News release archive
Government listens, shock! After eight months of sometimes acrimonious argument, the final National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published at the end of March. It sets the framework for decisions on land use for years to come – the extent to which villages grow, the degree to which the countryside is suburbanised or kept separate from the town, and so on.
The draft NPPF which came out last summer was a dreadful document, favouring economic growth over all other considerations. The Treasury’s fingerprints were all over it. It was a document for the current recession, not for the long term.
And early discussions on the NPPF were not promising. Ministers refused to meet CPRE and accused us of being a bunch of disgruntled lefties, which came as rather a surprise to our many retired colonels and captains in the shires. The Chancellor and the Communities Secretary declared that this was a ‘battle’ they were determined to win. Tempers were frayed.
In the end we had a reasonably good dialogue with Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government. They seemed to be listening, though there was little sign that the Government as a whole was willing to shift on one of CPRE’s main concerns, the absence from the draft of any recognition of the intrinsic value of the countryside as a whole, a feature of planning policy for over thirty years.
So we were delighted when the final NPPF included this recognition and made several other improvements we were calling for, including some encouraging words on tranquillity and light pollution. It was a near run thing. It appears that the final changes were made only days before the announcement. A scandal over funding for the Conservative Party made Ministers nervous of appearing to listen too much to their developer supporters. Hostility to the Budget, the granny tax and the furore about pasties, helped weaken the position of the Chancellor, no friend of planning or the countryside.
The final planning framework reduces protection for the countryside. It will put much more pressure on local people, not least CPRE branches, to influence their local plans. But it is much, much better than it might have been. And ministers in the Department for Local Government deserve credit for listening and being prepared to think again.
This article first appeared in The Countryman
Onshore wind mapping shows exponential growth in wind turbine planning applications leaving local communities struggling to safeguard valued landscapes [1].
A new report by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) highlights the dramatic proliferation of onshore wind turbines. In many cases these are damaging valued landscapes and intruding into some of the most tranquil areas of England. CPRE is calling for a locally accountable, strategically planned approach to onshore wind development.
Download a map showing wind farm locations superimposed with CPRE’s tranquillity map of England (http://bit.ly/K4g2OA) and wind farm locations with protected landscapes (http://bit.ly/I5dajN).
Shaun Spiers, CPRE Chief Executive, says: “There is no easy way to provide the country with the energy we need. CPRE accepts onshore wind in the right places as part of the mix required to meet the UK’s carbon reduction targets, but we are seeing more and more giant turbines sited in inappropriate locations. Communities feel increasingly powerless in the face of speculative applications from big, well-funded developers, and this risks undermining public support for the measures needed to tackle climate change.
“The English countryside is one of this country’s great glories. It will always change, of course, and it is right that the countryside should play its part in supplying the renewable energy the country needs. But we must find a way of reconciling climate change mitigation and landscape protection. Otherwise we will sacrifice the beauty and tranquillity of much-loved landscapes for at least a generation.”
Shaun Spiers concludes: “In spite of localist rhetoric, the industrialisation of valued countryside is happening as a result of central government policies. The Government must take responsibility and set out far more clearly a framework for meeting the country’s energy needs while protecting our matchless countryside.”
The CPRE report: ‘Generating light on landscape impacts: How to accommodate onshore wind while protecting the countryside’, makes a number of proposals for action. It refers to assurances given last year by former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne that the Government would not ‘wantonly plant windfarms across the countryside at random’ or let the ‘market loose upon the countryside’. Yet many communities are now faced with what seems like an unending stream of applications [2].
In Cornwall and Durham, at opposite ends of the country, it is widely felt that the capacity of the landscape to accommodate wind turbines without unacceptable damage has been exceeded. Cornwall currently has 94 operational turbines over 30 metres tall with a further 18 consented and 11 in planning. County Durham has 60 operational turbines, 27 under construction, 19 consented and six in planning [3].
In other locations the number of onshore windfarm applications currently in the planning system, if built, could mean that the landscape capacity of their area will also be exceeded. Northamptonshire, for example, currently has 13 operational turbines over 30 metres high, and an additional 46 consented and 32 in planning. Northumberland has 29 operational turbines over 30 metres high and an additional 24 under construction, 64 consented and one in planning [4].
Research indicates that some wind energy developers enter the planning process with a dismissive mindset towards public concerns, seeking to disparage arguments against new development as baseless and emotional rather than well-reasoned and legitimate [5]. In 2008 CPRE compiled a large body of evidence about the approach by wind energy developers which undermines the integrity of the planning system [6].
The Regional Spatial Strategies, revoked through the Localism Act 2011, often used landscape character assessments to help work out what areas were suitable for renewable energy. These helped to outline a landscape-sensitive distribution of onshore wind across a region. Following the abolition of regional planning CPRE is calling on the Government to develop a strategic, plan-led approach which recognises the importance of landscape capacity, including the cumulative impacts of onshore wind turbines.
CPRE calls on the Government to:
- provide more clarity about the total number of onshore wind turbines it expects to see built and where these might be located;
- develop a strategic plan-led approach which recognises landscape capacity, including cumulative impacts of onshore wind turbines;
- ensure local planning authorities seek to protect landscape character through their local plans and in planning decisions;
- instruct the Planning Inspectorate to give significant weight when making decisions on development proposals to any local plans which have attempted to identify appropriate and inappropriate areas for onshore wind development; and
- provide national obligations for the onshore wind industry to take legal and financial responsibility for decommissioning onshore wind turbines and restoring the landscape once they stop working or when they reach the end of their useful life.
End
Notes to Editors
[1] CPRE, Generating light on landscape impacts: How to accommodate onshore wind while protecting the countryside, 30 April 2012 http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/energy-and-waste/climate-change-and-energy/item/2823-generating-light-on-landscape-impacts
[2] Secretary of State for DECC, Chris Huhne’s speech to CPRE entitled ‘Beauty, Tranquillity, and Power Stations?’, 2011
[3] See 2
[4] See 2
[5] University of Manchester et al, Beyond Nimbyism project summary report, 2009. Accessed from www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/reports_Project_summary_Final.pdf.
[6] CPRE, ‘Goodwill payments: Do they benefit communities or bring planning into disrepute?’, 2008
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) believes Ministers have made significant progress towards meeting the concerns raised by rural campaigners about the draft planning framework published last year, making some vital improvements that should achieve better planning outcomes.
We are pleased with the direction of travel on several of our key priorities, including the recognition of the value of undesignated countryside, the definition of sustainable development and the explicit acknowledgement that use of brownfield land is a core planning objective. Ultimately, however, the proof of the new policy framework will be how it works in practice. We and our supporters up and down the countryside will work with the Government, local authorities and communities to try to secure the best results for what Planning Minister Greg Clark rightly referred to today as ‘our matchless countryside’.
Our initial statement is available here: http://bit.ly/GU1Usb . Looking at the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in more detail, CPRE has broken applied a ‘traffic light’ assessment to the key issues - Green (improved/good), Amber (unchanged/caution) and Red (poor/area for concern):
KEY ISSUES
Green: The undesignated (ordinary) countryside
The draft NPPF made no reference to the intrinsic value of the more than 55% of English countryside not in a National Park, Green Belt, Site of Special Scientific Interest or other designated site, but nonetheless of huge value to millions of people who live in, visit and enjoy it. So we are delighted that Ministers have heeded our campaigning, and included as one of the core planning principles recognition of 'the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside' which applies whether that countryside is specifically designated or not. This will not mean no development in the countryside, but it will help ensure that building on green fields is not an option of first resort.
Amber: Brownfield
We commend the Government for acknowledging explicitly that using previously developed (brownfield) land should be a core planning objective. Making sure that land is used effectively is essential if local authorities and developers are going to deliver genuinely sustainable development.
The wording in the NPPF falls short of the existing guidance, however, in that it does not require brownfield sites to always be developed before greenfield ones. We will therefore be monitoring very closely how this policy is put into place on the ground to ensure that greenfield is not being developed when alternative brownfield options are available.
Amber: Sustainable Development
The draft NPPF made no reference to the existing (2005) UK Sustainable Development Strategy or to the five guiding principles of that document. The final version rectifies this by including a box summarising the 2005 Strategy, and is stronger on achieving the environmental and social aspects of sustainable development at the same time as economic growth. There is a continued lack of clarity, however, as to what sustainable development actually means in practice, and no suggestion that environmental limits in the UK (as opposed to the global) context should be identified or respected.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development has been helpfully qualified, however, in comparison to the draft. There is no reference to a default ‘yes’ to development and applications should only be approved where they are either clearly in line with Local Plans or are demonstrably sustainable. It is also made clear that the presumption does not override policies protecting the Green Belt or other important areas of landscape.
Red: Economic Emphasis
While much of the alarming language in the draft, such as the 'default yes' to development, has been removed, the final NPPF contains some worrying wording on economic development. Paragraph 19 refers to the need for 'significant weight' to be placed on the need to support 'economic growth' and suggests that planning is an 'impediment' to such growth. Our research shows there is little evidence to support such a contention and that planning brings huge, long term benefits to the economy. Local planning authorities need to be able to refuse proposals for economic development in the wrong places and to steer it to appropriate locations.
OTHER ISSUES
Green: Light pollution and tranquillity
CPRE welcomes the inclusion of policies to enable local authorities to combat light pollution, by encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions to control lighting. We hope that more local authorities will now seek to limit the impact from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and the natural environment. CPRE also welcomes the first reference in national policy to the need to identify and protect areas of tranquillity for their value for recreation. We will work to ensure effective implementation of this policy to protect and enhance areas of tranquillity for their contribution to health and quality of life.
Green: Plan-led system
We warmly welcome the NPPF’s clear reiteration of the law that decisions on development must be taken in line with locally agreed policies unless other relevant issues indicate otherwise. We are pleased that where neighbourhood plans are drawn up in line with local policies, development will have to conform to the policies in those plans.
We welcome the Government’s positive response to calls to allow local authorities time to get their local plans up to date before the presumption in favour of sustainable development kicks in. It will nonetheless be a significant challenge for many resource-strapped authorities to get their plans right within the 12 month deadline.
Red: Housing
Government has continued with its misguided approach to requiring the planning system to make available a 5 year supply of “deliverable” housing land and adding additional “buffer” requirements (5 or 20 % now judged on house building performance of planning authorities). The Government needs to recognise that planning can’t actually deliver hew housing, only make sites available.
This overall approach to land supply is not new, but the additional buffer requirement is. It could significantly increase pressure to develop easy, lower cost, greenfield and rural housing sites instead of, or in addition to, planned developments and brownfield regeneration.
End
Notes to Editors
[1] Department of Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework, 27 March 2012 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has welcomed the statement to Parliament by Planning Minister Greg Clark, but will now be examining the detail prior to commenting at greater length later today.
After an initial quick reading of the final NPPF, Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), says:
“We were very reassured that Greg Clark recognised the intrinsic value of the ordinary countryside 'whether specifically designated or not' and stated that the five principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy are included in the document. These were critical issues for CPRE. We are pleased the Minister appears to have listened to the strong public views, which mirrored our concerns.
“We now need to carry out a thorough analysis of the final document. While recognising the scale of the housing crisis, we remain very concerned to ensure that the Planning Framework does not place undue emphasis on short-term economic growth at the expense of other important long term, public interest objectives of planning, including the protection and enhancement of the environment.
“We are also concerned about the length of the transition period, which at 12 months will pose serious challenges to many local authorities. We hope these councils will be given adequate support to get their plans in place. This will be critical if local people are to have a real voice in planning decisions.”
End
Notes to Editors
[1] Department of Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework, 27 March 2012 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf
The key document central to the Governments planning reforms, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), will be published on Tuesday 27 March. The Framework will be a major influence on decisions over new development for years to come and is likely to have a profound effect on the future of our countryside, villages, towns and cities for years to come. The Campaign to Protect Rural England sets out some critical questions we will be looking to the Government to address:
1) Ministers have been keen to state that protection for designated landscapes, like National Park or AONBs, will remain unchanged, but how will the NPPF affect protection of the ordinary countryside that makes up over half of England’s rural landscape?
The draft NPPF omitted existing national planning policies, set out in Planning Policy Statement 4, that recognise the importance of protecting the wider countryside for its intrinsic value or ‘for its own sake’. CPRE believes strongly that such policies should be included in the final NPPF. This would be in line with the Government’s June 2011 White Paper The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature, which refers to protection of the countryside as a whole, not just the ‘valued landscape’ mentioned in the draft NPPF. English countryside outside designated areas covers over half the country, including much of our natural environment and many historic landscapes. http://bit.ly/zNfWHe.
2) Critical to the final NPPF will be the definition of sustainable development used in the controversial proposal for a ‘default yes to development’. In particular, does the definition include the principles set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy (2005), as recommended by two Commons Select Committees?
Ministers have relied heavily on making references to a vague notion of ‘sustainable development’ in order to convince critics that the NPPF will not weaken environmental protection. Yet the draft NPPF failed to make any reference to the five key principles of sustainable development, which are set out in the current UK Sustainable Development Strategy (2005). Rather the draft only refers to the older, more high-level Brundtland definition which does not provide an adequate basis for planning decisions.
3) Ministers claim the protection for the Green Belt would remain strong in the new NPPF but a legal opinion obtained by the CPRE suggested it could be unintentionally weakened by proposed policies in the draft NPPF. Has the Government done anything to address these concerns?
A legal opinion issued in October 2011 by John Hobson Q.C., one of the country’s leading planning lawyers, raised concerns that Green Belt policy would be undermined by the sustainable development presumption together with the expectation that applications should be approved unless there are adverse impacts to policies in the NPPF as a whole. To prevent a weakening of protection given to Green Belt land CPRE wants to see the current presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt stated explicitly in the NPPF. Policies on nationally protected areas such as National Parks should also be consistent with established policy. http://bit.ly/ru6yGn
4) The draft NPPF appeared to propose removing the ‘brownfield first’ policy which requires housing developers to use previously developed sites before greenfield land. Has the Government taken account of cross-sector advice and made it an explicit requirement in the final NPPF for local planning authorities to prioritise the use brownfield land first and follow the principles of ‘smart growth’?
In January the RTPI, CPRE, British Property Federation, National Trust, Planning Officers Society, Civic Voice, Construction Industry Council and the National Farmers’ Union together submitted to Ministers an agreed wording on ‘brownfield first’ policy.
The final NPPF should include specific wording requiring previously developed land to be used for development, where available and suitable, before greenfield sites. Evidence shows there is sufficient suitable brownfield land for 1.5 million new homes. The NPPF should also promote the benefits of ‘smart growth’ to make more efficient use of land, reduce the need to travel, promote a sense of community and make local services more viable.
5) What support will the Government give local authorities to produce local plans? Have the Local Government Association and professional planning bodies signed up to transitional arrangements which allow local planning authorities adequate time to get their plans in place?
The day the NPPF is launched all local plans could effectively be out of date and that the ‘default yes’ will result in a development ‘free for all’. CPRE fears it could lead to a near doubling of the current number of planning appeals against local refusals to the 32,000 mark last seen in the 1980s. The Government needs to clarify if transitional arrangements will be set out to prevent local plans from being undermined.
6) What do Ministers think the phrase ‘acceptable returns’ for developers really means, and do they think the NPPF does enough to ensure we get more genuinely affordable housing rather than profitable ‘executive housing’ beyond the reach of most of those in housing need?
The draft NPPF stated that the cost of any requirements applied to development should ensure that ‘acceptable returns’ are still available for the land owner and developer. ‘Acceptable returns’ has not been defined and CPRE has raised concerns that it would undermine negotiations on section 106 agreements requiring the delivery of affordable housing by developers. While the final NPPF should recognise the need for development and sites to be viable, it should not promote economic considerations above all others. The NPPF should also state more clearly the need for a robust housing needs assessments to underpin all local plans.
The Government’s newly unveiled National Planning Policy Framework: Will it be good for our countryside and green spaces?
It is, quite simply, the most radical shakeup of the planning system in our time. After months of consultation, thousands of public responses, a swell of media criticism and much heated political debate, the Government has finally unveiled its new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Given that planning legislation is not always considered the most enthralling of subjects, the passionate response to the public consultation shows just how much people care about the places they love – and recognise how great a role Government policies play in shaping these landscapes.
Throughout the consultation process, CPRE has been a leading voice in favour of strong planning regulations, and expressed its concerns about the draft document’s failure to recognise the value of our ordinary countryside, 52% of which has no special environmental designation or protection. Those of us who have been living and breathing planning over the last months have been curious to see just how the final NPPF would condense over 1,000 pages of previous legislation into a mere 50.
The positive news is that the Government appears to have listened to CPRE, our members and supporters and other campaigners’ concerns, and incorporated some of our key objectives in the final NPPF – including a clearer definition of sustainable development, an explicit recognition of the value of the countryside as a whole, and a revived emphasis on building on previously developed brownfield sites rather than unspoilt green spaces.
However, the Government’s self-proclaimed pro-growth agenda means that we will have to remain vigilant about whether such growth comes at the expense of the countryside.
Our reaction
‘We were very reassured that the Minister, Greg Clark recognised the intrinsic value of the ordinary countryside “whether specifically designated or not” and stated that the five principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy are included in the document,’ says CPRE Chief Executive Shaun Spiers. ‘These were critical issues for CPRE. We are pleased the Minister appears to have listened to the strong public views, which mirrored our concerns.’
Meanwhile, CPRE campaigners up and down the country have also been examining the new reforms. In David Cameron’s constituency home turf of Oxfordshire, local CPRE director Helen Marshall tentatively welcomed the NPPF announcement. ‘Greg Clark seems to have listened to what we’ve been saying – but the test will be whether the NPPF document is clear when put in practice. If the actual wording is vague or open to interpretation, it could undo the good intentions and slow everything down,’ she says.
Dr Roger Smith, vice chair of CPRE West Sussex, also struck a cautious note. 'I don't think we should be over-optimistic about the NPPF, but wait to look at the detail,' he warns. ‘I would have liked to have seen not just more detail on what sustainable development means, but more explicit requirements on how it is to be put into practice throughout the NPPF,' he adds.
Helen pointed out that the NPPF’s deadline for local plans will place councils under pressure. ‘The transitional arrangements will prove to be a bit of a struggle for local authorities in Oxford – only one of five has a core strategy in place at the moment. The others are at various stages of preparation, and may or may not be ready in time for the 12 month deadline. Obviously we’ll put pressure on to devise a good local plan – but quick decisions are not necessarily the best ones.’
Roger also remains unconvinced that the NPPF will achieve its goal of increasing affordable housing. 'The exceptionally low build rate here isn't due to planning policy red tape - developers have simply been taking a long time to get around to building on land that has already been granted permission. Meanwhile, we've also seen them revising the percentage of affordable housing in their developments downwards to as little as 20% or 30%. The NPPF is not going to do anything to tackle these problems.'
Matchless countryside
Shortly before the release of the NPPF, Prime Minister David Cameron praised the planning vision of CPRE co-founder Sir Patrick Abercrombie in a key speech on infrastructure at the Institute of Civil Engineering, saying that he hoped to emulate Abercrombie’s ideal of well-planned homes. It is worth remembering that Abercrombie was also a fierce critic of governments risking beautiful countryside for economic gain, who pointed out: ‘It is a matter for serious thought that at periods of financial stress it is always beauty that is sacrificed upon the altar of expediency.’
Only time will tell whether the Government’s long-awaited new planning framework will truly protect, rather than sacrifice, the beauty of our countryside. Needless to say, CPRE will be scrutinising the full NPPF in detail over the coming days - and will be continuing to work within the planning system, and with the Government, local authorities and communities, to defend what Greg Clark rightly called ‘our matchless countryside.’
Dan McLean
Campaign to Protect Rural England
NPPF at a glance:
Green (improved/good), Amber (unchanged/caution) and Red (poor/area for concern)
Green - Intrinsic value: One of the most worrying aspects of the draft NPPF was its omission of the previous policy requirement that all countryside should be recognised as intrinsically valuable for its own sake, not just specially designated sites. Minister Greg Clark confirmed that the final policy recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, ‘whether specifically designated or not’. While this does not mean no development in the countryside, it should help ensure that building on green fields is not a first resort.
Green - Local plans: The NPPF clearly stressed that all decisions on development must be taken in line with locally agreed plans and policies, unless other relevant issues indicate otherwise. We also welcomed the Government’s response to calls to allow local authorities time to get their local plans up to date before the presumption in favour of sustainable development kicks in, although it will be a challenge for many authorities to get their plans right within the new 12 month deadline.
Green - Light pollution and tranquillity: The inclusion of policies to enable local authorities to combat light pollution, by encouraging good design and planning and better lighting controls is a good thing. We hope that more local authorities will now seek to limit the impact from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and the natural environment. Also welcome is the first reference in national policy to the need to identify and protect areas of tranquillity. We will be supporting this policy to protect and enhance areas of tranquillity for their contribution to health and quality of life.
Amber - Sustainable development: Many were concerned that while the draft NPPF championed ‘sustainable development’ at all costs, it signally failed to spell out exactly what that meant. The final NPPF provides rather more detail on what such development should entail, referencing the key principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, and Greg Clark reiterated to Parliament that environmental and social aspects were key elements of sustainable projects. However, there was still a lack of clarity over what sustainable development might mean in practice, and a lack of UK-specific environmental limits.
Amber - Building on brownfield: The draft NPPF dispensed with the old requirement that previously developed brownfield land should be prioritised for development, so we were pleased to note that the final document explicitly acknowledged that building on brownfield should be a priority. However, the new NPPF does not go as far as previous policies in making sure that brownfield is always prioritised over greenfield.
Red – Green vs growth? While the Government has removed much of the alarming language in the draft NPPF, including the notorious ‘default yes’ to sustainable development, it continues to call for ‘significant weight’ to be placed on delivering economic growth, implying that strong planning regulations are an impediment to such growth. This is something that CPRE has long questioned, as our research shows that far from holding back growth, sensible planning has huge and lasting benefits for the economy.
Red – Housing pressure: Under the NPPF, the Government has still retained its misguided approach to requiring the planning system to make available a five year supply of ‘deliverable’ housing land, plus an additional ‘buffer’ requirement of 5-20%, based on the performance of local planning authorities. While the approach is not new, the extra buffer requirement can only increase pressure to develop on lower-cost green field and rural housing sites.
Heartfelt thanks to all CPRE supporters for helping to achieve this positive change. To follow this campaign and receive a monthly bulletin on this and other countryside issues, sign up to our Campaign Update (above right), and see 'Join Us' to become a member . And tell us what you think about the NPPF on the comments section of this page or email us at info@cpre.org.uk
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has broadly welcomed proposals for a new Major Infrastructure and Environment Unit, having long argued for stronger links between planning and environmental protection.
Following today’s publication of the review of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman announced that a new cross-Government unit is to be set up to help developers deliver large infrastructure projects while protecting our most valued habitats and species.
Ben Stafford, Head of Campaigns at CPRE, says: “Planning is the strongest tool we have for protecting our landscape and the habitats and wildlife it supports. But with responsibilities for planning and the natural environment split between government departments, it has not been easy to make the links between the two.
“The Government’s aspirations for this new unit are laudable. Properly designed and resourced, it could make real improvements to how planning, wildlife and habitat regulations are implemented to deliver necessary sustainable development. Vigilence is needed to ensure that the new body is not used as a mechanism to side-step, water down or undermine environmental protection in order to fast-track damaging development.
“Both the environment and developers stand to gain if this is done well and CPRE intends to monitor the unit’s progress closely.”
End
Notes to Editors
[1] DEFRA press release: http://bit.ly/GGUrjI
Responding to today's Budget statement CPRE condemned the Chancellor's rhetoric on planning as misguided and dangerous. The group also expressed deep concerns about the Government’s transport strategy and the suggestion that it is going soft on airport expansion in the South East.
Planning
Adam Royle, spokesman for CPRE, says: “We heard yet more of the Chancellor's misguided and dangerous rhetoric on planning today. If the Government undermines sound planning, it will put sustainable economic growth at risk. Countries like Germany show that good economic performance and strong planning systems can go hand in hand.
“We will have to wait until next Tuesday when the final planning framework is to be published to see if the voices of reason in Government will yet win out.
“From the Chancellor's words we fear the longstanding protection for the wider countryside will be abandoned. That would mean that 55% of English countryside, including many locally loved green spaces, could be placed at the mercy of developers.
“Also extremely worrying is the suggestion that communities may not be given any time to ensure their local plans conform to the new framework . This could leave more then one third of areas that don't currently have a plan exposed to a crude ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.
“On the basis of the budget statement, the Government's promise that the planning reforms are about empowering local people looks very hollow indeed.”
Transport
Ralph Smyth, Senior Transport Campaigner at CPRE, Says: “The Government seems to be attempting to disguise a major u-turn on South East airport expansion as an economic aside. After responding to public opinion by pulling the plug on a third runway at Heathrow, the Government needs to hold its nerve against the turbulence of vociferous lobbying of the aviation industry.
“'Smart hubbing' through better allocation of runway slots would provide all the additional passenger capacity needed, and avoid untold damage to the countryside including further loss of the little rural tranquillity that remains in the South East of England.
“This is not a case of ‘jobs versus the countryside’ or ‘runways versus rural England’, but about tackling narrow minded and short sighted vested interests.”
end
Today the Prime Minster gave a speech on national infrastructure to the Institute of Civil Engineering [1]. In the speech the PM made reference to highly controversial planning reforms expected to be published with the Budget on Wednesday.
Neil Sinden, Director of Policy for the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), says: “The Prime Minister shows a disturbing misunderstanding of planning when he suggests that to prevent housing ‘sprawling over the countryside’ we must seek only to protect our 'Green Belts and National Parks'.
“The majority of the countryside does not enjoy any national designation or special protection. If the Government's planning reforms remain unchanged from the draft published last year, pressure for sprawling development is precisely what we can expect. Even in David Cameron’s own constituency of Witney, 55% of the countryside is undesignated and would be at increased risk of inappropriate development.
“No one is trying to stop all development. Clearly the country needs new housing and some of this is likely to be on greenfield sites. But unless the final NPPF recognises the intrinsic value of our countryside as a whole, we fear a rash of sporadic and inappropriate development across the country, disfiguring the rural landscape which is so valued by local communities. I very much hope that even at this eleventh hour the Prime Minister will stand up for the countryside as a whole, not just for our Green Belt and most special landscapes.”
End
Notes to Editors
[1] Transcript of the Speech http://bit.ly/FPFadJ
Sir
The Government's proposals to reform the planning system will shortly be finalised. The Cabinet is reported to have debated the plans, and speculation as to the outcome is growing.
It is dispiriting that, after so much discussion, the issue still seems to be defined largely by a sterile 'environment vs growth' debate. As our organisations have argued throughout the process, the two are not in conflict. Good planning is essential for ensuring sustainable economic prosperity, at the same time as it encourages urban renewal and protects the countryside.
The current planning system on the whole does not stand in the way of development. 80-90 per cent of planning applications are granted permission. But reform is certainly needed to minimise the costs of planning and also to enhance the longer-term benefits it provides.
Ministers have a chance now to ensure that the final policy is one that the nation can be proud of, rather than the starting gun for years of dispute and legal wrangling that will ultimately impose even more burdens on businesses. The yardsticks of success will be: a strong definition of sustainable development that gives equal weight to economic, environmental and social objectives; a presumption in favour of sustainable development that does not make it more difficult to refuse environmentally damaging developments; continued protection for designated areas, landscapes and heritage assets alongside explicit recognition of the value of the countryside as a whole; and a clear priority given to new development on previously developed (brownfield) sites where these are not otherwise of value to wildlife.
Peter Waine, Chair, Campaign to Protect Rural England
Paula Ridley, Chair, Civic Voice
Lloyd Grossman, Chair, The Heritage Alliance
Sir Simon Jenkins, Chair, National Trust
Ian Darling FRICS, Chair, RSPB
Paul Wickham, Chair, The Wildlife Trusts
