Planning for War – Rows over the proposed changes to Planning Law

Author: Jacqueline Button

Most people who encounter it agree that the planning system in England is cumbersome, complex and confusing. Whether you’re putting a conservatory on your house or redeveloping a town centre you’re at the mercy of laws riddled with jargon, inconsistencies and red tape. You will encounter the local authority with its members and planning officers and committees and delegated powers and you might emerge with a planning consent or you might not. And either way you will have spent time and money on the process.

Earlier this year the government announced an overhaul of the system producing a framework which will be “localist in its approach, handing back power to local communities to decide what is right for them” according to Planning Minister, Greg Clark. He also promised that the new system would be “simpler and swifter”.

Most people agree that a revamp is desperately needed but the rows over the details began immediately. According to the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) an organisation which represents landowners and rural business the policy is too cautious and doesn’t address the lack of rural housing or sustainable jobs.

But other bodies representing rural interests take a different view. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) says the new laws will have “grave consequences for the English countryside and the character of our towns and villages” whilst the National Trust (NT)  says the framework “fails to protect the everyday places that local communities love.”

Meanwhile the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) is optimistic about the proposals and said that “a pro-growth approach must fast become reality on the ground with local councils saying yes to business growth and expansion far more than they do at present”.

So which of these acronyms is right?

In support of its argument the NT produced (in a more bizarre than alarmist manner) an aerial shot of Los Angeles with its high rise buildings and dense development but they can’t seriously fear than England’s green and pleasant land is going to be transformed by the proposed new laws into Beverley Hills with bad weather.

The CPRE in a more balanced response said that it welcomed “much of the thinking” behind the framework but worries about the “crude focus on economic growth”.

The government (of course) defended the proposals as encouraging “opportunities for sustainable growth to rebuild the economy” and says they commit to protecting the greenbelt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest and specifically deal with other environmental issues like electric car charging points and renewable energy projects.

Excessive development and development in the wrong place should be avoided at all costs and new laws need to make sure this does not happen. But the fact of the matter is that England needs development. The number of people owning their own homes is at the lowest level since the 1980s. House building is needed as is commercial and social development to go with that new housing.

The Home Builders Federation (who perhaps call themselves the HBF) justifiably accuse the NT of “scaremongering” and correctly say that the new policy must “focus on the wider needs of the country not the narrow focus of the few.”

The framework is now the subject of a 12 week consultation period. Whatever the outcome of that consultation it looks as if the rows will run and run.

Related Posts: Not so Premier – Jacqui Button comments on the planning application for a Premier Inn Hotel to be constructed in St Albans and the concept of localism issues following the proposed planning law changes.
Click here to read the post.