperton. p. 12.deration of Womens Institutes, 1996. Middlesex Within Livingountryside Books/Middlesex Federation ofWomens Institutes, New-Drayton.

LondMurdoch

TowMurdochNathan,

CentNicot, B-

urbaOliver, R

SociPryor, R.Robinso

GeogRobinso

omyRodrigue

physvent435

RTPI, 20Royal To

enviwww

Sheail, Jperc501

Shoard,Shoard,

ChanShoard,Spelthor

menSpelthor

oughSpelthor

trictStamp, L

GeogSunday TSurrey H

ApriSurrey HSurrey: TSurrey C

KingSurrey C

tatioTalen, E

RoutTang, B.S

consThomas,

129Thomas,Thomas,

(Ed.)Wes

TownanTCPA

Towse, Rrestr323

Trimble,Shep

WatanabGreeIn: AAlde

Whitehaactio

WhitehaTran

WhitehaspecProc

Whitehaspec

Whitehain ou15, 8

Whitehaschrarsden, T.K., 1992. A fairway to plan? Assessing the golf course boom.Country Planning (September), 810.arsden, T.K., 1994. Reconstituting Rurality. UCL Press, London.07. A question of balance: cities, planning and the Barker Review.ities, Discussion Papers No. 9 (IPR).95. La priurbanisation dans les zones de peuplement industriel etiversit de Paris XII, SIRIUS Papier 95-36, Crteil.3. Ordnance Survey. A Concise Guide for Historians. Charles Closethe Study of Ordnance Survey Maps, London.8. Dening the ruralurban fringe. Social Forces 47, 202215.., 1991. The city beyond the city. In: Robinson, G.M. (Ed.), A Socialof Canada. Dundurn Press, Toronto/Oxford, pp. 302329.

., 1994. Conict and Change in the Countryside: Rural Society, Econ-lanning, revised ed. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester/New York.., Khattak, A.J., Evenson, K.R., 2006. Can new urbanism encouragectivity? Comparing a new urbanist neighbourhood with con-suburbs. Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (1),

dernising Green Belts: Discussion paper. RTPI, London.lanning Institute (RTPI), 2007. Facing up to the realities of modernnt (Green Belts still an emotive issue). Statement 5 January 2007.org.uk.9. The restrictions of Ribbon Development Act: the character and

of land-use control in inter-war Britain. Regional Studies 13,

00. Edgelands of promise. Landscapes 1 (2), 7493.02. Edgelands. In: Jenkins, J. (Ed.), Remaking the Landscape: Theace of Britain. Prole Books, London, pp. 117146.y 2003. The edgelands. Town and Country Planning, 122125.rough Council, 2009. Spelthorne Borough Development Plan Docu-e Strategies and Policies, Spelthorne Borough Council, Staines.rough Council, 2001. Spelthorne Borough Local Plan. Splethorne Bor-cil, Staines.trict Council, 1991. Spelthorne Borough Local Plan. Spelthorne Dis-il, Staines.950. The Land of Britain: Its Use and Misuse. Longman Green andcal Publications Ltd., London., 29th March 2009. I feel virtually at home., 27th April 2005. Green Belt halts super show jumping centre. 27th, p. 1.21st May 2008. Its a Land Grab. p. 1.otographic Atlas, 2000. Harper Collins Publishers, London.Council, 2005. The Surrey Waste Plan. Surrey County Council,

pon Thames.Council, 2006. Draft Surrey Minerals Plan. Preferred Option Consul-rey County Council, Kingston upon Thames.. New Urbanism and American Planning: The Conict of Cultures.

, London.ng, S.W., Lee, A.K.W., 2007. Green belt in a compact city: a zone foron or transition? Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (3/4), 358373.63. LondonsGreenBelt: theevolutionof an idea.Geographical Journal24.70. Londons Green Belt. Faber and Faber, London.974. The urban fringe: approaches and attitudes. In: Johnson, J.H.rban Growth. Geographical Patterns and Processes at the edge of theity. Wiley, Chichester.ntry PlanningAssociation (TCPA), 2002.GreenBelts, Policy Statement.on.88. Industrial location and site provision in an area of planningpart of south-west Londons metropolitan green belt. Area 20,

d.), no date. Life on the Thames. Yesterday and Today. Sunbury andn Local History Society, Sunbury.Amai, M., Endo, K., Yokohari, M., 2008. The abandonment of Tokyosand the search for anewdiscourse of preservation in Tokyos suburbs.M.M. (Ed.), Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-rst century. Ashgate,Burlington, VT, pp. 2136..R., 1967. Fringe-belts: aneglectedaspect of urbangeography. Trans-

the Institute of British Geographers 41, 223233..R., 1972. Building cycles and the spatial pattern of urban growth.

ns of the Institute of British Geographers 56, 3955.W.R., 1974. The changing nature of the urban fringe: a time per-n: Johnson, J.H. (Ed.), Suburban Growth. Geographical Patterns andat the edge of the Western City. Wiley, Chichester..R., 1988. Urban fringe belts: development of an idea. Planning Per-, 4758..R., 1990. Makers of the residential landscape: conict and change

ndon. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, new series..R., 2001. Changing suburban landscapes at the micro-scale. Tijd-

r Economische en Sociale Geograe 92, 164184.

R.L. Gant et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 266279 279

Whitehand, J.W.R., Carr, C.M.R., 1999. The changing fabrics of ordinary residentialareas. Urban Studies 36, 16611677.

Whitehand, J.W.R.,Morton,N.J., 2003. Fringebelts and the recyclingofurban land: anacademic concept and planning practice. Environment and Planning B-Planningand Design 30 (6), 819839.

Whitehand, J.W.R., Morton, N.J., 2006. The fringe-belt phenomenon and socio-economic change. Urban Studies 43, 20472066.

Wildlife and Countryside Link (WCL), 2006. Spatial Planning Guidance. WCL,London.

Land-use change in the edgelands: Policies and pressures in London's ruralurban fringeIntroduction: the ruralurban Fringe in the United KingdomGreen Belts: policies and issues in the United Kingdom (UK)Land-use within the edgelands: the Shepperton areaBackground: the pattern of land usesControlling developmentThe role of planning registersSummary of change 19472009

Discussion: an uncertain future for the Edgelands?AcknowledgementsReferences