Planning Act rare time accelerates the blood of the media. But every day, above and below the Earth, planning decisions are giving way to the country, bringing joy to some and they despair for others.
Publication on Monday of the Government's plans for a radical reform of planning of the United Kingdom - tearing nice lawyer up to 1000 pages and putting in place - only 52 pages was received with coverage of minimum immediate press (including Guardian, Telegraph, BBC excluded).
What of it? Simplification and less work for the lawyers, is a good thing. And as Julian Glover in the guardian (an acute observer of planning laws), Great Britain will have to build if our population growing, aging will have a roof over his head.
But consider these two ministerial takes on the new national policy planning framework (NPPF). First of all, business Secretary Vince Cable, which says that the plans are "sensitive to business" and "an important step forward in the creation of conditions for business start-up, invest, grow and create jobs".
Then Secretary of environment Caroline Spelman. She said that the plans "will give local communities the power to protect green spaces that mean so much to them, but giving the maximum protection to our landscapes treasured national parks and areas of Natural beauty."
Can they talk about the same? The key here is a sentence which did not appear until paragraph 7, of the press release: "a presumption for sustainable development".
"Presumption in favor" means development plans - homes, supermarkets, highways, business premises and so - give green light, unless there is good reason for not doing so. It is a major shift in the balance of decision-making.
So what is essential is what the Government means by "sustainable development". NPPF (p3) project defines the term as follows.
Delivery of sustainable development means for planning system:
? planning of prosperity (an economic function): use the system of planning to build a strong, sensitive and competitive economy, to ensure that there is sufficient land for the right kind and in the right places allow growth and innovation...
? planning for individuals (social role): use the planning system to promote
strong, active and healthy communities by providing a greater supply of
housing to meet the needs of present and future generations...? planning of places (an environmental role): use the planning system for
protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment, using natural
resources with prudence and to mitigate and adapt to climate change...
This definition, combined with the presumption in favor - feel me weighted to say yes to every building and pretty light on how to avoid adverse events. The bias of the definition of "sustainable development" for short-term gains allow a kind word probe applicable to all types of construction projects.
But we will see that she was satisfied with the plan and that it is not. The Government, rather helpfully, relays the views of the Chairman of the main group of developers, Sir Stuart Lipton - "we are delighted" - and the peace of Liz, Executive Director of the British Federation of property: "will have no problems to our resounding support framework of today." So the constructors are more than happy.
But, the nation, the National Trust's largest landowner. "Planning is for individuals, non-profit," says the director-general, Dame Fiona Reynolds. "This sounds like finally death sentence the principle established in the 1940s used the planning system to protect what is most special in the landscape, creating a tool to promote economic growth in its place."
The campaign to protect rural England are not happy either. Director Executive Shaun Spiers, said: "the new framework will make the field and much less safe from harmful and unnecessary development local character." And the RSPB, the largest group of voluntary membership in United Kingdom, is concerned about too much. Martin Harper, Director of conservation of the RSPB, says: "the planning system is there to represent the interests of the public to the complex decisions, and all of us will fail if one of the factors: economic growth: is higher than any other". (There are many more reaction in the history of my colleague John Vidal news.)
So that the developers are satisfied, that many others are not. That, I think, says all you need to know about the orientation of the new planning regime. Plans are now being consulted until 17 October, so make sure you give your opinion.
PostScript: I wondered what that would mean the NPPF large infrastructure projects, such as new power plants and wind farms needed to clean up our power supply. The answer is not too much, as I find out. Currently, independent infrastructure planning Commission has responsibility for deciding on projects defined by the Government as a national priority. Local communities may object to specific parts of these plans, but not to the overall desirability. Commissioners of CPI then balance these factors and make a judgement. The next changes you will probably see the abolished CPI, but still there will be a process independent of projects regarded as national priorities. The big difference is that a Secretary of State will take the final decision, not a Commissioner CPI.