The motorway age (1955–79) - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 81

were inhabited by the predominantly Labour-voting working class. These were not
welcome to the Conservative voters who traditionally dominated in country areas
nor to the upwardly mobile urban migrants who bought into the privately owned
housing which was increasingly being developed in the surrounding villages and small
towns. In many areas therefore the 'historical accident' of city councils' administrative
boundaries was, and continues to be, a dominant factor influencing the size and shape
of their built-up areas.
Another garden city principle which found official endorsement in the post-war
period was the designation of 'green belts'. Following a circular from Duncan Sandys,
the Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1955, local planning authorities
were invited to bring forward proposals in their development plans for areas of
countryside encircling towns to be designated as green belts. These were intended to
check the growth of large built-up areas, to prevent the coalescence of settlements and
to preserve the character and setting of historic towns. They were also seen as offering
the potential to cater conveniently for the countryside recreational needs of urban
dwellers. The designated areas would enjoy lasting protection against development
incompatible with their open character.
The concept of green belts enjoyed strong public support amongst residents
near the urban fringe and continues to dominate discussion of planning issues in
the areas concerned. Throughout their history however their appropriate purpose
and application has been steeped in controversy (Elson 1986). In their original
formulation green belts were but one element of an overall planned approach to urban
development, inseparable from the creation of the garden cities needed to provide for
new housing and population growth. In the minds of many however they were - and
still are - viewed simply as a device for stopping urban growth.
Where green belts have been formally designated - principally around London and
the other conurbations, but also around historic cities such as Oxford, Cambridge
and York - their long-term effect has been to divert additional, mainly residential,
development further afield. This 'leapfrogging' was facilitated by the improvement
of the inter-urban road network, resulting in longer distance car commuting to the
principal cities and associated increases in traffic. Conversely, for increasingly mobile
city populations, recreational needs are sought in places much further afield than the
'countryside' immediately at hand, and the growth in average travel distances for these
types of journey is even greater.
In the 1960s, when population projections were being revised sharply upwards,
official enthusiasm for green belts cooled - recognising the dangers of permanently
sanctifying large tracts of land from development needs. Meanwhile there was an
important further round of new town designations - at Redditch and Telford for
Birmingham, at Skelmersdale and Runcorn for Liverpool, at Warrington and Central
Lancashire for Manchester, at Washington for Tyneside and at Livingston and
Cumbernauld for Glasgow. In the South-East the target populations for the original
'Mark I' new towns were raised and there were further designations at Peterborough,
Northampton and in North Buckinghamshire (named Milton Keynes). Significantly
these later designations were for larger cities (around 200,000 population) located
much further away from the capital, reflecting what was needed to approach the goal
of 'self-containment' in a more mobile age.