A consultation paper published in December outlined two significant changes which could see more building in parts of the countryside.

It is already producing much angst from those who regard the Green Belt as sacrosanct.

But I hope that on reflection interested parties will see merit in the proposals because, as we have highlighted before, employment land is urgently needed in some areas … and Redditch is one.

Companies attracted to the town because of its excellent transport links and expertise in logistics and light industry will look elsewhere if they cannot find suitable sites.

If Redditch is to continue to prosper, and we all want that, then it is an issue which needs to be addressed.

And while Government changes are targeted on housing need, it is important they understand that you can’t just build homes without providing jobs, schools, doctors and other infrastructure.

Under consideration are tweaks to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The consultation paper sets out two intriguing relaxations to current Green Belt rules. The first would clear the way to building on brownfield sites. The second is so neighbourhood plans can accommodate land for starter homes on sites that would otherwise be blocked.

In addition, the guidance strengthens planning policy support for new settlements.

Campaigners claim all this could drive a coach and horses through Green Belt safeguards, but others suggest a much more limited and specific effect.

Indeed Michael Kiely, chairman of the Planning Officers Society (POS), welcomed what he described as “cautious steps towards relaxing what has been an absolute bar on Green Belt releases”.

He added: “The biggest problem with the Green Belt is its name. It should have been called the urban containment zone because that’s what it is. Its primary purpose is to stop the physical growth of the metropolitan area over the long term.”

Commentators noted that the bar on developing brownfield sites in the Green Belt had been widely criticised for creating rural eyesores, and pointed out that the consultation paper estimates that such plots only account for 500-600 hectares or fewer than 20,000 new homes even were high density levels allowed.

Equally, British Property Federation director of communications and planning Ghislaine Halpenny was quoted as playing down the likely impact of moves to release Green Belt land for starter homes through the neighbourhood plan process, stating: “It’s about areas where neighbourhood plans agree through a referendum that starter homes should be built on the Green Belt – there are not going to be very many.”

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman insisted: “Planning policy maintains strong protections for the Green Belt.

“Our proposals only relate to housing that has been included in a neighbourhood plan, designed by the local community and approved by local people in a referendum.

“Ultimately our planning reforms mean that local people decide where developments should and shouldn’t go. We want to deliver the homes this country needs to ensure anyone who works hard and aspires to own their own home, has the opportunity to do so.”

My message is that employment land should not be forgotten about amid the housing arguments.

Redditch is almost at saturation point – more commercial space is required. Houses are fine but jobs are arguably more important.