The pressures to build on green fields: the NPPF ........... ........... where do we go from here?

There is quite a history behind the making of the National Planning Policy Framework:
Futures Forum: The pressures to build on green fields: the NPPF ........... how did we get here?

This is resulting in all sorts of building projects popping up all over the place:
Futures Forum: The pressures to build on green fields: in the Southwest - and across England

Several players are contributing comments to the Commons Committee on the NPPF:
Futures Forum: Parliamentary committee to inquire into the National Planning Policy Framework: "forcing councils to approve ad-hoc planning applications"

And meanwhile a Private Members Bill is making its way through the Commons:
Futures Forum: Private Bill to amend the National Planning Policy Framework: second reading: Friday 6th June

The Community Voice on Planning is clear about its concerns
- with one member appearing on tomorrow's Politics Show:
Futures Forum: Fragoff of Community Voice on Planning: discussing housing and greenbelt on the Sunday Politics Show

Here is CoVoP's latest contribution:

Parliamentary Enquiry

The Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into the operation of the National Planning Policy Framework is now taking oral evidence. The inquiry follows research findings, published by the Committee, that some local planning authorities may be forced into perverse behaviour to meeting the NPPF policies and government targets. Written submissions can be seen at Communities and Local Government Inquiry Submissions. See more details on our Parliament Select Committee Inquiry page.


Letter to the media from CoVoP released on 24 May 2014

This is the letter we sent out to all the nationals and to various BBC programmes as well. Please send it to your local newspapers under the name of your group or as a member of the nationwide Community Voice on Planning; you will need to include a local name and address as a contact.

How amazing that so many politicians are surprised by the message that there is dissatisfaction with the political status quo and that this finds expression through rejection of the established political players. There were few elections in the rural districts or the message would have been even worse.

Since the inception of the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) there has been a relentless attack upon the integrity of market towns and villages, on the greenbelt, and on the fabric of the English countryside. Democracy has been trampled on by an unholy alliance between the vested interests of some politicians and the mammoths of the construction industry. This has not resulted in affordable housing for the young rural dispossessed, but with disfiguring rashes of identikit houses and endless ruinous squabbles between the construction industry and local communities.

Our advice to politicians of every hue is to LISTEN to us. Don’t pretend to give us localism and democracy and then trample all over us and our opinions. Don’t call us names and condescend to us. We gave you power and through the ballot box we can take it away. If you learn nothing else from the experience of the elections of 2014, then learn this.

Time to give communities a real say in the planning process

On the 30th April 2014, Greg Mulholland MP introduced a bill, under the ten minute rule, for amendment of the NPPF. It is sponsored by MPs from all three major parties, and addresses a number of issues that affect us.
We believe that this Bill, which enjoys cross-party support, would have addressed most of the issues that have angered and frustrated us all since the inception of the NPPF. The relevant details can be seen via the link to Hansard but because of the timing this bill has lapsed.

We understand that Mr Mulholland is organising a roundtable for groups who share such a vision for the future of our planning system. The aim of the roundtable event is to produce a manifesto for the 2015 general election and make clear to both the current and next government the planning issues they must tackle.
We will be there to make our views clear. If we are ever to put right the many injustices and stupidities of the current planning system, then we need to change the NPPF.

Our submission to the Commons Select Committee on the Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework has now been published and can be seen on the Government Website.

Proud NIMBYS not BEGGERS

The acronym NIMBY was popularised by Nicholas Ridley, Secretary of State for the Environment in the late 80s, who turned out to be one of the first. Nowadays the term is exploited by politicians and developers as a means of dismissing local people who object to contentious developments on green spaces.

But what if groups like The National Trust, Civic Voice, The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and the recently formed Community Voice on Planning, who together represent the views of many many millions of people across the country, object to the very same thing? Is the whole country now a “nimby” when so many are standing up for it?

What about the BEGGERS (Build on Every Green Glade and Every Rural Space)?

NPPF not working

We want the government and other political groups to:

> Understand that the NPPF may not be working in the anticipated way. In particular, that the local voice is not being heard and that this is a cause of resentment, especially in rural communities.

> Recognise that there are serious short-comings to the definition of “sustainability” in current use and amend the NPPF and the guidance accordingly to give greater weight to heritage, ecology, transport and culture.

> Do more to ensure that development is preferred and prioritised on brownfield and city sites.

> Do more to protect green areas of special value to local areas.

> Scrap the current 5 year supply definition and allow permissions to be counted as part of this.

> Accept that the expectations for the production of Local Plans in the allotted time-scale were unrealistic and allow a further period of grace to those local authorities that are still struggling to achieve this.

> Seriously consider the short-comings of building-by-numbers.

Sustainability
We are starting a discussion on the definition on Sustainability so see our new page to comment.

Join the discussions

We have a new Forum so log-in and join the discussion.

Community Voice on Planning | A National Alliance to provide communities with an effective voice on planning, enabling them to protect their greenfield and green spaces.
Spectator letters: Ukip voters, royal tartans and a challenge for Dot Wordsworth » The Spectator
.
.
.