REGENERATION

britAINREGENERATION

In the times of a worrying economy, local councils look in-creasingly to reclaiming abandoned spaces. But are all brown

field sites suitable for redevelopment?“ “Planning minister Greg Clark said the changes in Eng-land 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 un-clear.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 busi-ness.Campaigners say they fear excessive development un-der the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.The plan, published in July, streamlines policy that is

currently more than 1,000 pages down to just 52 and features a presumption of “sustainable development”.

The Department for Communities and Local Govern-ment says it intends to transform a system whose “vol-ume 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 gov-ernment needed “to listen and make further improve-ments or the consequences for the English countryside and the character of our towns and villages will be grave”.

Good for business‘

‘

Good

for

busine

ss‘

‘

- Gr

eg C

lark

def

ends

ref

orm

s to

the

cur

rent

sys

tem

Greg Clark defends re-forms to the current systemMr Clark told the BBC it was “abso-lutely crucial” for the government to simplify planning processes so that homes could be built and to encour-age business.

“We’re building fewer homes than can accommodate young people that need to be housed, we’ve got a prob-lem of homelessness, overcrowding, poverty as rents rise.“For companies expanding or relocat-ing they need a new building 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 backtracking on the plans, despite his agreement to hold talks.He said it was “quite right” to consult because of the extent of the changes, and invited opponents to be very specific about any concerns.“Let’s be forensic about this - if there are particular aspects or sentences that you don’t think express clearly enough the protections that are there, then let’s talk about it.

Start QLabour’s Jack Dromey welcomed the government’s decision to talk to campaign groups, but said ministers’ previous stance showed “how out of touch they are”.

“Labour is in favour of sustainable development - but what the Tory-led government are offering is a down-grading of the rules which protect our natural environment.”Mr Clark also criticised the National Trust for using pictures of Los Ange-les in its campaign against the plans.He said that such large-scale urban sprawl was “not going to happen here” and reiterated the govern-ment’s commitment 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 decisions, argued Mr Clark.Shaun Spiers, the chief executive of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, rejected Mr Clark’s assurances and said the proposals would give too much say to develop-ers.“What the government is talking about is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, but if you read the National Planning Policy Framework in its draft form, what is clear is that is a presumption in favour of development, and at every point sustainability is undermined.“What they’re really talking about is a policy of ‘build, build, build’. This is about economic development. It’s about prosperity over people and places.”Peter Nixon, the National Trust’s direc-tor of conservation, 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 proposals currently did not allow planning authorities to make decisions in

We’re building fewer homes than can ac-commodate young people that need to be housed

“

“