As a member of a planning committee from a rural district council I welcome the new localism bill because, at last, we will be able face down curmudgeons like Simon Jenkins (Call this planning reform? It's a recipe for civil war, 14 September).
As chairman of the National Trust Simon Jenkins could consider most of the listed buildings the trust owns were constructed in a different time and could not have been built with such architectural bravado under the current planning laws he is so keen to retain. There have been few notable buildings in Britain since the current planning laws came into use in 1970, due to the fits-all regulations that iron out all but the bland. What the new localism regulations promise is a freedom for designers and landowners to produce future listed buildings that reflect our age.
Contrary to Jenkins's view, local ward planning meetings will be of less than 20 people, local and accountable to the electorate, and assisted by professional planning officers. The requirement is for a balance between town and country, putting commerce back onto urban brownfield land, and producing much needed affordable housing in greenfield clusters near existing settlements; because next generation families desperately need them in deprived rural areas.
The nation also needs the construction of more market houses to kick-start a flat economy. In the 1950s during a previous recession and in a successful effort for growth, Harold Macmillan produced 500,000 houses a year over three years. In this recession we need at least 700,000 houses a year for several years to catch up with demand.
What people do not like is change. Nor do they trust politicians who admit where mistakes were made and can tell designers to go back to the drawing board and design something better, such as innovative country houses of the type that won't please the million-or-so curmudgeons that support Simon Jenkins.
Cllr Adrian Dobinson
Lib Dem, Frome, Somerset
? Peter Hetherington is wrong to claim the government's planning reforms will lead to a "free for all" for development (We need more homes, not baffling desperation, 14 September). We have a duty to provide the homes and jobs our young people will need in the future, but this will not be at the expense of the environment. Strong safeguards are retained in the draft national planning policy framework to protect our precious green spaces and countryside from unacceptable development.
The false impression Mr Hetherington gives might be down to a serious misreading of the draft framework. We are introducing a presumption in favour of sustainable development, not one in favour of economic development, as he suggests. This crucial difference ensures this is no green light for every application. All proposals will need to demonstrate their sustainability against the strict protections in the draft framework.
Claims that the government has undermined construction by scrapping regional spatial strategies do not stack up. The reality is that top-down targets imposed on communities have led to the lowest house-building levels in any peacetime year since 1924. This government is putting power back into the hands of local people to decide the places they wish to see developed and those protected, through their local plans. These will be sovereign in future without the threat of being overruled by regional agencies and will, indeed, put communities in the driving seat of decision-making.
Bob Neill MP
Local government minister
? In response to Simon Jenkins's article, I feel it is important when discussing the proposed changes to the planning system to hold the balance between the benefits of new developments and environmental concerns. As chairman of the Commission for Rural Communities, I have spent years working with disadvantaged rural communities and acting on their behalf as an independent voice within government. While the government's priority in favour of growth has fuelled understandable anxiety from some that large amounts of the green belt will be handed over to developers, there is a danger that the tone of the current debate risks losing sight of fundamental problems facing our countryside.
England's villages need more housing if they are to survive and thrive as vibrant communities for the next generation. That is the best way to keep open the ever decreasing number of rural shops, post offices and pubs, all of which provide a lifeline for local people. Not huge developments that dwarf the existing village, but small developments of perhaps 10 or 12 dwellings in keeping with the environment. Not just affordable houses, though that is essential in many areas, but some market houses too.
The planning system has meant that in many rural areas development necessary for the ongoing viability of communities has been prevented. While the definition of the term needs further clarification, the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the draft national planning policy framework should help provide much needed housing in villages where the default position has all too often been "no".
Through the localism bill, the government is making provisions to ensure that councils will be able to protect the green belt as part of their local plans. This important check, if carried out properly, will be crucial in ensuring that the countryside we all cherish is preserved, while also assisting the people who live in rural areas to survive and thrive.
Stuart Burgess
Chairman, Commission for Rural Communities
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/16/balance-town-country-planning
Economic growth (GDP) US foreign policy Television industry Economic policy Mark Bright TV ratings
No comments:
Post a Comment