•  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: THE OPEN BACKGROUND

Sir Raymond Unwin first posed the alternative solutions to London’s outward spread: either a continuous zone of free-entry for universal building at varying degrees of density (some of them, in high-class (sic) districts, quite low), its continuity broken at intervals by areas of green (as public open space) and, in practice, by patches of farmland left over from the builder’s demand, or a continuous green background of open country in which are embedded at suitable places compact spots of red, representing building. We have unhesitatingly adopted the second alternative, which he advocated, for the two outer rings.
It is probable that the dual use - for agriculture and recreation - mentioned in the Scott Report definition of a Green Belt (para. 202 ), will apply to both of these rings, as the pent-up population will inevitably avail themselves of the country, though in decreasing intensity as their centrifugal dispersion increases the ratio of openness.
From the agricultural point of view, the preservation for farm and other cultivation use of the most productive land is essential. This can now be facilitated by consultation with the Planning Department of the Ministry of Agriculture. Also, where proposals for building of new additions to existing communities have been agreed upon, the minimum disturbance of economic farm units is to be arranged. And finally, the recreational use is to be made to interfere as little as possible with farming operations.
From the recreational point of view, perhaps the most important need is the linking up of open spaces and the addition to the Green Belt possessions to meet the need for organised games for the whole community. The scenic aspect of regional open space has possibly been further advanced than the playing field, but much still remains to be acquired. Little has, so far, been done to knit the whole together into a continuous system by footpaths, park strips, riverside walks, bridle-ways and green lanes. There should be a pedestrian system of communications as efficient as that for the motor, and the less these two means of locomotion are provided in contiguity, the better for both.
Just as there is to be a gigantic Green Belt round built-up London, so there should be lesser girdles for the separate communities, old and new; this local girdle need not be wide, if beyond it is open agricultural country. Also some landscaped screen, not necessarily of continuous trees, is desirable to break the impact of building, especially seen at some distance upon the open view. Certain recent communities, carefully designed in detail, have still been insufficiently studied from this landscape aspect.
Two other details of the Open Spaces Plan may be mentioned. There is the need to preserve, wherever they exist, wedges of country which still in a few places thrust their points into the built-up mass. We would like to see these wedges carried right into the centre of London and we believe it could be done in a long term policy. There are also certain large geographic features which could be rescued from an unsatisfactory state and an uncertain fate. The most obvious is the Lee Valley, which for miles runs parallel to London’s oldest ribbon of communities. It is true that it is partly industrialised and if no action were taken this would probably continue in a desultory, landscape-devastating way. But in the hands of a skilful landscapist this valley, with its streams, disused gravel pits and water reservoirs could in places be turned into a miniature Norfolk Broads: there is still time to rescue it and to make it an open space of artificial beauty contrasted with primeval Epping Forest. The Cray Valley is almost gone, but there is still time to rescue the Upper Roding.
Lastly, we propose that under the Regional Planning Authority (described later) the Green Belt and other regional open spaces should be controlled in such a way that landscaping, afforestation (with full regard to amenity), and full public use may be harmonised under the best possible advice.
The London Region surveyed by the impartial and comparative eye of the geographer cannot be said to be very remarkable for the possession of dramatic, romantic or noble landscape features. The Thames is its one great natural possession which in one or two places rises to a pitch of scenic grandeur - the view from Richmond Terrace which has for years trembled on the brink of spoliation, and the Cliveden stretch which recently, to all belief, made safe for ever, is even now threatened by industrial intrusion. But if the Thames is only at moments grand, it possesses an unfailing quiet beauty, enhanced by civilised man in the distant past, though more recently suffering from barbarous man’s exploitation and ignorance, desultory industry , shacks and bungalows, indiscriminate tree felling, advertisements, etc. Its recreational value warrants a continuance of the older spirit of creative conservation and imaginative landscape design.
The most spectacular features of the region are perhaps the escarpments of the Chilterns and the North Downs, much of the latter, though by no means all, being already safeguarded. Not only the Downs themselves but the prospect from them is important: it is not satisfying to look down from the top of a chalk cliff into the sewage disposal plant of a town. This plant may be a perfect example of engineering efficiency, but its contrast with the natural beauty of the Downs is too abrupt. It is worse, of course, to look down, as one can in some places, on crude ten-to-the-acre streets of houses destroying villages and landscape.
There are also large extents of varied scenery rising to considerable heights of intrinsic beauty in such districts as Leith Hill, Ide Hil1, the Broxbourne Woods and parts of the Chilterns. Another fortunate side of London’s regional topography is the existence of large tracts of almost sterile ground, perhaps more frequent on the south, having one of its most famous examples in Wimbledon Common. Their poor agricultural value saved them from enclosure and “improvement” (to the grossly material eye of Cobbett they were useless): and they were safeguarded for the public before their building value had risen so high as to defeat the most ardent champion of open spaces. Many of them have been pounced upon for military purposes during the past fifty years: but this agriculturally poor soil regenerates its primeval vegetation when not too intensively trampled upon, with surprising speed. Much of this land, still in private ownership, remains to be secured: to the City dweller its heather, birches and gorse excel by far the utmost skill of the garden and park designer.
Again, in a region with over ten million inhabitants quite simple and, as it were, normal fragments of rural England including maybe a village which, lying off a road or rail route, has escaped the suburban builder’s eye and which in a country county might almost be taken for granted, assume a real relative importance out of all proportion to their intrinsic landscape merits. These should, if possible, not be invaded: there is a time when the developer should refrain, even from good works, though it be pain and grief to him.
 

forward