Regeneration Britain

‘Good for

business’

In the times of a worrying economy, local councils look increasingly to reclaiming abandoned spaces. But are all brown field sites suitable for redevelopment?

lanning minister Greg Clark said the chang-es in England were "absolutely crucial"

but he also agreed to talk to opponents of the proposals.He said "particular aspects" could be addressed if groups such as the National Trust felt they were unclear.Shadow communities minister Jack Dromey said he welcomed the government's willingness to talk.Mr Clark said the government would not back down on its aim to boost house-building and encourage business.

The plan, published in July, streamlines policy that is cur-rently more than 1,000 pages down to just 52 and features a presumption of “sustainable development”.

The Department for Communities and Local Government says it intends to transform a system whose “volume and complexity have made planning increasingly inaccessible to all but specialists”.

But the National Trust said the plans “failed to protect the everyday places that local communities love” while the Campaign to Protect Rural England said the government needed “to listen and make further improvements or the consequences for the English countryside and the character of our towns and villages will be grave”.

P

Mr Clark told the BBC it was “ab-solutely crucial” for the govern-ment to simplify planning pro-cesses so that homes could be built and to encourage business.“We’re building fewer homes than can accommodate young people that need to be housed, we’ve got a problem of homelessness, overcrowd-ing, poverty as rents rise.

“For companies expanding or re-locating they need a new build-ing and it’s crucial that when they’re thinking of Britain as a place to relocate they know they won’t have to wait years with vast expense and uncertainty.”The housing minister denied there would be any back-tracking on the plans, despite his agreement to hold talks.

He said it was “quite right” to consult because of the ex-tent of the changes, and in-vited opponents to be very specific about any concerns.“Let’s be forensic about this - if there are particular as-pects or sentences that you don’t think express clearly enough the protections that are there, then let’s talk about it.

Labour’s Jack Dromey wel-comed the government’s de-cision to talk to campaign groups, but said ministers’ previous stance showed “how out of touch they are”.

“Labour is in favour of sus-tainable development - but what the Tory-led government are offering is a downgrad-ing of the rules which pro-tect our natural environment.”

Mr ClarkMr Clark also criticised the National Trust for using pic-tures of Los Angeles in its campaign against the plans.

He said that such large-scale urban sprawl was “not going to happen here” and reiter-ated the government’s com-mitment to protect the green belt, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Councils would also have more responsibility under the new regime - which would mean better planning de-cisions, argued Mr Clark.

Shaun Spiers, the chief execu-tive of the Campaign for the Pro-tection of Rural England, reject-ed Mr Clark’s assurances and said the proposals would give too much say to developers.

Mr Clark also criticised the National Trust for using pic-tures of Los Angeles in its campaign against the plans.

He said that such large-scale urban sprawl was “not going to happen here” and reiter-ated the government’s com-mitment to protect the green belt, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Councils would also have more responsibility under the new regime - which would mean better planning de-cisions, argued Mr Clark.

“What they’re really talking about is a policy of ‘build, build, build’. This is about economic development. It’s about pros-perity over people and places.”Peter Nixon, the National Trust’s director of conserva-tion, welcomed Mr Clark’s invitation to hold talks but also criticised the changes.

He told the Times newspaper that the government had the right “aspirations” but the pro-posals currently did not allow planning authorities to make decisions in a “balanced way”.

Shaun Spiers, the chief execu-tive of the Campaign for the Pro-tection of Rural England, reject-ed Mr Clark’s assurances and said the proposals would give too much say to developers.

“What the government is talking about is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, but if you read the National Plan-ning Policy Framework in its draft form, what is clear is that is a presumption in favour of de-velopment, and at every point sustainability is undermined.