Editorial Layout Regeneration

R E G E N E R AT I O N

B R I T A I N

‘ In the times of a worrying economy, loca l

counci ls look in

creasingly to re

c la iming abandoned

spaces. But are

al l brown fie ld

sites suitab le fo

r

redevelopment? ’

Planning minister Greg Clark said the changes in England were “absolutely crucial” but he also agreed to talk to opponents of the proposals.He said “particular as-pects” could be addressed if groups such as the Na-tional Trust felt they were unclear.Shadow communities min-ister Jack Dromey said he welcomed the govern-ment’s willingness to talk.Mr Clark said the govern-ment would not back down on its aim to boost house-building and encourage business.Campaigners say they fear excessive development under the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.The plan, published in July, streamlines policy that is currently more than 1,000 pages down to just 52 and features a presumption of “sustainable development”.

The Department for Com-munities and Local Gov-ernment says it intends to transform a system whose “volume and complex-ity have made planning in-creasingly inaccessible to all but specialists”.But the National Trust said the plans “failed to protect the everyday places that lo-cal communities love” while the Campaign to Protect Rural England said the gov-ernment needed “to listen and make further improve-ments or the consequences for the English countryside and the character of our towns and villages will be grave”.

Greg Clark defends reforms to the current systemMr Clark told the BBC it was “ab-solutely crucial” for the government to simplify planning processes so that homes could be built and to encour-age business.“We’re building fewer homes than can accommodate young people that need to be housed, we’ve got a problem of homelessness, overcrowd-ing, poverty as rents rise.“For companies expanding or relo-cating they need a new building and it’s crucial that when they’re thinking of Britain as a place to relocate they know they won’t have to wait years with vast expense and uncertainty.”

Goodfor

Buisness

The housing minister denied there would be any backtracking on the plans, despite his agreement to hold talks.He said it was “quite right” to consult because of the extent of the changes, and invited opponents to be very specific about any concerns.“Let’s be forensic about this - if there are particular aspects or sentences that you don’t think express clearly enough the protections that are there, then let’s talk about it.

Labour’s Jack Dromey welcomed the government’s decision to talk to campaign groups, but said ministers’ previous stance showed “how out of touch they are”.

“Labour is in favour of sustainable development - but what the Tory-led government are offering is a down-grading of the rules which protect our natural environ-

ment.”Mr Clark also criticised the National Trust for using pic-

tures of Los Angeles in its campaign against the plans.He said that such large-scale urban sprawl was “not going to happen here” and reiterated the government’s commit-ment to protect the green belt, national parks and areas of

outstanding natural beauty.Councils would also have more responsibility under the new regime - which would mean better planning decisions, argued

Mr Clark.Shaun Spiers, the chief executive of the Campaign for the Pro-tection of Rural England, rejected Mr Clark’s assurances and

said the proposals would give too much say to developers.

What the government is talking about is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, but if you read the National Planning Policy Framework in its draft form, what is clear is that is a presumption in favour of development, and at every point sustainability is undermined.“What they’re really talking about is a policy of ‘build, build, build’. This is about economic development. It’s about prosperity over people and places.”Peter Nixon, the National Trust’s director of conservation, wel-comed Mr Clark’s invitation to hold talks but also criticised the changes.He told the Times newspaper that the government had the right “aspirations” but the proposals currently did not al-low planning authorities to make decisions in a “balanced way”.