PLANNING
And other attitudes of the last decade,
alien to what we have historically thought, also need to be re-considered. In particular, the idea that every blade of grass outside our towns and cities is sacrosanct – and that urban green space should be sacrificed to preserve it – betrays a degree of inhumanity to people who may not live in the countryside, but who still have the same appetite for nature, greenery and life. For all of these reasons, the new draft
Framework has, at its heart, a statement of powerful simplicity: if a proposed development, or plan, does not give rise to any problems, then it should be approved without delay, a presumption in favour of sustainable development. But this does not show a green light to
development. Local plans will continue to set out what would be unacceptable, neither plans nor developments may compromise national requirements for sustainability. The new draft Policy Framework proposes no change in the approach to sustainability that has been used by previous Governments. Indeed, it reiterates the Brundtland Commission’s classic definition of sustainable development, which is development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The Government proposes no change to more recent formulations, such as the 2005 UK sustainable development strategy. To give specific examples, the protection
that the Green Belt has enjoyed continues. To recognise the importance of green space within towns and cities as well as outside them, a new designation is available to local people (through their neighbourhood and local plans) to protect valued green space wherever it exists. There is no change, either, in the position of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Parks or other protected habitats. Neither is there any change in the status of countryside outside these specially protected areas. Local councils will still decide what land
to allocate, with the crucial difference that these local plans will no longer be overridden by the diktat of unaccountable regional quangos. The protection of our historic environment, from archaeological sites to civic conservation areas, continues. Good design, vital if the choices made by this generation are to benefit the lives of future generations, is given a higher status than ever before. Given all this, the initial reaction of one or two organisations who
16 SEPTEMBER 2011 PROPERTYdrum
The National Planning Policy framework is a big chance to make Britain better for future generations.
Planning suggestions actively encouraged.
share my lifelong commitment to our environment was way off-beam. One group even forfeited seriousness in favour of parody: juxtaposing an aerial photograph of Los Angeles (the 100 mile wide city) with a misty meadow and claiming this was what lay in store for our capital. There is a very good reason why London doesn’t look like Los Angeles – the Green Belt, which maintains its strong protection. Most people who have worked with me
during the last year would, I think, recognise that I am someone who listens carefully to constructive comments. The Localism Bill has benefited considerably from the active engagement of people who have made practical suggestions. In distilling over 1,000 pages of national planning policy into 52 it would be
surprising if everything was expressed perfectly, though it is a huge advance on what it replaces and some policy choices that have been made bear reflecting on. For example, we have toughened up the ‘town centre first’ policy by requiring the impact on town centres of proposed new developments to be considered over the next decade rather than just five years, as is currently the case. On the other hand, we’re proposing to exclude small-scale business centres in rural areas from the town centre first policy. Have we struck the right balance? I am keen to hear views. That’s why I have insisted on a very wide consultation on the draft Framework and I look forward to receiving responses. Suggestions are actively encouraged. But if they are to be worthwhile, they should be serious – detailed, specific and practical. Resolving the two problems of planning
policy I identified, its inaccessibility and its lack of focus on achieving sustainable development, is the purpose of our reform. The new National Planning Policy
Framework is a big chance to make Britain better for future generations as well as our own. That is what sustainability is all about. We are determined that the beguiling convenience of the present must not overshadow the needs of the new generation and those that will follow them.
This article fi rst appeared on the Huffi ngton Post:
www.huffi ngton
post.co.uk Send your views to the Editor:
Sheila@propertydrum.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69