This week the Government published specific proposals: the unfortunate sentence of a Minister: rewrite the laws of England planning. Using the comforting language of localism and sustainability, the document sets out with a decent ambition: involve people affected by planning decisions in the process of making them. Simplifies a complex system that some argue, is an unnecessary restriction on economic growth. Critics say it threatens disaster for much of the rural England, foreshadowing the spread almost uncontrolled. National policy planning project framework is trapped in the intersection between the communities, the State and the market. The fear is that the latter will triumph.
In the 1930s Britain built its way out of recession. John Betjeman Metroland was the result. There is more than an indication of the new proposals, which have been the subject of conflicting pressures on the Government. Some departments have emphasized the right of the people to decide what is and is not built near their homes that could lead to the development of less, not more. Others, such as the Treasury and the Department of business, under fire from the stagnant pace of economic growth, want to ease restrictions exceptionally close England planning.
One of the reasons why it is a very expensive country to live is the restricted supply of property. There is nothing progressive, in a nation with a growing population on asphyxia in the supply of new homes, which also only enriches individuals who already have the property. And if Cambridge, for example, allowed become a city of science well planned of a million people, more than a small medieval village surrounded by fenland, Great Britain, would certainly be richer in immediate economic terms: but not environmental.
Not everything is bad and not all the green land (is not the same as greenbelt) is sacrosanct. What matters is the process by which decided that the development and where carried out. In this new proposals are inadequate. They have not only been attacked by the campaign to protect Rural England and trust national but also surveyed by the Royal Town Planning Institute. Fears of the past that "economic growth in general is set to win the aspirations of the local population in local plans and district". Talk Cortés of community empowerment and sustainable development can be means very little when it is set against a rich developer.
The fundamental change in the new proposals is that Ministers call for "a presumption for sustainable development". In summary, proposals that meet local plans still ill-defined means (half of the local authorities do not have one) you will get an almost automatic approval. There will be restrictions, especially in national parks and buildings. And local plans, which must comply with the national guidelines, will not allow a battle pitched. But as it stands the proposed planning framework is too weak when it comes to specify how local plans will be developed and applied. It also supports a category plan neighborhood that could allow the development in the opinion of a group of self-appointed local people of dubious origin. To some ears, this sounds like a builders Charter. "Neighborhoods will have the power to promote further development contained in the strategic policy of the local plan," said the proposals.
The Government said is being misunderstood: he wants simpler, cheaper and better development, not more. Perhaps. But the development is something that can not undo and planning should participate as much as stimulus restriction. As things stand, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is going to reward developers neglecting sustainability. The opposite of promised Ministers is needed.
没有评论:
发表评论