Comments on: No.10 Policy on Urban Sprawl – Bring it On? http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2011/06/25/no-10-policy-on-urban-sprawl-bring-it-on/ Just another dev.wordpress-mu.co.uk Blogs site Mon, 14 May 2012 12:20:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: The Planmeister http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2011/06/25/no-10-policy-on-urban-sprawl-bring-it-on/#comment-77 The Planmeister Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:02:01 +0000 http://regenbrown.wordpress.com/?p=230#comment-77 Policy Exchange = scary people! But it's also quite exciting to have some real extreme debate that could galvanise opinions after years of New Labour "all things to all philosophies". One likely outcome, though, is as Andrew Lainton suggests, that Ministers will eventually push the agenda too far and there will be a huge backlash. Urban Sprawl is surely too ingrained as a bete noire in the British (especially Southern England) national psyche to be acceptable. Trouble is, it's all so muddled. Almost any coherent approach, right, centre or left, would be preferable to a botched or befuddled compromise. The JRF options are interesting but, in the absence of any national or regional spatial frameworks, how can they be translated into policy that has any real chance of being implemented? Every local planning authority would have to be connected to a zombie-like mind control network that would make them choose coherent, complementary local strategies. The government's approach is to encourage bottom up, let the market decide planning (themselves two very uncomfortable bedfellows in the leafy shires) on the one hand, whilst pushing through high speed rail and nuclear power stations on the other. Policy Exchange = scary people! But it’s also quite exciting to have some real extreme debate that could galvanise opinions after years of New Labour “all things to all philosophies”.
One likely outcome, though, is as Andrew Lainton suggests, that Ministers will eventually push the agenda too far and there will be a huge backlash. Urban Sprawl is surely too ingrained as a bete noire in the British (especially Southern England) national psyche to be acceptable.
Trouble is, it’s all so muddled. Almost any coherent approach, right, centre or left, would be preferable to a botched or befuddled compromise. The JRF options are interesting but, in the absence of any national or regional spatial frameworks, how can they be translated into policy that has any real chance of being implemented? Every local planning authority would have to be connected to a zombie-like mind control network that would make them choose coherent, complementary local strategies.
The government’s approach is to encourage bottom up, let the market decide planning (themselves two very uncomfortable bedfellows in the leafy shires) on the one hand, whilst pushing through high speed rail and nuclear power stations on the other.

]]> By: Paul Miner http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2011/06/25/no-10-policy-on-urban-sprawl-bring-it-on/#comment-76 Paul Miner Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:42:49 +0000 http://regenbrown.wordpress.com/?p=230#comment-76 This is a very interesting and timely discussion. We share many of the concerns about the practitioner draft NPPF expressed here and have set them out to Government in a critique of the practitioner draft. We have also spoken out forcefully about the Government's preferred 'presumption in favour of sustainable development': http://tinyurl.com/5s35dut See also the article in today's Times, 'Planning rules pave way for Green Belt housing bonanza'. This is a very interesting and timely discussion. We share many of the concerns about the practitioner draft NPPF expressed here and have set them out to Government in a critique of the practitioner draft.

We have also spoken out forcefully about the Government’s preferred ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’:
http://tinyurl.com/5s35dut

See also the article in today’s Times, ‘Planning rules pave way for Green Belt housing bonanza’.

]]> By: keith smith http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2011/06/25/no-10-policy-on-urban-sprawl-bring-it-on/#comment-75 keith smith Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:27:06 +0000 http://regenbrown.wordpress.com/?p=230#comment-75 Having looked at the Policy Exchange's paper on reforming the use classes order (based in part on a misunderstanding of its legal purpose - I did email them to tell them so but have had no reply) it strikes me that the organisation are best described as "wreckers" driven by a fundamentalist free market ideology which has landed us in the present predicament. They misunderstand or prefer to abandon the planning process in the naiive belief that the market will provide everything in the right place at the right time and in the right form - historical evidence is not supportive of such an approach. If this think tank is the source of the government's non-planning agenda then it is cause for real concern. It reminds me of the Thatcherite approach of the 70s, 80s and early 90s - it did not work then and it won't work now but until the lesson is learnt it will do an awful lot of damage. Perhaps I retired at the right time !! Having looked at the Policy Exchange’s paper on reforming the use classes order (based in part on a misunderstanding of its legal purpose – I did email them to tell them so but have had no reply) it strikes me that the organisation are best described as “wreckers” driven by a fundamentalist free market ideology which has landed us in the present predicament. They misunderstand or prefer to abandon the planning process in the naiive belief that the market will provide everything in the right place at the right time and in the right form – historical evidence is not supportive of such an approach.
If this think tank is the source of the government’s non-planning agenda then it is cause for real concern.
It reminds me of the Thatcherite approach of the 70s, 80s and early 90s – it did not work then and it won’t work now but until the lesson is learnt it will do an awful lot of damage. Perhaps I retired at the right time !!

]]> By: Pickles' Onion http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2011/06/25/no-10-policy-on-urban-sprawl-bring-it-on/#comment-74 Pickles' Onion Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:55:23 +0000 http://regenbrown.wordpress.com/?p=230#comment-74 It appears to me that Mr O’Shaughnessy is perhaps the individual behind the Government's attempt to re-define "sustainability". I'm sure I'm not alone in being infuriated that after years of fighting the corner of true sustainability having to include a balance of economic and social issues as well as the often over-egged environmental concerns, the whole agenda appears to be getting hijacked (with the Government leading the hijackers possy) by economic interests who seem to consider this is acceptable despite their forgetting of social and environmental considerations. It appears to me that Mr O’Shaughnessy is perhaps the individual behind the Government’s attempt to re-define “sustainability”. I’m sure I’m not alone in being infuriated that after years of fighting the corner of true sustainability having to include a balance of economic and social issues as well as the often over-egged environmental concerns, the whole agenda appears to be getting hijacked (with the Government leading the hijackers possy) by economic interests who seem to consider this is acceptable despite their forgetting of social and environmental considerations.

]]> By: Number 10′s Open Aim to Destroy the Planning System « Decisions, Decisions, Decisions http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2011/06/25/no-10-policy-on-urban-sprawl-bring-it-on/#comment-73 Number 10′s Open Aim to Destroy the Planning System « Decisions, Decisions, Decisions Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:50:53 +0000 http://regenbrown.wordpress.com/?p=230#comment-73 [...] James Brown’s Blog in Regeneration. There was a fascinating breakfast this week organised by Dermot Finch at Fishburn [...] [...] James Brown’s Blog in Regeneration. There was a fascinating breakfast this week organised by Dermot Finch at Fishburn [...]

]]> By: andrewlainton http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2011/06/25/no-10-policy-on-urban-sprawl-bring-it-on/#comment-72 andrewlainton Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:55:26 +0000 http://regenbrown.wordpress.com/?p=230#comment-72 Correction James O’Shaughnessy is special advisor to the PM a to 10, Jamie Hilton is head of the no 10 policy unit who holds similarly extreme views. These extreme views are fully in line with the Policy Exchange and those associated with them, including their director Alex Morton who this week said 'Given that developers build homes because there is demand, a planning application is proof of demand. So we should require councils to scrap the “predict and provide” model that invariably underestimates demand.' The policy exchange is member of the European Wide network of right wing think tanks The Stockholm Network, which has close links to climate change deniers, and it has links to the Heritage Foundation, The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute and receives funding such as Exxon Mobil as well as many big pharma firms. This web of 'think tanks' conceal their funding links and promote the removal of almost all forms of environmental regulation. See here https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/policy-exchange-nppf-not-pro-sprawl-enough/ They are dangerously close to the ideas of the tea party ant-sustainable development brigade, differing only giving lip service to sustainable development (by defining it away) There appears to be a struggle between number 10 and Bressingdon Place. The only difference being that Bressingdon wants to maintain some limited role for the local plan and design control. But as John Howells MP, author of Open Source Planning and PPS to Greg Clarke said in Feb if no up to date local plan a developer could then build 'what they like, where they like and when they like' which one property magasine rightly called a 'developers charter' http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/bnp-paribas-31000-homes-a-year-to-be-lost-by-abolition-of-rss/ It is time people woke up. The practitioners draft of the NPPF was shocking, full of all sorts of quiet policy shifts such as removing the protection of the countryside for its own sake, but once it gets out of no 10s hands, and Eric Pickles who wants to reduce it to 10 pages, it will say little more than say yes yes yes. Whilst the revolt of the nurses etc shocked the government they will be shocked by the revolt of the cpre, THE rspb (with more members than all political parties combined) etc once they get there letter writing to mps going fearing sprawl everywhere. Its politically stupid as the opposition will capitalise as a concern of the shire and tactically stupid as with Patricl Jenkins proposal to dismantle the Green Belt in 1980 it will lead to overreaction in the other direction leading to less development when we need more. Chris there is a solution to either sprawl or over tight green belts - its unfashionable but its called regional planning and new towns - see http://www.tcpa.org.uk/resources.php?action=resource&id=880 Correction James O’Shaughnessy is special advisor to the PM a to 10, Jamie Hilton is head of the no 10 policy unit who holds similarly extreme views.

These extreme views are fully in line with the Policy Exchange and those associated with them, including their director Alex Morton who this week said
‘Given that developers build homes because there is demand, a planning application is proof of demand. So we should require councils to scrap the “predict and provide” model that invariably underestimates demand.’

The policy exchange is member of the European Wide network of right wing think tanks The Stockholm Network, which has close links to climate change deniers, and it has links to the Heritage Foundation, The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute and receives funding such as Exxon Mobil as well as many big pharma firms. This web of ‘think tanks’ conceal their funding links and promote the removal of almost all forms of environmental regulation. See here
https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/policy-exchange-nppf-not-pro-sprawl-enough/ They are dangerously close to the ideas of the tea party ant-sustainable development brigade, differing only giving lip service to sustainable development (by defining it away)

There appears to be a struggle between number 10 and Bressingdon Place. The only difference being that Bressingdon wants to maintain some limited role for the local plan and design control.

But as John Howells MP, author of Open Source Planning and PPS to Greg Clarke said in Feb if no up to date local plan a developer could then build ‘what they like, where they like and when they like’ which one property magasine rightly called a ‘developers charter’
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/bnp-paribas-31000-homes-a-year-to-be-lost-by-abolition-of-rss/

It is time people woke up. The practitioners draft of the NPPF was shocking, full of all sorts of quiet policy shifts such as removing the protection of the countryside for its own sake, but once it gets out of no 10s hands, and Eric Pickles who wants to reduce it to 10 pages, it will say little more than say yes yes yes. Whilst the revolt of the nurses etc shocked the government they will be shocked by the revolt of the cpre, THE rspb (with more members than all political parties combined) etc once they get there letter writing to mps going fearing sprawl everywhere. Its politically stupid as the opposition will capitalise as a concern of the shire and tactically stupid as with Patricl Jenkins proposal to dismantle the Green Belt in 1980 it will lead to overreaction in the other direction leading to less development when we need more.

Chris there is a solution to either sprawl or over tight green belts – its unfashionable but its called regional planning and new towns – see http://www.tcpa.org.uk/resources.php?action=resource&id=880

]]>