Archived Page

This page is no longer maintained.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

The Planning Crisis

We cannot divorce ourselves from the impact of a government edict that seriously impacts our small parish, just as much as it does the whole country it is supposed to represent. The Draft National Planning Policy Framework appears to be regarded by the government as being an edict similar in power to EU Directives and is paying only lip service to the idea of Localism. This is one of the bedrock policies behind the idea of the ‘Big Society’, meaning the handing back of power to the people by the reduction of Big Government. The government seems to be determined not to back down on the dangerously flawed content of this document, which effectively opens the door to unrestrained development; as it stands it is a developer’s charter. The National Trust, the CPRE and many other organisations concerned with preserving our Green Belt, woodlands and open spaces are vehemently opposed to the wording that provides this open door, and appears to be a gravy train for the legal profession.

The very first words in the document are: 'The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development.' This single statement sets the tone for the rest of the document. It reads as if the signatory, Greg Clark, intends to take over the entire economy of the UK, and as if he believes that our economic recovery depends absolutely upon the building of houses and office blocks. The word ‘planning’ needs the word ‘local’ in front of it to limit and define its true context. The word 'sustainable' is paying lip service to the Rio Conference's meaning of the term and echoing the government’s green agenda mantra. It seems as if all that any developer has to do to meet the sustainable requirement is to include double-glazing and loft insulation in his plans – and recover the cost from the buyers of course.

However, down to basics, what exactly is being said in this document that is arousing such nationwide ire and dread? Let’s try listing just a few:

1. Green Belt (page 38) contains some alarming comments, which suggest that Green Belt boundaries and availability for development are to be regarded as open to reinterpretation, and special circumstances. One para (143) states, 'When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. "Very special circumstances" will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.' Just look at bit in italics! It is sections like this that so alarm amenity societies such as ours as well as the big boys in this area such as the National Trust. The Green Belt is up for grabs.

2. The phrase often quoted in the newspapers about this document is '...a presumption in favour of sustainable development'. This sentence immediately puts on the back foot all those who oppose an application. They are forced to argue against a ‘done deal’ unless they can prove an application does not meet the sustainable requirement. As pointed out above it’s not hard for a developer to successfully argue that he has done his bit to save the planet. The word 'sustainable' is used no less than 88 times in the document's 58 pages.

3. Para 13 reveals the underlying confusion at the heart of the NPPF document. I quote: 'The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. A positive planning system is essential because, without growth, a sustainable future cannot be achieved. Planning must operate to encourage growth and not act as an impediment. Therefore, significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.'

Any professional economist reading that paragraph would not know whether to laugh or cry. The problem of sustainability is that looking after the long-term interests of our children while we continue to enjoy the fruits of constant economic growth is itself an unsustainable programme. Sustainability unfortunately in a world of booming population cannot happen without a halt to growth to conserve ever-scarcer resources. The planning system is not the tool to use for this purpose. The presence of such strange material in a document designed to replace and simplify the unwieldy central planning system we have at the moment suggests lack of understanding of the mechanisms driving our economy. In a free country it is market forces within an umbrella of political policies that lead to growth, not a local planning system.

4 Greg Clark announced to the press that there was not a village in the land that did not want to build more houses. I find this very difficult to believe. This document makes sure that they get more houses regardless of whether they want them or not. To enforce the point they encourage local planning authorities to use Local Development Orders (LDOs) which enable them 'to relax planning controls for particular areas or categories of development, where the impacts would be acceptable, and in particular where this would boost enterprise and growth.' Who decides what is acceptable? The sentence also implies that the Planners are in effect empowered to make decisions based on economic or commercial issues, a dangerous precedent. On the face of it, these LDOs override local opposition by people affected by the proposal. On that issue, whatever happened to the promised Third-party Appeal idea giving us the right to appeal against planning decisions?

The issue for us here in Taplow is how might this proposed planning system affect us? There are a number of worst-case scenarios that immediately come to mind:

Unfortunately this article could easily fill this entire newsletter but perhaps this brief version gives an idea of the problems ahead. I strongly recommend you read the original document for yourself. A copy can be found on our website at www.taplowsociety.org.uk. Or just type NPPF into your search engine.

Fred Russell