Archived Page

This page is no longer maintained.
For up-to-date information please see the new website

Editorial

There can only be one topic for an editorial comment this issue, and that has to be the new government proposals to ‘simplify’ the previous planning system. Well, in terms of the number of pages produced, 58 to replace the existing 1000+ pages, they have certainly met their target. However, rather a lot of critical information and general guidance about definitions and interpretations of planning policies has in the process been quietly dropped. Instead, a large number of motherhood level statements has replaced explicit guidance which will open the field to many a legal challenge, particularly in response to the 19 times mentioned phrase 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. The Minister for Planning, Greg Clark MP, has authorised the following definition of sustainable, which is a pretty straight lift from the moribund Rio Conference of some years ago: 'Sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'. Who can argue with that? But the minister then goes on to say, 'It is central to the economic, environmental and social success of the country and is the core principle underpinning planning.' The problem lies in putting these two sentences together since the subject of one is about future needs and the other is about present economic growth (where growth = success).

You have to wonder how, in a world of unlimited population growth and finite resources, these two views can be compatible. The developers could interpret sustainability to be simple adherence the existing minimum building regulation standards regarding heat insulation to and claim that the concomitant energy saving makes their little boxes sustainable. If the government is naive enough about economics to believe that building lots of houses in response to a policy failure on immigration represents success, then we have a problem, and little Taplow is in the direct path of the massed ranks of bulldozers waiting for the starter’s gun (see page 15, ‘Taplow Land for Sale’).

Fred Russell