New planning laws will destroy towns and countryside

frank_begbie · Post by **frank_begbie** » 27 Jul 2011, 11:19

Every time I see a new building going up I have a sickening feeling.

One for the wildlife they are destroying, another for the water draining issues, and another for the destruction of a possible crop growth area.

Talk about forward planning.

goslow · Post by **goslow** » 27 Jul 2011, 11:57

I am wondering what this will mean. Any development that can contribute to economic growth/jobs, should be waved through?

Do windfarms fit into that? What about new grid infrastructure? What about other kinds of power stations?

How do homes fit into that. They are not providing employment, except in construction.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 29 Jul 2011, 13:30

goslow wrote: How do homes fit into that. They are not providing employment, except in construction.

Exactly: that's why we need to build them constantly.

You can run an entire economy on building stuff - look at Ireland and Spain. Of course, it's no more sustainable economically than it is ecologically.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 29 Jul 2011, 13:32

A heartfelt piece by Simon Jenkins on this bill:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ide-market

Find I agree with this man on a surprising number of issues.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 29 Jul 2011, 13:44

Yes that's rather a good piece. I particularly like the last two sentences.

I was sitting on the beach with a member of the Institute of Town Planners yesterday, discussing the topic. He was explaining to me how, in many respects, the new arrangements would be putting us back where we were several decades ago. The difference was that then there was scope for growth and development whereas now, with economic growth over, there is less scope for wholesale destruction.

The combination of Pickles and Spellman was never going to be good news. We can only hope that the economic reality will thwart their less than cunning plans.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 29 Jul 2011, 14:02

I can't rename the Facebook page I set up for the consultation on Sustainable Development, as it's too popular! It looks like it's still needed

.
https://www.facebook.com/SustainableDev ... UKPlanning

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Aug 2011, 22:52

Page 29 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework:

106. For the extraction of coal, there should be a presumption against development unless:
• the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; or, if not
• it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission.

I rather like the presumption against development of coal extraction.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 02 Aug 2011, 23:05

biffvernon wrote:Page 29 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework:

106. For the extraction of coal, there should be a presumption against development unless:
• the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; or, if not
• it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission.
I rather like the presumption against development of coal extraction.

So that's a presumption against coal extraction, unless there happens to be coal there then

.

mobbsey · Post by **mobbsey** » 03 Aug 2011, 01:06

biffvernon wrote:Page 29 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework:

Naa, having read through the whole thing there's far sillier ideas in there than that

"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." (page 3/4)

Do you want to tell them about 'peak everything' or shall I?

Actually, I think responding to this consultation, especially referencing PO, is pissing into the wind -- I think we need to put things a little more directly than that.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 03 Aug 2011, 02:00

Sent this to my long suffering MP

From the Draft National Planning Policy Framework:

"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." (page 3/4)

Can someone tell me when "Sustainable Economic Growth", especially in the built environment stops, please? Does it stop when we have covered all land not necessary for the growth of our food, or when we have covered all land or when we have covered all land in 100 storey skyscrapers? Surely it would be better to ditch this economist's pipe dream, and the environmentalist's nightmare, when we still have some green and pleasant land to live in.

"without growth, a sustainable future cannot be achieved" is an oxymoron as we live in a finite environment with finite resources, resources which are beginning to run out, or at least run short. Growth will mean that, with a 10% growth rate, China and India will both have to consume double all that they have consumed in the past in the next seven years! This is the maths of exponential growth. We have increasing resource prices already as supply cannot keep up with demand. This demand is already causing inflation which is having a detrimental effect on the nation's growth. The conventional economic remedies of increased interest rates or increased taxes won't have much effect on this inflation as it is being generated outside the country.

There are two truthful versions of the above statement. One is "without growth, a sustainable banking future cannot be achieved." This is probably what is meant by that statement as we require growth in the economy to be able to pay off the huge debts we all owe to the banks and the banks owe to us, the taxpayer. The other truthful version is "with growth, a sustainable future cannot be achieved," but that would mean a complete redesign of the banking system on a "no interest" basis.

I appreciate that it will be difficult to tell our spoilt brat bankers that they can't keep having "more, more, more", and there will be a significant proportion of the population who will also feel the same, but if someone doesn't tell them soon, they will find out the hard way as our unsustainable economic system finally grinds to a halt when the continuous doubling of the size of the economy finally runs up against physical barriers.

There is another truthful variation on that statement "without growth, a sustainable future can be achieved". You could add "only" to the beginning of the statement. I'll see if they work that out for themselves.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 03 Aug 2011, 11:04

That is a cracking letter, kenneal.

Trouble is, in their eyes (some at least) it brands you as a total whacko.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 03 Aug 2011, 12:04

mobbsey wrote:
biffvernon wrote:Page 29 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework:
Naa, having read through the whole thing there's far sillier ideas in there than that

Oh, I was thinking that was the only non-silly line in the whole thing.

But let's just suspend cynicism for a moment. We know that BAU and growth are fast becoming distant if fond memories. If all planning restrictions are removed by tea time the country is not going to get covered in concrete because we've run out of concrete, or at least the wherewithal to pay for it. Could it be that the planning rules we've got used to were very necessary in the past because there was a great pressure to build but now that pressure has gone.

Not from from my place there was a plan to build one of those 'eco-towns'. The local authority was under genuine pressure to provide development land and they came up with this plan as the least bad solution. It really was the least bad solution - I know the planners involved. There was the predictable local opposition but what actually killed it off was the financial events of 2008. It suddenly became clear that there were no developers in the market wanting to pursue the scheme.

If, under the new proposals, that land becomes available for development again, you know what will happen? It will continue to be used to produce mostly animal feed and biofuel because there just isn't the demand for another housing estate.

On the other hand, my friend is a woodworker and owns a small plot with a shed in which he plies his trade. He lives in a rented house a couple of miles away. He would like to build his own house on the plot so that he does not have to commute to work but has been refused planning permission. Under the new rules he stands a much better chance of living a genuinely more sustainable life than he does at present.

RogerCO · Post by **RogerCO** » 03 Aug 2011, 12:26

+1 to Biff
I'm try to sell my oversized house now family has grown up and ideally would like to be able to build a very low impact dwelling on a reasonable plot to develop as a forest garden. The localism bill may make that much easier, while the end of BAU makes it pretty unlikely that large scale growth driven development will eat up vast swathes of green and pleasant land.