NewsBreakingOnline

Communities may lose ability to influence decision-making as planning is streamlined in favour of developers, green groups say A planning free-for-all leading to blighted landscapes, urban sprawl, more congestion and an undermining of local democracy is inevitable if the government insists on pushing ahead with proposals for new rules, say the UK’s leading green groups. The National Trust, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth, RSPB, Greenpeace and other countryside and environment organisations with a combined membership of more than 6 million people, have told the Guardian that they fear communities will lose the ability to influence decision-making as planning is streamlined in favour of developers and as economic growth is prioritised over social and environmental concerns. In addition, one prominent Conservative council has said the proposed changes contained in the contained in the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will be “undemocratic” and “against the principle of localism”. The fight against the proposed planning rules comes from groups at the heart of middle England and is shaping up to become a major political battleground for David Cameron. Many of the groups were part of the coalition who forced the government into a U-turn on selling off English forests this year. According to the groups, who are working individually and not as a coalition, the most radical reforms of the planning system in 50 years will allow developers to build what they like where they like in the 66% of England that is not formally protected by national park, or other conservation status. The groups say the changes in the planning law may lead to: • Previously refused plans for major developments being re-submitted and automatically passed; • Plans for giant incinerators and factory farms becoming impossible to refuse; • Overcrowding as the space between communities is filled with housing; • Green belt protection around more than 20 English cities becoming weakened; • Airport expansions, new roads and giant business parks on motorways; • Polluting developments imposed on poorest communities. Existing conservation areas will retain protection measures, but nearly two-thirds of England is not protected. In addition, planning approval will be assumed in the nearly 50% of local authorities that have no published local plans. A crucial clause in the draft bill provides a presumption in favour of “sustainable development” over all other considerations. The way it is worded is said by the groups to be so weak to be legally meaningless. Fiona Reynolds, director of the 3.5-million strong National Trust called for a fundamental rethink of the reforms. “We firmly believe that the government has got its proposals for planning reform wrong. We are hearing the same from our supporters and local communities the length and breadth of the country. The government is disregarding the impact that these proposals will have on open space in and around our cities, towns and villages. There is a default ‘yes’ to development which means that local voices will not be heard”. “The risk is that there will be a development free-for-all in all unprotected areas in the mistaken belief that it will generate economic growth. The message for local authorities is build, build, build,” said Shaun Spiers, director of the CPRE. Martin Harper, RSPB conservation director, said: “The planning system is there to represent the interests of the public in the face of complex decisions, and it will fail us all if one factor – economic growth – is set higher than any other.” Joan Walley MP, who chairs parliament’s environmental audit committee , which will question ministers over the changes next month, said: “Stripping the planning system of safeguards that protect the green spaces around our cities, towns and villages is not the answer. The government must be careful that in the rush for growth it doesn’t end up vandalising the countryside.” Greg Clark, planning minister, vigorously defended the proposed reforms, saying communities could draw up their own plans about where development should take place and would be strengthened rather than weakened by the changes. “The reaction of these groups has been unfocused and misconceived. Decisions on development will be made by local communities. Their plans will be sovereign. This puts more power into the hands of local people, not less,” he said. “I believe we will see a different type of development. Rather than huge, banal [ones] imposed from above, you will have more sensitive location of homes designed to higher standards. We will move from types of mediocre development that have been resisted by communities to developments that are more accountable.” But in a signal that Tory councils may react in a hostile way to the removal of many of their planning powers, Hammersmith and Fulham council said the planning proposals would damage local democracy. “To change planning law so that important decisions are not made at local level is anti-democratic, against the principles of localism”, said deputy leader Nick Botterill. Fulham and other London councils say that they will have no power under the new laws to stop a major London sewer being built. “These proposals risk riding roughshod over local democracy. It could take decision-making away from councils. There is a real risk of developers being able to manipulate the [planning] system in their favour. It opens a barn door for them,” said Kate Henderson, director of the Town and Country Planning Association. Not all groups oppose the new planning rules though. Harry Cotterell, deputy president of the Country Land and Business Association said that sustainable development was necessary for economic growth. “The planning system is currently failing to provide either the jobs or housing the countryside desperately needs for its survival. The draft NPPF provides a streamlined and less bureaucratic way of achieving economic and social success, while at the same time protecting the needs of the environment.” Liz Peace, head of the British Property Federation said: “The NPPF simply streamlines the old system, and gives democratically elected councils, rather than unelected regional quangos, the responsibility of deciding how much development is needed in their communities. What is needed is a sensible debate.” Planning policy Rural affairs RSPB Greenpeace Activism Local government John Vidal guardian.co.uk