It's another big day. The future of the landuse planning system in England is to unveiled at 12.30pm this afternoon.
The draft National Planning Policy Framework created a furore last summer because it gave priority to economic development over social and environmental concerns. The National Trust, CPRE, ourselves and many other environmental organisations kicked up a fuss. We shall find out today whether the Government has listened to our concerns.
If you remember, we sought to constructively engage with the review and Simon Marsh, our excellent Head of Planning Policy, even contributed, in good faith, to an early draft.
We were all for simplifying planning guidance and speeding up the system. Yet, the great clunking fist of the economic growth imperative changed the empahsis of the draft Frameowrk completely. So much so that our own legal analysis suggested that SSSI protection would be weakened under these proposals. See here, here and here.
Following the furore last autumn thousands of campaigners wrote in to make their feelings heard - in the words of the Daily Telegraph campaign, they urged politicians to keep their "hands of our land".
So, we and many others will be listening carefully when the Minister stands up to address the House of Commons today. We'll be paying particular attention to three key areas.
1. The definition of sustainable development.The existing draft is based on the Brundtland definition. We (and 20 other organisations) support the version proposed by the CLG Selectg committee, which is based on the five guiding principles of the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy. This set the twin goals of a healthy just society which lives within environmental limits through good governance, sound science and a sustainable economy. The question today is - does the NPPF do this, and (critically) does it refer to the need to live within environmental limits?
2. The presumption in favour of sustainable developmentWe understand this will remain in the NPPF. But is it reframed in a way that does not promote one aspect of sustainability over others? The ‘significant and demonstrable harm’ test is a particular problem for SSSIs – how has this been reworded? Has the phrase, “the default answer to development is ‘yes’ been removed?
3. Proper protection for the natural environmentThe presumption, and the natural environment policies, must not weaken existing protection. Our legal advice showed us the draft didn’t do this for SSSIs, despite Government reassurances. We will be looking critically at this: is the presumption reworded (above) and is there new explicit policy for SSSIs?
We'll be scoring the final document against these key tests.
Do keep an eye out for our initial analysis on our Saving Special Places blog.
As usual Peter ignores the fact that the majority of the younger generation spent themselves into massive debt that they were not forced into and had very little hope of repaying the borrowed money.They are simply the cause of their own mispending and no one else is to blame.Generation after generation spent less than they earned and no generation has ever had as much money however you measure it as this generation and yet they cannot manage without going into debt.
Peter - I hope that you agree with the tone of our response to the announcement today. It is live on the front page of our website now.
I reiterate the key issue facing UK "sustainable development" is the Boom and Bust of the Lawson/Brown property cycle; we can not afford another one. Land supply for building is key here and THE substantial contributor to UK debts; ie the trillion pound plus mortgage treadmill.
RSPB, CPRE and National Trust are acting to contstrain land supply , quite rightly with regard to SSSI but I can not see how they are acting to balance this, to release land and facilitate inter generational affordability/housing justice and UK financial stability. I would note that the Land is Ours is calling for land banks to be referred to the OFT as acting against self builders, as not in the national interest, for the fines to be levied in land and released to land and housing co-ops. I would appreciate a view on this from the NIMBYIST National Trust, CPRE et al.
In the words of the Daily Telegraph the "green belt" defenders urged the government to keep their hands off our privileged house prices; to keep house supply low and the treadmill of debt on the young high high and to keep the poor imprisoned in their brown expensive cities.
SSSI's and SAC's account for less than 4% of the UK land area and most is large areas in the uplands; there is no reason to reduce protection on such areas and I do not support it. However "Green Belt" largely comprises of intensively farmed, livestock, nitrogenous wilderness, gardens have higher levels of biodiversity than farmland. It was designated in 1947 and as such constrains land supply and drives up housing costs (Reading University) to the tune of 3% a year. This is a collosal sum of money.
To have my respect on this issue that this is not a class/generational based view the RSPB should endorse a generational target of returning starter house prices to 3x median salary and a heavy tax on second homes which are destroying rural communities in the South West.
Is the RSPB clear in its mind that the housing speculation that drove the bust of the privatised building societies Northern Rock and HBOS was driven by our overpriced properrty market; high housing costs are as much a competitive dis-advantage as any other high cost. it drives ghettoes of disadvantage and social division.
It seems to me that land should be released at agricultural rates to young people and first time buyers.............. it is control of land supply by large building firms that is most iniquitous and if the environmental movement wishes to appeal outside its middle class ghetto then house prices for the entire generation "Priced Out" in the private rented sector that post 2001 drove the housing market has to be a central concern. Never mind the issue as to whether UK Ltd can again afford to bail out banks lending on the back of an unsustainable property boom; so realign Green Belts with designed communities and tarnsport links/ allotments for self sufficiency.
It seems to me that a re-alignment of the 1947 Green belt direct to local young people at agricultural rates would cut down on commuting; the avaerage commute into Bristol is a round trip of 60 miles and most "Green Belt" houses are NOT GREEN but blue with several BMW's outside.
There is great deal of class hypocrisy here; NB agricultural fields are poorer in biodiversity than gardens.
Fingers crossed for a reasonable out come.