Today you get two blogs for the price of none – this one’s about planning, the other is about being at sea (or they might both be about being at sea…)
Government is talking tough about its contentious proposals for changing the planning system. In a joint article in yesterday’s Financial Times, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, the formidable Eric Pickles (rumoured to be a birdwatcher) and the Chancellor, George Osborne (rumoured to be the least green Cabinet member), describe the position they are in as a ‘battle’ which no-one should doubt their determination to win.
I’d assume that they couldn’t talk this way without giving it a bit of thought and maybe even checking with ‘greenest government ever’ Cameron, their boss, the Prime Minister (see below).
Their article is full of stuff about the need for growth, the need for jobs, the need for new homes, the need for change but there is little about the need for protecting the countryside.
It was nearly a month ago that this blog pointed out that it was unclear what the department known as Crass, Loutish and Garrulous might mean by sustainable development. We are still none the wiser. But wait, that’s just a tad unfair as in their FT article the two ungreens say that they don’t intend to weaken protection for the Green Belt, National Parks or AONBs. We knew that – it’s what these proposals may do to our towns and our countryside outside of those areas that scares people.
And when Ministers gang up to say they will ‘fight for jobs, prosperity and the right protection for the countryside’ (without saying what that right protection is) it does nothing to reassure. This government is worried about whether its plans for economic recovery are going to work and is prepared to sweep aside anything, including sensible planning protection, that they believe stands in its way – that’s how I read their article.
And that’s how I read David Cameron’s remarks in the Mail on Sunday where he says ‘we’ve got to go even further in putting together a plan for growth that unlocks all the economic potential in our country – a plan that cuts across tax, red tape, planning, skills, infrastructure.’ and a bit later ‘My order to Whitehall this autumn is to think even more boldly about what we can do to put the turbo-boosters on Britain’s economy – and nothing should be taboo. If that means taking on all the lobby groups that are defending every last bit of the regulation that crushes businesses – then we will do it.’. Not much reading between the lines needed there.
Well done to the NGOs, particularly the National Trust (that den of lefties) and CPRE for leading the resistance to the battling forces of the ‘greenest government ever’. And the RSPB issued a spiky press release on the subject yesterday too – well done to them. And Friends of the Earth have noticed that there is something going on as I heard them laying into the government proposals on the radio too.
But the FT, in its main leader, is right behind the government. It thinks that the NT and others are disproportionate in their arguments. Well it takes one to know one, as a little later the FT writes ‘Housing covers less than 2 per cent of the UK’s land area as things stand. The idea that an increase would lead to the rest being paved over is simply ridiculous.’. Yes that is ridiculous, that’s probably why no-one has suggested it would. From 2% to 100% – that’s a pretty disproportionate ‘argument’ if ever one has heard one.
Although actually, it seems as though the UK land cover that is urban is actually 6%. And, give it a moment’s thought and you will realise that the urban land cover of England, which is all that Crass, Loutish and Garrulous can influence, is likely to be much higher as the Scottish Highlands occupy quite a lot of space and are not renowned for their sprawling urban landscapes. Who’s lost their sense of proportion now FT?
[registration_form]
Arguments at a Strategic level about planning policy involving green belts, AONB’s National Parks and hearing comments from the NGO’s, usually fails to investigate the realities at the local level and barely ever in a rural context. Planning Policy at the local level in rural parts of the country have been shambolic and ineffective; usually politically motivated and doing little to address the need for places to work connected to dwellings.
The stated change to allow the locals to have a much greater influence must be better than planning authorities designing rural planning policy by copying their urban policy, titling it ‘rural’ and writing it in green ink. The requirements are very different and there needs to be action. The planning system over the last 15 or more years have been blighted by poor policy selfish ‘nimbyism’, and planning authorities prepared to go to appeal to be able to say ‘not us Gov, the Inspector’. All of the above is a far cry from the commentators who suggest the proposed policy is so dangerous – I suggest that locals know more about what is best for their area than most other observers including the NGO’s. If locals are involved they will protect their locality through appropriate development.
Birdseye – all those problems could be improved in other ways. I guess everyone always hears the words ‘local’ and thinks that it means them – whereas it includes all the idiots in the world too! Everyone is local, regional and national. The government is doing a great job in giving the impression that they regard planning safeguards as getting in the way of something called ‘growth’ and that they will fight to make sure that nothing gets in the way of ‘growth’. Do you think that means more or fewer wind turbines in the countryside? and who do you think should have the say on that? The landowner – the ultimate local person? The village – all locals affected? The county, the nation? Not that easy is it?
Mark
We disagree, but you are quite tolerant of my views and I try to reciprocate – I am discussing houses and work places not wind farms; they do require different policies. I am discussing matters, where a local is a person who lives on site or nearby. Those folk are more than capable of making good decisions and the proposer will have to engage and convince
Birdseye – are you sure that that is what government is talking of too?
Any one on here know any thing about what recently happened in Ireland and Spain? Was it not open planning which created whole new towns which nobody wanted to buy! Thanks to the banks lending to so called developers both countries ended up bankrupt. This government is only interested in the next few years so they can run for another 5 years. The whole policy is wrong and will bankrupt this country. First of all the developers want to build houses that no one can afford. These house are no use to the majority of people. A recent development opposed by the village in our village made houses worth £450,000. And that was with the present planning! Where are young people going to live in this village? No in terraces in Carlisle where the developer of this same project already owns 100s of the same terraces. Its not the countryside you should be worried about its the whole country!
John – and whereas the NT’s comparison with Los Angeles is exaggerated, it is exaggerated for effect – and quite a relevant effect, I would say.
Mark, as I understand the new planning rules, a major assumption is that any application, by DEFAULT, would be approved. Planning applications with this assumption opens the door to large national developers to buy up large areas for building. I cannot see how this will facilitate any local control over the process. It’s good to see you and Martin Harper singing from the same sheet today.
Richard.
Richard – that is the fear. And government is not doing much to reduce those fears. They’ll be rolling over us with their tanks if this goes on!
Mark – the figure for urban area for England is about 8% BUT if you look at the CLG stats you could fiddle it down because the largest area is gardens, followed by roads etc, followed by actual buildings.
At recent densities and use of brownfield (which, of course the Government is trying to abolish) 3 million new homes would use less than 1% of the land area. I think we need more homes – both land & house prices are soaking up money that should be active in the economy. There is a lot right about the way we plan – we did stop our towns and cities merging into a single urban blob – but theres a lot wrong too – many green belts are actually anything but green (visit Rainham Marshes and look at what surrounds that tiny green gem!) . But the way the Government are going about change is dfisastrous and could actually wreck Britain’s economic prospects for a very long time because what sort of a place this country is to live will be critical to our future in a global economy.
So we should oppose what they are doing – but that will just stem the tide to a small extent. What we really need is alternative, positive ideas and I think we should be lobbying hard for a completely new approach to our towns and cities, surrounding them in green not the crud we’ve come to accept in the urban fringe. In the Thames Gateway a new model is already emerging – between RSPB, FC, Woodland Trust and others more and more derelict land is being restored to accessible, wildlife rich green space. WE can and should scale it up – why not 9 has of green for every greenfield ha developed ? Lower intensity land – woodland, wetland, unimproved grassland, heathland – can absorb run off and buffer flooding, reedbeds could clean grey water runoff, the scale of new habitat already allows zoning between high access and ‘urban wilderness’ areas, we really could develop a complete off-road access system and we could put the answer to nature dficit disorder on the doorsteps of millions more people.
I am sure the National Trust, CPRE, and the RSPB and all the other conservation bodies will keep up their good work on this. Once again our “dear politicians” are missing the key point and that is that all the leading western economies are “suffering”, if that is the right word, from low or near zero growth. The USA is very much in that situation. Until the economies of the western nations pick up and the USA especially, which is not likely to be for a few years yet until many of the national debts are much reduced, significant growth is not likely to occur, especially as these economies are so interlinked. It needs general world growth for Britain to grow as well. So the point of all this is, that it we tear the countryside apart because of these very bad proposed planning changes, it would still have very little effect on growth in this country. In the mean time our countryside would suffer yet further impoverishments all for nothing. Keep up the good work against these bad and misguided planning proposals.