•  Introductory
• Character of Growth of Outer London
• Indications of Structure
• Assmptions
• The Nature of the Plan
• Structure of the Plan: Zoning; the Four Rings
• Structure of the Plan:  Communications
• Structure of the Plan:  the Open Background
• The Policy Aimed At in the Detailed Movement of Population and Work - SPORADIC MOVEMENT OR OSCILLATION: SPECULATIVE BUILDING: VILLAGES - DECENTRALISATION IN AND NEAR THE REGION:APPLICATION TO EXISTING COMMUNITIES: NEW SITES: QUASI-SATELLITES - POPULATION DISPERSED OUTSIDE THE REGION - THE DECENTRALISING BOROUGHS AND THE SUBURBAN RING - INDUSTRIAL LOCATION COMPARED WITH HOUSING - DETAILED STUDIES - STANDARDS - PUBLIC SERVICES
• Realisation: Design and Amenity
• Realisation: the Administrative machine
• The Picture Aimed At

 
STRUCTURE OF THE PLAN: ZONING: THE FOUR RINGS

After full consideration we have come to the conclusion that the main pattern of the Plan should be based upon the faintly indicated structure of concentric form mentioned in sec. 13. The natural evolution of disorderly growth can be shaped into some semblance of ordered design, both for population grouping, land use, transport and public services. But upon these faintly differentiated areas are to be imposed much more directive and corrective aims: there, too, boundaries are to be sharply defined instead of blurred as in an image of an out-of-focus photograph.
As regards zoning in its widest sense, these concentric rings must be broadly defined according to population numbers and density, industrial location and use of open land for agriculture and recreation.

The first, or Inner Ring, does not make a clear diagrammatic figure in this Plan, as it is (as has been already mentioned) in a sense an overspill of the fully urbanised portions of the L.C.C. built-up mass. [This statement, made from the diagrammatic angle, does not, of course, ignore the fact that many of these urban communities are of great antiquity and have merely been absorbed in the London spread.] The Inner Ring includes areas which, owing to their high density and lack of sufficient open space, require decentralising: there is not sufficient unbuilt-upon land to adjust their overcrowding within their own boundaries. We have adopted (using the same calculations and definitions as in the County of London Plan) two maximum net population densities of 75 and 100 persons per acre for different parts of this zone. On this basis 415,000 persons require decentralising, in addition to the figure in the County of London Plan for the overcrowded areas within its boundary.
Some of these Boroughs have received damage by enemy action on as great a scale as any part of Central London, and they will, we anticipate, embark upon detailed plans for rebuilding at once, working upon the basis of this Plan, if it is accepted. The suggestions for the destination of the populations to be removed, together with remarks upon the accompanying decentralisation of industry, will be dealt with later.

The second Ring, which might well be called “Suburban London,” makes a much clearer showing on its outer periphery, though on the inner it also merges, especially on the south-east, imperceptibly into the L.C.C. area, where there are also suburban conditions. This is the ring which to the general public represents most vividly London’s sprawl, though much ribboning and scattering and spotting occurs further out. It is by no means an exact circle in shape, but it has an approximate radius of 12 miles from Charing Cross: there are a few “wedges” of open land that penetrate into the mass, the most remarkable being that of Totteridge and Mill Hill, whose apex is within 8 miles of Charing Cross. The outer boundary has been drawn with great care with the object of keeping it as compact as possible.
This ring, with regard to population and industry, is to be regarded as a static zone, it is neither a reception area for decentralised persons, nor industry; nor does it, in general, require decentralisation, except for the pockets of overcrowding which exist in it, and some of these can be adjusted within the ring itself. Nor should it be allowed to increase in population from any other sources, as most of the vacant frontages (see Chapter 3, sec. 106) will be required for displaced populations. Any other areas of land unbuilt on as yet should be kept open even though they may have been zoned for building in the statutory planning schemes. This open land will be required for many purposes, for example, recreational open space which is deficient in the County of London. A maximum net residential density of 50 persons per acre should be aimed at within this ring.
Though it has been said that this second ring should be “static,” this by no means suggests that there is no need of any action within it. In addition to the elimination of high density pockets, the whole area requires working over with great detail and care in order to carry on the Community Grouping principle advocated in the County of London Plan. Plans have been prepared showing the housing carried out between the wars (practically all of it under Statutory Planning control) and the older portions. A study of these plans reveals that the newer parts, beyond having a density generally not exceeding 12 houses per acre, and a certain differentiation in the use of roads (culs-de-sac, minor approach roads, etc.), exhibit few of the major requirements of town planning. There is no more outstanding example in the country of the perversion of the principles laid down by Ebenezer Howard.

The third ring is somewhat more difficult to define. Broadly speaking, it is that area which includes most of the land which has been acquired under the Green Belt Act (1938). Under the somewhat tautological title, “The Green Belt Ring,” it is intended to include much more open land, not necessarily in public ownership but permanently safeguarded against building by powers at least as forcible as those recommended by the Uthwatt Committee. [The Rural Zone applied under the 1932 Act being altogether ineffective where such immense impetus to intensive building development exists.] It has often been pointed out that if action had been taken 2 years ago a real belt of open country round London could have been secured, not only more completely rural than the present proposal, but nearer in.
Within this Green Belt Ring are to be found a larger number of communities than one would have liked, some old and some new: but they are more distinct than those in the Suburban Ring, where each group tends to coalesce with its neighbour. Ancient towns as big as Watford and Reigate are here and the upstart communities (founded on small village nuclei) which straggle round Hornchurch and Upminster in the east, and Banstead and Orpington in the south, for instance. This Green Zone is of paramount importance to London, as providing the first stretches of open country: it is here also that the public open space deficiency of the County of London will be chiefly made up; where organised large-scale games can be played, wide areas of park and woodlands enjoyed and footpaths used through the farmland. The absolute purchase of land for full public use, under the admirable Green Belt Act, should thus continue where the land is suitable for playing fields and where it consists of specially beautiful pieces of natural or artificial landscape: but it is hoped that land for agriculture, which will comprise the greater part of the Green Belt Ring, can be safeguarded by other and equally effective methods.
It is also necessary to limit within this zone, very strictly, any expansion of existing communities, and to establish no new centres. Exceptions to this principle involving restricted expansion must, however, be made in the case of certain important manufacturing centres and for certain immediate post-war housing purposes.

Finally, beyond the Green Belt Ring, and extending to the boundary of the area, is the Outer Country  Ring, containing distinct communities situated in land which is open in character and in prevailing farming use. While this general character will be preserved, it is intended to allow in this ring a more generous expansion of existing centres and also to provide the sites for new satellites: both expansion of old, and new growths will be occasioned by the decentralised population and industry from inner London, with the exception of the “oscillation” figure dealt with in sec. 46 and concerned chiefly with vacant frontages.
This Outer Country Ring may, therefore, be described as the chief reception area for overcrowded London: but it must not be regarded as a uniformly suitable site for such purposes: not only is there the very marked variation of agricultural fertility and of transport facility , but in addition there is the strong contrast of scenic qualities and rural atmosphere. Certain local authorities have indicated to us, and we cordially endorse, the undesirability of invading particular districts by even the best planned new communities: these quiet areas are not to be preserved in the interests of local or adjacent inhabitants, but in those of London as a whole. There are, fortunately, large tracts both north and south of the Thames which contain some of the most attractive rural, woodland and hilly scenery in the south of England. That on the south is already considerably safeguarded under the National Trust.
Within this Country Ring may be found examples of the best and the worst forms of satellite growth, under almost unfettered conditions, in the London Region. There are also examples where, without rising to the heights or sinking to the depths, unsatisfactory communities have resulted from too much attention to the purely industrial aspect: an example of the over-emphasis of the housing aspect is not found in this Outer Ring but parallel cases occur in the Inner Rings.
It cannot be said that the outer boundary of the Country Ring is as satisfactorily defined as the outer boundaries of the second and third rings. It has been considerably determined by administrative lines, whereas the others were worked out from actual use. We were asked to include the whole of the Counties of Hertfordshire and Surrey which, though we were prepared to do it, has somewhat obscured the essential importance of this line. But as a result of our inquiries we have submitted a suggested revision of the area recommended by the Barlow Royal Commission within which additional industrial undertakings should be banned. The small scale diagram illustrates this suggested boundary of Greater London for industrial regulation.
The reception of the decentralised population is proposed beyond this boundary as well as within it, but the places beyond this boundary which may receive the population are no longer considered under the Barlow ban: if they grow they are not considered to be adding to London’s swollen bulk. As industry may be attracted to them from London, so it may also come from other centres, if nationally convenient.
Though not strictly falling within the scope of this Greater London Plan, we have given some attention to several centres, e.g:, Aylesbury, Bletchley, Braintree, etc., on about the 50-mile radius from Charing Cross; we have also allotted a proportion of the decentralisation figure to them. They will, of course, fall under the general control of industrial location.
 

forward