This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/27/unlike-most-government-reforms-this-forever
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Unlike most government reforms, the impact of the planning changes is forever | Unlike most government reforms, the impact of the planning changes is forever |
| (6 months later) | |
| As of today England comes under a new planning regime. Its purpose is brutally simple: to release for potential building the 60% of England's land area that is unprotected countryside. Nothing like it has been seen since the 1940s. It is clear that only designated national parks will enjoy full safeguarding. | As of today England comes under a new planning regime. Its purpose is brutally simple: to release for potential building the 60% of England's land area that is unprotected countryside. Nothing like it has been seen since the 1940s. It is clear that only designated national parks will enjoy full safeguarding. |
| Like most of this government's reforms – from the health service to the press – the upheaval is a mix of good intention, furious lobbying and back-of-envelope policymaking. Unlike most reforms, the impact of this one is forever. David Cameron's government risks being remembered for leaving the English landscape littered with wind turbines, pylons and unplanned housing estates scattered at random, as in Ireland. | Like most of this government's reforms – from the health service to the press – the upheaval is a mix of good intention, furious lobbying and back-of-envelope policymaking. Unlike most reforms, the impact of this one is forever. David Cameron's government risks being remembered for leaving the English landscape littered with wind turbines, pylons and unplanned housing estates scattered at random, as in Ireland. |
| This is being driven by the developer lobby hijacking an important but emotive policy, on housing. No image is more often used in political propaganda than that of a young couple turning the key on their first home. Britons are among the most comfortably housed in Europe. While the average German waits until 36 to buy a first house, the average Briton acquires one at 28. Germans tend to invest their savings in business, Britons pour theirs into houses and gardens, fuelling regular housing bubbles. | This is being driven by the developer lobby hijacking an important but emotive policy, on housing. No image is more often used in political propaganda than that of a young couple turning the key on their first home. Britons are among the most comfortably housed in Europe. While the average German waits until 36 to buy a first house, the average Briton acquires one at 28. Germans tend to invest their savings in business, Britons pour theirs into houses and gardens, fuelling regular housing bubbles. |
| House prices have been moribund for four years, despite mortgages being cheaper than ever and some 400,000 plots lying idle in housebuilders' land banks. The reason is not lack of land. It is demand depressed by the state of the economy and the reluctance of banks to return to open-ended lending. | House prices have been moribund for four years, despite mortgages being cheaper than ever and some 400,000 plots lying idle in housebuilders' land banks. The reason is not lack of land. It is demand depressed by the state of the economy and the reluctance of banks to return to open-ended lending. |
| More brownfield sites are now being deindustrialised than ever in history. Under Labour, policy directed the overwhelming majority of new houses to such land. Housing was renewed where infrastructure was already in place. The community did not have to bear the external cost of utilities, roads, schools and hospitals needed by out-of-town estates. The policy made sense. | More brownfield sites are now being deindustrialised than ever in history. Under Labour, policy directed the overwhelming majority of new houses to such land. Housing was renewed where infrastructure was already in place. The community did not have to bear the external cost of utilities, roads, schools and hospitals needed by out-of-town estates. The policy made sense. |
| The incoming Tories promised to tear up Labour's strategic spatial planning in favour of Cameron's pledge to "restore planning decisions to local communities". There would be no "top-down" imposition of targets on local people. | The incoming Tories promised to tear up Labour's strategic spatial planning in favour of Cameron's pledge to "restore planning decisions to local communities". There would be no "top-down" imposition of targets on local people. |
| The new government did indeed tear up the plans, but it left in place the building targets. It also abandoned the brownfield-first policy and, for the first time, enshrined profitability as a planning consideration – buried in such euphemisms as "viability" and "deliverability". The reason for this about-turn was simple: the most concerted lobbying campaign by landowners and builders in planning history. Communities secretaryEric Pickles, let them write his firstplanning framework document last year. It perpetuated top-down targets and expected hard-pressed planning inspectors to override local wishes. Its implementation was delayed for a year while local councils consulted with their communities on how targets might be met. | The new government did indeed tear up the plans, but it left in place the building targets. It also abandoned the brownfield-first policy and, for the first time, enshrined profitability as a planning consideration – buried in such euphemisms as "viability" and "deliverability". The reason for this about-turn was simple: the most concerted lobbying campaign by landowners and builders in planning history. Communities secretaryEric Pickles, let them write his firstplanning framework document last year. It perpetuated top-down targets and expected hard-pressed planning inspectors to override local wishes. Its implementation was delayed for a year while local councils consulted with their communities on how targets might be met. |
| The result has been pandemonium. Protests have meant that only half the planning authorities have enforceable plans in place by today, mostly in towns and suburbs. Research by the Local Government Information Unit for the National Trust (which I chair) indicates that elsewhere, builders are already being given free rein if they can offer "sustainable, viable, deliverable" development, a phrase that appears to be self-defining. This is upending brownfield first in favour of greenfield first. | The result has been pandemonium. Protests have meant that only half the planning authorities have enforceable plans in place by today, mostly in towns and suburbs. Research by the Local Government Information Unit for the National Trust (which I chair) indicates that elsewhere, builders are already being given free rein if they can offer "sustainable, viable, deliverable" development, a phrase that appears to be self-defining. This is upending brownfield first in favour of greenfield first. |
| A classic example is Salford, where sites allocated for 10,000 homes were rejected by Pickles, as "unviable" in favour of 350 houses in the surrounding countryside. Reports of similar decisions forced through against local wishes come from Winchester, Calne, Petersfield and Stratford-on-Avon, and from districts in Norfolk, Dorset, Hampshire and Cheshire. Stow-on-the-Wold, in prime Cotswold country, has been ordered to expand by a third. | A classic example is Salford, where sites allocated for 10,000 homes were rejected by Pickles, as "unviable" in favour of 350 houses in the surrounding countryside. Reports of similar decisions forced through against local wishes come from Winchester, Calne, Petersfield and Stratford-on-Avon, and from districts in Norfolk, Dorset, Hampshire and Cheshire. Stow-on-the-Wold, in prime Cotswold country, has been ordered to expand by a third. |
| Reviewing the new regime, the Campaign to Protect Rural England notes that promises to protect green belts and areas of outstanding natural beauty are proving valueless. Tetbury has been told to disregard its AONB status and build in the surrounding fields. Green belts are being invaded by new plans around Durham, Gateshead and Newcastle. This contradicts both localism and greenbelt protection. In Tewkesbury, Pickles – once an ardent localist – even accepted he was "undermining the local democratic process and planning system" in putting greenfield first. The CPRE estimates that, at present, 80,000 houses are being proposed in green belts. | Reviewing the new regime, the Campaign to Protect Rural England notes that promises to protect green belts and areas of outstanding natural beauty are proving valueless. Tetbury has been told to disregard its AONB status and build in the surrounding fields. Green belts are being invaded by new plans around Durham, Gateshead and Newcastle. This contradicts both localism and greenbelt protection. In Tewkesbury, Pickles – once an ardent localist – even accepted he was "undermining the local democratic process and planning system" in putting greenfield first. The CPRE estimates that, at present, 80,000 houses are being proposed in green belts. |
| There is no disagreement that growing economies need more houses, and although housing supply is a function of many inputs one of them is clearly available land. The argument is where, in a crowded island, these houses should go. Should they be planned or simply go where the money directs? So-called "smart , the essence of sustainability, growth" directs new houses mostly to areas where jobs and infrastructure exist. Sites may be more costly, but planning's job is to direct development, not follow the market. Other European countries have nothing like the acres of derelict land visible in every city in England. | There is no disagreement that growing economies need more houses, and although housing supply is a function of many inputs one of them is clearly available land. The argument is where, in a crowded island, these houses should go. Should they be planned or simply go where the money directs? So-called "smart , the essence of sustainability, growth" directs new houses mostly to areas where jobs and infrastructure exist. Sites may be more costly, but planning's job is to direct development, not follow the market. Other European countries have nothing like the acres of derelict land visible in every city in England. |
| Allowing rural villages to expand organically is one thing, and that may need planning easement. But forcing them to become overspill estates is socially damaging and denudes adjacent towns of their future livelihoods. It is driving a coach and horses through sound town and country planning. | Allowing rural villages to expand organically is one thing, and that may need planning easement. But forcing them to become overspill estates is socially damaging and denudes adjacent towns of their future livelihoods. It is driving a coach and horses through sound town and country planning. |
| The government set out three years ago to simplify cumbersome regulation. This was good news. I agree with planning minister Nick Boles's desire to ease change of use, and to relax much detailed development control. Nor is all rural land of equal scenic value. I have long believed it should be classified like urban conservation areas, with local consultation on what might and might not be released. This was, in effect, the old 1947 planning regime. I am sure this would free up more marginal land than the present policy of planning by mortal combat, appeal and litigation. | The government set out three years ago to simplify cumbersome regulation. This was good news. I agree with planning minister Nick Boles's desire to ease change of use, and to relax much detailed development control. Nor is all rural land of equal scenic value. I have long believed it should be classified like urban conservation areas, with local consultation on what might and might not be released. This was, in effect, the old 1947 planning regime. I am sure this would free up more marginal land than the present policy of planning by mortal combat, appeal and litigation. |
| Towns and countryside must be planned. New houses must go where it makes sense to put them, where people are. While everyone would like a cottage in the country, there would be no country if everybody had one. True housing need is primarily an urban phenomenon. That is why brownfield-first was the way forward to sound growth. | Towns and countryside must be planned. New houses must go where it makes sense to put them, where people are. While everyone would like a cottage in the country, there would be no country if everybody had one. True housing need is primarily an urban phenomenon. That is why brownfield-first was the way forward to sound growth. |
| Today's battle for the countryside is economically irrelevant. Yes, many rural communities may want some more local houses, but that should be their decision, not the state's. Once upon a time, Cameron agreed. Once upon a time, he was right. | Today's battle for the countryside is economically irrelevant. Yes, many rural communities may want some more local houses, but that should be their decision, not the state's. Once upon a time, Cameron agreed. Once upon a time, he was right. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |