Business groups wade into National Trust NPPF row. And so they should!

The National Trust has been accused of using ‘hyperbole and scare tactics’ over its claims that the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will lead to ‘unchecked and damaging’ development.
Earlier this week, National Trust director-general Dame Fiona Reynolds claimed that the proposals in the draft NPPF would lead to “unchecked and damaging development in the undesignated countryside on a scale not seen since the 1930s”.

Both the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Local Government Association (LGA) have already hit back against the comments, with the DCLG describing them as “plain wrong”.

However, the National Trust has refused to retract the claims.

Industry groups the British Property Federation (BPF) and the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) have today stepped into the row through a letter to the Daily Telegraph.

The joint letter, from BPF chief executive Liz Peace and BCC director of policy and external affairs Adam Marshall, reads:

“We are bewildered by some of the reaction to the Government’s plans to simplify and speed up the planning system.

“A number of organisations, including the National Trust, have resorted to hyperbole and scare tactics – suggesting that the new national planning framework will lead to the despoliation of the countryside and to Los Angeles-style urban sprawl. No wonder ministers are reported to be concerned at this response to what seems to us to be a wholly reasonable document.

“The reality is very different. The new planning framework simplifies and improves the existing rules, and encourages responsible growth through a new ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. It does not diminish the ability to protect green belt.

“Few realise that built-up land in England represents under 10 per cent of the total. It will still be less than 10 per cent under the new framework. What will be different, however, is the ability of our worthy but painfully slow planning system to support the growth that our economy so desperately needs and is currently failing to achieve. Job creation, affordable housing, and the businesses of the future are what’s really at stake here – not the concreting-over of the countryside.

“We urge the Government to stand firm on its proposals for planning – and ensure they are followed through on the ground in the months and years to come”.

Speak now OR forever hold thy peace! Shepway Local Development Framework consultation goes live.

Dear Sir/Madam

Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 as amended – Regulations 27 and 28

Shepway Local Development Framework:
Representations on the Core Strategy proposed submission document.

Shepway District Council is writing to notify you of commencement of the period in which you can make formal representations on the above document: 29th July 2011 to 23rd September 2011 (17.00 hrs).

In order to view the proposed submission documents/supporting evidence and to make representations pleas see:
http://consult.shepway.gov.uk/portal/core_strategy/cspropsubdocconsult
Any representations that are made on the document must relate to its soundness, meaning comments must focus on whether it is justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

After submission of representations and the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State, an Examination in Public will be held by the Planning Inspectorate in early 2012 to determine the soundness of the Shepway LDF Core Strategy.

Representations must be sent in writing will be made public. Further information on the Proposed Submission process and documents is available on: http://www.shepway.gov.uk/currentconsultation. For additional assistance, please email planning.policy@Shepway.gov.uk.

Please note we will not be able to accept representations after 23rd September 2011, 17.00hrs.

Yours faithfully

D.Shore

Dave Shore
Planning Policy & Economic Development Manager
Shepway District Council

Should Shepway adopt Ashford BC aproach, especially over planning not being regarded as an esoteric art form?

Cabinet – 9th June 2011

Our Manifesto

Turning now to our election manifesto; I know it’s almost fashionable to decry election promises as being mere ‘spin’. Well I have a surprise to unveil – and that is that this Conservative administration intends trying it’s utmost to fulfil its promises.

Our manifesto promised that we would refocus the Council’s priorities and place greater emphasis on:

• Job creation
• Economic development
• Enhanced shopping facilities, and
• Better recreational and leisure opportunities.

The manifesto also included the promise that we would continue to be leaders in social housing and that our focus would be housing to meet local demand.

Several of those promises are reflected in the papers before us tonight. For example, the new build programme in item 7, the Conningbrook Park in item 9 and the Greenov project in item 8.

But delivering on promises isn’t about a few isolated papers and examples – the reality is that is that it requires a willing mind set and the appropriate tools. To that end, I have specifically instructed the Chief Executive to ensure that all Officers assist Members in developing, and bringing forward for implementation, initiatives and policies that deliver our election pledges.

In terms of tools, the Council’s planning policies, and the Council’s attitude towards planning issues, are of critical importance – especially so given the harsh economic climate that we currently face. Consequently, I declare here and now that while planning may be regarded as an esoteric art form in some Council, were it ever so in Ashford, then that is certainly no longer the case. Henceforth, in Ashford planning and planning policies are merely tools that serve the prosperity of Ashford Borough and the wellbeing of its residents. To that end we will adopt flexible, pragmatic and, above all, sane policies that serve that objective.

Unfortunately, we have inherited a legacy from previous governments that includes many policies and attitudes that conflict with this, what I would term, rational view of life. For example:

• in the interests of “Sustainability” our planning policies can prevent the conversion of a rural redundant agricultural building into holiday accommodation simply because the building is not on a bus route. To me that is mad. The facts of life are that (a) Ashford needs to encourage more tourism, (b) the bus services in rural Ashford are poor and unlikely to improve significantly, (c) cars are a fact of life irrespective of their lack of green credentials.

• Again in the interests of sustainability, under our policies a perfectly sensible site for rural local needs affordable housing can be rejected because a site is not within walking distance of local shops or because it’s not on a bus route.

There are many examples were the diktat of previous governments or their quangos have resulted in policies or guidelines that possess intellectual soundness, but are totally lacking in common sense.

Given the new Coalition government’s priorities, ethos of localism and our own election mandate the time is now ripe for a sea change.

To that end the former LDF (Local Development Framework) Task Group will have a much wider mandate and will become the Planning Policy Group (“PPG”). As well as dealing with LDF matters, the PPG will be specifically charged with speedily bringing forward for adoption new policies that overcome any conflicts between existing adopted policies and our corporate objectives. The PPG will also facilitate the adoption of pragmatic guidelines that ensure that the interpretation and/or implementation of adopted policies accords with our corporate objectives.

In addition, we will adopt a far more pragmatic approach in our dealings with planning applicants and in our dealings with local communities. For example, if a developer can make a site viable by providing an off-site or innovative developer contribution then we’ll listen with great interest. If a community prefers to see a developer contribution in the form of, for example, a new roof for the village hall rather than 35% affordable housing then we’ll work with them to make this happen.

In both examples what matters is not the rigid application of red tape, but the furtherance of the prosperity and wellbeing of the Borough.

Finally, on this topic some might claim it its fortuitous that Gerry review of planning feeds in very well with this refreshed view of planning, but Gerry and I naturally consider the review to be great foresight on our part. Whatever the truth, the reality is that review will greatly assist the new PPG.

Cllr Peter Wood
Leader
Ashford Borough Council