REGENERATION BRITAIN MAGAZINE

Story By Declan McCarthyImages By Jon Leigh

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

Planning minister Greg Clark said the changes in England were “abso-lutely crucial” but he also agreed to talk to opponents of the proposals.He said “particular aspects” could be addressed if groups such as the Na-tional Trust felt they were unclear.Shadow communities minister Jack Dromey said he welcomed the gov-ernment’s willingness to talk.

Mr Clark said the government would not back down on its aim to boost house-building and encourage business.Campaigners say they fear exces-sive development under the Draft Na-tional 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 pre-sumption of “sustainable development”.

The Department for Communities and Local Government says it intends to transform a system whose “volume and complexity have made planning increas-ingly 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 govern-ment 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”.

‘Good for business’

Greg Clark defends re-forms to the current systemMr Clark told the BBC it was “absolute-ly crucial” for the government to sim-plify planning processes so that homes could be built and to encourage business.“We’re building fewer homes than can ac-commodate young people that need to be housed, we’ve got a problem of homeless-ness, overcrowding, poverty as rents rise.“For companies expanding or relocating 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 con-sult 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 pro-tections that are there, then let’s talk about it.

Start QLabour’s Jack Dromey welcomed the gov-ernment’s decision to talk to campaign groups, but said ministers’ previous stance showed “how out of touch they are”.“Labour is in favour of sustain-able development - but what the

Tory-led government are offering is a downgrading of the rules which protect our natural environment.”Mr Clark also criticised the Nation-al Trust for using pictures of Los An-geles 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, na-tional parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.Councils would also have more responsibil-ity under the new regime - which would mean better planning decisions, argued Mr Clark.Shaun Spiers, the chief executive of the Cam-paign for the Protection of Rural England, re-jected Mr Clark’s assurances and said the pro-posals would give too much say to developers.“What the government is talking about is a pre-sumption 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 develop-ment. It’s about prosperity over people and places.”Peter Nixon, the National Trust’s director of conservation, welcomed Mr Clark’s invita-tion to hold talks but also criticised the changes.He told the Times newspaper that the govern-ment had the right “aspirations” but the pro-posals currently did not allow planning au-thorities to make decisions in a “balanced way”.