Regeneration Britain Article

BRegeneration

BRegeneration

ritain

THE CHANGES IN ENGLAND WERE ABSOLUTELYCRUCIAL.

IN THE TIMES OF A VERYWORRYING ECONOMY LOCAL COUNCILS LOOK INCREAS-INGLY TO RECLAIMING ABAN-DONED SPACES. BUT ARE ALL BROWN FIELD SITES SUIT-ABLE FOR REDEVELOPMENT?Greg Clark said that “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 en-courage business.Campaigners say they fear ex-cessive development under the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.

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 de-velopment”.The Department for Communi-ties 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 eve-ryday places that local commu-nities love” while the Campaign to Protect Rural England said the government needed “to listen and make further improvements or the consequences for the Eng-lish countryside and the charac-ter of our towns and villages will be grave”.

”

“G

REG

CLA

RK S

AYS:

GOOD FOR BUSINESS

GREGCLARKDEFENDSREFORMSTOTHECURRENTSYSTEM

GOOD FOR BUSINESS

Mr Clark told the BBC it was “abso-lutely crucial” for the government to simplify planning processes 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 home-lessness, overcrowding, 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 backtracking on the plans, despite his agree-ment 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 spe-cific 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.Labour’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 downgrading of the rules which protect our natural environment.”Mr Clark also criticised the Na-tional Trust for using pictures of Los Angeles in its campaign against the plans.He said that such large-scale ur-

ban sprawl was “not going to happen here” and reiter-

ated the government’s commitment to pro-

tect the green belt, national parks and areas of out-standing natural beauty.

Councils would also have more responsibility under the new re-gime - which would mean better planning decisions, argued Mr Clark.Shaun Spiers, the chief executive of the Campaign for the Protec-tion of Rural England, rejected 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 Planning Policy Framework in its draft form, what is clear is that is a presump-tion 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, wel-comed Mr Clark’s invitation to

PROPOSALSWOULD

GIVETOO

MUCHSAY

TODEVELOPERS

hold talksbut 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 a “balanced way”.