On the 25th July the Government launched a consultation on a new National Planning Policy Framework which the headlines suggest will reduce planning rules from the current 1000 pages to 52. The consultation ends on 17th October after which the Government will implement the changes, hopefully taking into account our views. As one ex-Minister has pointed out a consultation period that runs during the Summer period is not very sensible. All credit to the Government for their ambition in this matter, however as this Government knows to its cost, wanting to be radical and progressive is simply not enough. Just as they discovered in their attempts to sell off the forestry commission, some battles are very costly and costly battles often result in u-turns. This factor alone can lead the nature of the consultation itself to become polarised and lack the creative ideas that a process which is open and truly accessible can achieve.

Many people recognise that planning is something of a challenge and often  overcomplicated. Depending on ones position the challenge is either useful or very frustrating. At one  extreme some people appear to wish to see no change in our communities, unless that change is to reverse the ‘inappropriate’ development of the recent past, even if this means people cannot find a home or a job. At the other extreme others wish to see our communities changed to accommodate social and/or economic interests even if such changes impacts the built environment in a disproportionate manner. Between these two extremes lie the majority of people in our communities including many whose opinion will remain dormant until the planning system impacts them personally. The human condition as Thomas Hobbes implied is to paint those who disagree with us into an extreme position (even though few people do actually inhabit that space).

At the heart of the challenge is a widespread lack of understanding of the real issues at stake in this change amongst the political classes, let alone for the man on the Street (or perhaps in the village). Norman Lamont speaking on Friday’s Radio 4 Any Questions? showed how deep the problem is when he asked ‘Do we really need to build in the countryside?’ he went on to stress that whilst he accepted that new homes were needed, he felt that they should not be in rural areas and his preference is to see these dwellings built on Brownfield Sites. Normans political career has been spent as MP in a constituency that is neither the urban heartland nor rural idyll, just a generally nice place to live (if you can afford to do so!). Perhaps this background explains why his views are so ridiculous.

There are a number of very emotive issues at stake in this matter along with huge financial interests and as Dame Joan Bakewell suggested in response to another question on the same programme, if social need was the motivation for [bank lending] then a lot more people would have houses to live in. She also pointed out that no one is intending to concrete over the countryside. Both of these comments are spot on. The only people who have ever ‘proposed’ concreting over anywhere are people who build car parks or roads. The much reviled, so-called top down targets from the English Regional Assemblies (ERAs) that this Government has been so critical of, proposed an increase in development from around 10%  of the English land mass, to around 11% over 20 years.

It is vital to ensure that these simplistic hysterical comments from Lamont are not allowed to go unchallenged. In the first instance some of the previous planning guidance that this government is ripping up did direct much of the priority towards brownfield development where appropriate. As a principle it is a good one, although it is not a panacea. Not all brownfield land is as brown as the name suggests. It can include land that is used as playing fields, parks or other social space. Browner land is land such as the unused scrap metal site in Basildon currently being occupied by an illegal Traveller encampment. This has not stopped many commentators describing them as occupying green belt land (which the Traveller site is not). Another barrier to building on brownfield sites is that the costs can be great deal higher than for greenfield sites. This cost must be borne somewhere and no one will pay a premium to purchase a house built on de-contaminated land. 

The second dangerous comment by Lamont is the line that we should not build in the countryside. There has never been a plan to build in the rural parts of England to any great extent and if one wanted a stick to hit the previous Regional Spatial Strategies with (the ones that this Government speaks so venomously about) they were actually far too timid about rural development. This was almost entirely due to the fear by the 70% of the membership of the ERAs who were from local government who felt that to grasp this nettle would be political suicide. The real charge is not however one of political suicide, but rather community asphyxiation. Our nation has (along with other developed nations) gradually become more urbanised, and more city centered over many generations. The people who pay the price for this are those living 24/7 in our rural communities. They are not entirely alone as in the nicest villages many have weekend neighbours who drive in and out and may actually be good neighbours. However what they don’t do is help the community to breathe during the week through the use of whatever public services do exist. Their ability to purchase property can drive up prices and prevent others from living in the village. This often includes the children of those already in the village. There is a clear opportunity for some of our villages and market towns to exchange the less salubrious green field sites for new homes that are suitable for the needs of the village. This will enable the villages where such development is appropriate to become more sustainable and attract much-needed public services. However this approach will not be understood unless political and civic leaders begin to articulate it instead of making a plea for fossilisation.