Planning for changes in the law: what is essential is the definition of 'sustainable development' | Damian Carrington

Property developers have warmly welcomed the proposed changes in the Government planning laws. Photography: David Goddard/Getty Images

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.

View the original article here

Planning: Concrete proposals | Editorial

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.

View the original article here