Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
From Heritage Link:
Planning Reform Bill
Despite a torrent of responses, the Government has made few significant changes to the Planning Reform Bill published on 27th November. The Bill (at http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/planning.html) introduces a new system for nationally significant infrastructure planning, alongside further reforms to the town and country planning system.
The coalition of conservation, environmental and civic organisations http://www.planningdisaster.co.uk re-iterates its position that the proposals threaten local democracy, communities and the environment, and calls on the Government to revise the proposals. Owen Espley, coalition co-ordinator, said ‘The decision to press ahead despite these concerns suggests that the Government is not interested in being fully accountable for major decisions. We hope that MPs will use the debates on the Bill to champion democracy, accountability and sustainable development, and reject proposals that sideline communities and the environment'. It is expected that between now and Christmas, the Planning Reform Bill will be given a second reading in the House of Commons, before detailed examination begins in Committee in the New Year.
The members of the coalition are AirportWatch, Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Campaign to Protect Rural Wales (CPRW), the Civic Trust, Council for National Parks, Enough’s Enough, Friends of the Earth, the Grasslands Trust, The National Trust, the Ramblers, the RSPB, UKRIGS, The Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust.
See CPRE's statement at http://www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/459 and Friends of the Earth at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/local/planning/ Back
Planning Reform Bill: summary of responses
The Government's Summary of Responses reports that the majority of the 31000 responses reflected concerns about local democracy, public participation, and accountability. Views on how these should be addressed included ensuring that the production of national policy statements properly involve local people; preserving people’s right to be heard in public inquiries; and that decisions should be made by democratically elected politicians, not an independent Infrastructure Planning Commission.
Recommendations on how the adverse impact on the environment and other planning considerations should be addressed included avoiding economic considerations being given greater weight than environmental or social objectives, either in national policy statements or in decisions on individual nationally significant infrastructure projects; ensuring the system protects natural and historic resources for future generations, through robust environmental assessment and strong biodiversity policy; imposing a duty on decision makers to promote sustainable development; and prohibiting major carbon intensive developments (such as airports, roads, incinerators and non-renewable energy projects).
A key issue for the heritage sector was the status and timing of the new National Policy Statements vis a vis Planning Policy Statements. But the Government response simply notes concerns and states 'National policy statements will… set out clearly how the government objectives for the class of infrastructure in question are to be integrated with other policy objectives'. Over a more balanced assessment of environmental, social and economic factors, 'the Bill will require ministers to draw up national policy statements with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development and require that the sustainability of each national policy statement is appropriate assessed before it is approved'. But it appears that once all national policy statements provide a single policy framework, they will be the primary consideration in the determination of applications. Detailed consultation procedures are not set out in the Bill but the Government is committed to ensuring consultation is 'thorough and effective'. This should include 'positive and proactive means of engaging the public and that local authorities should play an important part in presenting the views of the communities they represent'.
Concerns were also expressed in responses relating to the town and country planning system, in particular• the proposal to remove of the needs test in relation to town centre development; and the proposal to simplify initial consultation stages on local plan-making.
The Government claims 'These general points have been taken into account in the overall Government response set out in the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s statement and in the more detailed commentary in the remaining sections of this report'. The Summary can be found at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/governmentresponse
Planning Reform Bill
Despite a torrent of responses, the Government has made few significant changes to the Planning Reform Bill published on 27th November. The Bill (at http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/planning.html) introduces a new system for nationally significant infrastructure planning, alongside further reforms to the town and country planning system.
The coalition of conservation, environmental and civic organisations http://www.planningdisaster.co.uk re-iterates its position that the proposals threaten local democracy, communities and the environment, and calls on the Government to revise the proposals. Owen Espley, coalition co-ordinator, said ‘The decision to press ahead despite these concerns suggests that the Government is not interested in being fully accountable for major decisions. We hope that MPs will use the debates on the Bill to champion democracy, accountability and sustainable development, and reject proposals that sideline communities and the environment'. It is expected that between now and Christmas, the Planning Reform Bill will be given a second reading in the House of Commons, before detailed examination begins in Committee in the New Year.
The members of the coalition are AirportWatch, Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Campaign to Protect Rural Wales (CPRW), the Civic Trust, Council for National Parks, Enough’s Enough, Friends of the Earth, the Grasslands Trust, The National Trust, the Ramblers, the RSPB, UKRIGS, The Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust.
See CPRE's statement at http://www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/459 and Friends of the Earth at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/local/planning/ Back
Planning Reform Bill: summary of responses
The Government's Summary of Responses reports that the majority of the 31000 responses reflected concerns about local democracy, public participation, and accountability. Views on how these should be addressed included ensuring that the production of national policy statements properly involve local people; preserving people’s right to be heard in public inquiries; and that decisions should be made by democratically elected politicians, not an independent Infrastructure Planning Commission.
Recommendations on how the adverse impact on the environment and other planning considerations should be addressed included avoiding economic considerations being given greater weight than environmental or social objectives, either in national policy statements or in decisions on individual nationally significant infrastructure projects; ensuring the system protects natural and historic resources for future generations, through robust environmental assessment and strong biodiversity policy; imposing a duty on decision makers to promote sustainable development; and prohibiting major carbon intensive developments (such as airports, roads, incinerators and non-renewable energy projects).
A key issue for the heritage sector was the status and timing of the new National Policy Statements vis a vis Planning Policy Statements. But the Government response simply notes concerns and states 'National policy statements will… set out clearly how the government objectives for the class of infrastructure in question are to be integrated with other policy objectives'. Over a more balanced assessment of environmental, social and economic factors, 'the Bill will require ministers to draw up national policy statements with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development and require that the sustainability of each national policy statement is appropriate assessed before it is approved'. But it appears that once all national policy statements provide a single policy framework, they will be the primary consideration in the determination of applications. Detailed consultation procedures are not set out in the Bill but the Government is committed to ensuring consultation is 'thorough and effective'. This should include 'positive and proactive means of engaging the public and that local authorities should play an important part in presenting the views of the communities they represent'.
Concerns were also expressed in responses relating to the town and country planning system, in particular• the proposal to remove of the needs test in relation to town centre development; and the proposal to simplify initial consultation stages on local plan-making.
The Government claims 'These general points have been taken into account in the overall Government response set out in the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s statement and in the more detailed commentary in the remaining sections of this report'. The Summary can be found at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/governmentresponse