I'm afraid that this article is the type of uninformed, emotional polemic being pushed by the no development lobby.

This takes the biscuit:

will override environmental protection not just for our woods but for every field, hedgerow, marsh, heath and moor in England.

I challenge the writer to provide evidence that the Government is proposing to do away with Green Belt, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, etc.

Please quote one thing from the Government's proposals that would prove this:

it has created a new process for setting house-building targets which developers will be able to use to push through new building, whatever local people think

Do you know that housebuilding targets are projected from National Statistics for population growth?

While I like all shades of opinion being represented in the Guardian, at least some intellectual rigour should be demanded of the author of an article like this.

The real danger from these planning proposals is the type of dynamic it is likely to create. When I studied some planning law, and the way the planning system operates, I was appalled to find what a murky world of loopholes, meaningless terms, and vested interests it was. It is really quite corrupt, in that decisions generally go the way of those with the most influence and money, regardless of the public interest. The only thing that kept it in check, is that certain land designation, such as agricultural land and greenbelt land, generally put it off limits for development.

From what I have seen of these planning proposals, they are essentially a licence for powerful vested interests to run riot without too much obstruction.

It's very difficult to foresee what will actually happen if these proposals are implemented. This is because there doesn't appear to be a coherent plan or national housing strategy for what will take place. The underlying rationale appears to be that if you just take the brakes off, the developers will provide what the market demands. Yet it is not very clear what this is. One of the paradoxes is this. Those who make money in the cities, like to live in the peace and quiet of the countryside. Whilst they are quite keen to move there themselves, and aren't too fussed about how their new house came to be there - they are not so keen when further developments start to spoil their view, and others follow them. This is why I think the Tories are likely to find that yet again they have shot themselves in both feet. Those most likely to be angered will be Tory voting middle England.

I tend not to support the Greens as they seem often to be 'anti-everything' - and it's clear we have a housing crisis and need more homes built - but in the statement that:

Third, making development on greenfield sites easier has a knock-on effect for inner cities, made worse because the national target for redeveloping brownfield sites is to go. Prioritising the re-use of land already developed was one of the few advances in planning in recent years. Ending this would be a disaster – the only winners being the developers who don't want the cost and trouble of clearing up brownfield sites.

you've hit the nail on the head. The other thing to note is that the current proposals won't lead to additional homes being built. My local council is planning to replace its previous target of 9,000 homes (100 on greenfield) with a new target of 5,000 homes, but 1,000 on greenfield. This after a consultation with developers who state that brownfield development is now no longer 'viable'.

Less homes, more environmental damage. But I'm sure the Tories will be able to fund their next election campaign with all those property developer donations.

Why is it that a leader of a party which polled 0.8% of the popular vote at the last election, which is half that obtained by the BNP, is allowed to pontificate her extremist views in The Guardian and on the BBC is quite beyond belief.

The only reason she gained a seat is because of our quirky electoral system and the sooner the boundaries are changed the better.

Her appeals to higher authority are ludicrous because neither the WI nor NT would support her extremist views.

Anti-capitalists will never ever gain a foothold in this country and thank goodness for that and neither will environmental vandals with their ridiculous windmills and their yearning for some pol potian paradise?

I suspect many on both sides of the proverbial fence, are waiting for the outcome of the Dale Farm judiciary review.
The judge here seems dangerously close to setting an unwelcome precedent in relation to the illegal site at Dale Farm
If we have a situation where the judge finds in favour of the sites occupants, and against Basildon Councils intention to clear the illegal part of the site.
The judge will have signalled that it is OK for people to ignore laws which do not suit them, and knowingly illegally move onto a site, (and then give them thousands if not millions of poundsworth of tax payers money in the form of legal aid, to use the law, to protect them from the fact that they knowingly BROKE the law in the first place when they moved onto the site! If that is not a ludicrous situation I would be hard pressed to know what is..
If the juge ignores current planning law, and does not ask for the illegal part of the site to be cleared, why should anyone else be required to adhere to planning laws?.
On the basis of his ruling he could create a situation where anyone from anywhere, can build what they like, where they like, and when they like, and the local authorities will not be able to do a blind thing about it.
He will be creating a precedent which seems to allow people to ignore the laws they dont like, or which does not suit their interests.
On this basis I would not worry about planning reforms, the judge in the Dale Farm case looks like he will be sweeping away planning laws, long before the reforms might come into force.

Look something needs to be done. I have a good job and no family to support but like most young (actually getting older) people I cannot afford housing. This is a major problem, many order people have overcome the economic crisis by down-sizing, moving overseas or releasing capital from their property. How is the next generation going to survive with higher unemployment, decreasing salaries in real terms and State pensions that cannot support them in older age.
A developed nation that cannot provide housing for it's population is fundamentally failing.
I love the countryside but really of how much environmental worth is most of it. I walk my dog over large agriculture fields and you see very little wildlife, while suburban housing with gardens often supports much more species diversity.
The key is to spread the growth out (something the big developers hate as it costs more). Many villages have been dying due to a lack of available housing, adding another hundred homes would preserve the landscape and revitalize the villages.

I'm convinced there are more teabagging tories reading the Guardian online than there are lefties...

The National trust is against these plans and I think I'll take their view over that of blowhard Telegraph readers.

They have organised a petition that you can sign at: https://www.planningforpeople.org.uk/

Well said Caroline - the article must be good as it's set the 'Alf Garnett trolls' off pretty rapidly. Unless we protect our land base we're all buggered - not that business seems to care if there's a short term profit involved.

Ok the Telegraph readers are against these proposals but they're still right-wing, teabagging blowhards.

Having spoken to some house building companies recently the biggest complaint was not about money but access to development plots. They saw it not as a question of greenfield vs brownfield but a problem of the banks sitting on land. Since so many defaulted on loans the banks have subsequently becoming one of the U.K's biggest owners of development land and they cannot afford to sell until it comes close to covering the outstanding debt.

I believe the planning laws do need reform but these are not necessarily the correct reforms. Clearly defined sustainable development is necessary and should be promoted. Caroline Lucas talks about pressure on inner cities but much of this is about rural development. There is a need for housing in the countryside and something has to give or else we will turn rural areas into little more than a countryside theme park trapped in time stuffed with second and holiday homes.

The proposed changes to the planning laws and processes are nothing to do with what is needed but rather a means to create profits for private business. But what can we expect from this government. Same with NHS changes - nothing to do with better health care but a means to pass taxpayers money to large corporates. Basically "Bullingdon Types" get richer whilst those with more limited resources suffer (through paying money, losing countryside, etc.)

barenib

As you are so smart, perhaps you would like to be the one to provide the evidence I have requested in my post. You won't be able to find it of course.

And the Bentye007 who, like all my own children, can't get near the housing market - he's an Alf Garnett Troll? At least he has some evidence to back up what he is saying and is not just spouting prejudice. You need to look in the mirror.........

@deepbluesee

I challenge the writer to provide evidence that the Government is proposing to do away with Green Belt, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

The presumption in favour of sustainable development is vaguely worded so as to mean most development except open cast coal mining. Also, if local authorities have not setup Core Strategies (which is currently the majority of them), they will be obliged to accept developers proposals. These will have a drastic effect on the pattern of development in the UK.

Just because the land in question doesnt have a designation doesnt mean that it should be automatically developed, or developed in line with local communities input.

Please quote one thing from the Government's proposals that would prove this

Paragraph 26:
"Up-to-date Local Plans, i.e. Local Plans which are consistent with this Framework, should be in place as soon as practical. In the absence of an up-to-date and consistent plan, planning applications should be determined in accord with this Framework, including its presumption in favour of sustainable development. It will be open to local planning authorities to seek a certifcate of conformity with the Framework".

Here we are, in the absence of a up to date local plan, the proposals shall be determined with the presumption in favour of "sustainable" development

sustainable development" as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs

I think the coalition interpretation of this is the ability of our business chums to make a fortune now not impacting on their son Tarquin's ability to do the same in the future. As such they would see the proposals as eminently sustainable.

@Richy

Crucially, most Local Authorities have an up to date local plan.

I'm pleased you inserted the word 'sustainable' in the phrase 'presumption in favour ...' because, as I guess you know, that changes the meaning completely in planning terms.

You seem to know something of the topic - unlike the writer. Do you see this legislation as a game changer?

Outside of inner cities and certain growth towns, the planning system has evolved into a system that allows as little as possible to happen. Local polititians who have been controlling this system are under pressure from the (often educated, middle class) NIMBY's in their wards to allow nothing.

The current proposals look to me like a limited attempt to redress the balance at a time when the economy needs some production, and there is a serious and growing housing shortage. The driver behind it is to try and get local authorities to take more of a balanced view of their own accord, but I doubt this will happen because of the pressure on members.

This government will be well aware of the electoral consequences in its heartlands of Thatcher / Nicolas Ridley's early years of being more pro development (they had to put the policy into reverse) and will not take any risks.

It's odd that 38 Degrees seems popular with people who claim to be 'liberal'.

When other places set up e-petitons on things like the death penalty etc 'liberals' scorn them as pandering to the baying masses.

By the way Caroline, the old 'brownfield' argument was never convincing, mainly because so few greens, conservationsists, National Trust members, CPRE members or eco-types generally ever followed their own advice and went to live on them, forsaking their leafy suburbs, pleasant country towns or country piles. But then leading by example has never been an eco-strongpoint!

"Look something needs to be done. I have a good job and no family to support but like most young (actually getting older) people I cannot afford housing. "

bentye007: Interesting comments:

The issue for buying property is the mortgage - £50 000 deposit, and having a secure job to pay it. There's 300 000 empty properties. There's 300 000 unbuilt plots with planning permission. Why ? The hurdle is lack of demand and lack of finance for property developers.

The issue for first time buyers is affordable mortgages. Not lack of houses. 100% mortgages are well and truly over. Building more houses wont solve that.

A stronger planning system protects the economy. European countries with poor planning systems have fared particularly badly in the recession, reaping the whirlwind of boom and bust economics (Monbiot et al, 2011) - you need only compare Ireland or Spain with Germany. Both Spain and Ireland built all over the place and endured a property collapse negatively effecting the economy.

This draft NPPF is about one thing, and one thing only - and that's the lobbyist group of property developers. They want profit and they'll only build when they see profit.

Sign the 38 degrees petition.

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-countryside

Once again Caroline Lucas makes a lot of sense and once again those who support choking growth for today and more of the same in the future, dismiss her well argued points without actually bothering to read them. Go figure.

Caroline
If development of brownfield land is unviable ie not enought profit to do it it also means no contributions and in particular no affordable/social housing.

on the other hand an easier site to develop also results in profit and an addtional suprplus usually the difference between the market value of the site and development costs (inc profit) = affordable housing contribution.

You dont have a clue about how planning actually operates

Guardiand readers I though party the line was to support Dale Farm even though that development is in the Green Belt! Oh it is not a matter of principe it depends who is doing it?t

Now I live overseas I am struck at how much harm the UK's fierce desire to avoid change in the landscape is. The country is a museum to nostalgia. As a result, finding, paying for and adapting housing is the main challenge for everyone. Yes, maintain nature, but modern agriculure is not natural at all. Someone needs to challenge the orthodox conservation notions and cry freedom.

What is the Green Party's position on Dale Farm?

Rock and a hard place innit!

@RJMacI

There's 300 000 unbuilt plots with planning permission

Housebuilding is a long term game. Any company to be viable needs to have one to two years supply of land ahead to ensure it has a continuing workload for its staff and to pay for its overheads. Without a land bank to ensure a company's future survival, your pension funds and the banks would not invest in Barrat, Persimmon, etc and there would be no housebuilding of any scale.

Any business has to ensure it has enough supply to survive in the future. Housebuilidng has longer lead times than most industries, and a 2 to 3 year supply of its raw material is not at all unreasonable in the circumstances.

Another influence is that the planning system ensures housebuilding is not evenly spread, but focused in growth points. So after 5 to 10 years of planning, you have consent for 2000 houses in say, Daventry, or Basingstoke. It takes a number of years for the local economy to absorb that number. So the planning system itself creates some of the stock of land.

There was a Paliamentary study into this in the last couple of years and it dismissed the 'hoarding' argument. I'm sure it would not take too much looking up.

I don't particularly like much of what's in the new planning proposals, but that doesn't change the fact that the central point of this article is hogwash.

Oh, and the 'developers don't want to built on brownfield sites' is total tosh. I was in housebuilding in the 70's and 80's (before the policy directing this) and 70% of our output was on brownfield sites. Of course that won't have been the same for everyone, but the rule is the same - if it's viable it will get done.

Tomwhy

Anti-capitalists will never ever gain a foothold in this country and thank goodness for that and neither will environmental vandals with their ridiculous windmills and their yearning for some pol potian paradise?

Amazing. Are you saying that industrialists never engaged in less "environmental vandalism" than the renewable energy sector?

RJMacI

This draft NPPF is about one thing, and one thing only - and that's the lobbyist group of property developers.

The NIMBY lobby has been worth far more votes than the developer's lobby for decades - see the Thatcher volt-face I referred to earlier.

They want profit and they'll only build when they see profit.

That's as meaningful as saying: Businesses will only do business if they see a profit.

I'm finding the references to Dale Farm a bit of a strange one, if nonetheless interesting. Dale Farm has probably gone beyond a greenbelt planning argument and is more about human rights at the moment. However, they are right it could set a precedent that illegal occupation of land may be a trick used by developers... I guess...

I think Caroline is largely right though as are many of the posters. Weakened planning laws - and they're hardly strict at the moment (anyone seen the Morrison's distribution centre on the M5? AAAGGGHHH!!!!) - will not solve any kind of housing crisis. People still won't be able to access the finance to buy them, so more and more people will be forced (or choose, admittedly) to pay extortionate rents to the developers.

There is a monumentally bad planning application for a stadium and housing estate outside Truro at the moment, where about 60 beautiful fields on the rim of the city will be built all over. Of course, the council are describing the venture as a "community stadium" as if by weakly throwing in the word community everyone will fall over themselves to agree to it - without once referencing what exactly the stadium will do, or how it will benefit the community.

There is not a shortage of homes. There is a shortage of will to renovate and make available the existing stock. It's criminal really.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/27/labour-rebrand-party-countryside

The Green Party will have to work faster, smarter, and louder if it wants to ever have more than one MP.

The UK has under invested in ts housing stock for the last 20 to 30 years, hence the army of young people on ordinary incomes who cannot afford to buy their own home.

The biggest problem is the current broken planning system that does not provide enough land for new homes upon which to be built, forcing people into sub-standard and overpriced housing.

I do not support Cameron, but on this one I hope that the Government sticks to its guns.

Oh, and the 'developers don't want to built on brownfield sites' is total tosh. I was in housebuilding in the 70's and 80's (before the policy directing this) and 70% of our output was on brownfield sites. Of course that won't have been the same for everyone, but the rule is the same - if it's viable it will get done.

Perhaps something has changed in the last 30 years? Has there been legislation re: clearing up contamination at brownfield sites? By the way, I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I honestly don't know the answer

Classic Freidmanite Shock Doctrine tactics. Use global financial crash to announce massive cuts, lay off crowds of folk, keep housing prices high, frighten everybody with tales of financial meltdown, foment riots and while they are reeling from the shock and looking the other way (at Greece?), sell off the countryside so your landowning mates and developer donors can make an enormous killing.
Oh, and abolish the top rate of tax so that those nasty little taxpayers don't see a penny of the profit.

There's no such thing as society: only individuals ... very greedy individuals.

Caroline,

Why can you not resist the lure of hyperbole (your second paragraph)? It always devalues whatever argument you are making.

@deepbluesee

The use of the word "sustainable" in the NPPF is indeed crucial, in that it's defination as specified to local authorities will be crucial in determining what development goes ahead? Will the 1987 Brundtland defination of sustainability be used or will a more precise definition be given to councils. Examining the NPPF, the only development that it speaks strongly against is open cast coal mining.

Also, planning consultant Andrew Lainton has stated that "Developers are lining up to take advantage of the planned presumption in favour of sustainable development, amid estimates that new rules will leave up to 95% of councils vulnerable to speculative applications" and "70% of planning authorities have failed to put new-style plans in place since the last overhaul of the planning system in 2004".

I do see the legislation as a game changer, as the legisation has never before proposed giving carte blanche to development in the absence of an up-to-date plan.

I also am not sure what the legislation is intended to do. firstly we were told it was to put development control in the hands of communities, with neighbourhood plans and scrapping of RSSs. Then the NPPF appears to sugggest that neighbourhood plans cant prevent development but merely suggest additional development. If the governments aim was to stimulate housebuilding, they should have been clearer about this from the start.

Im also not convined that large scale new development would lessen affordability pressures in southern england, where development space is limited and likely to be clustered around the main economic hubs in the south east. With the lack of availability of mortgage finance, cuts in affordable housing subsidy and ability of buy-to-letters to snap up multiple properties, im not sure that simple deregulation is the answer.

Oh and there's the link for Andrew Lainton's article

http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/95-of-councils-vulnerable-to-speculative-nppf-applications-report/

The only reason she gained a seat is because of our quirky electoral system

I think she gained her seat despite our quirky electoral system.

@CarolineLucas

Instead of riding roughshod over planning policy, the government should introduce a Land Value Tax (or LVT) – a levy on the unimproved value of land.

Yes.

http://www.landvaluetax.org

@stillamw

28 September 2011 3:24PM
The UK has under invested in ts housing stock for the last 20 to 30 years, hence the army of young people on ordinary incomes who cannot afford to buy their own home.

No, it is the price of land, which costs nothing to produce.

The biggest problem is the current broken planning system that does not provide enough land for new homes upon which to be built, forcing people into sub-standard and overpriced housing

There are around 700,000 empty homes. There is a huge overhang of planning consents which have not resulted in development. Developers hold land banks and trickle the development onto the market to keep the price up. They have no incentive to do anything else.

The most liberal planning regime will not change that. People were living in poor conditions long before planning control ever existed.

Tomwhy: Why is it that a leader of a party which polled 0.8% of the popular vote [..] is allowed to pontificate her extremist views in The Guardian and on the BBC [..]

Because they are one of a few left-wing politicians? Perhaps they are only extremist if you are ultra-right wing? The greens are certainly very peaceful extremists..

The only reason she gained a seat is because of our quirky electoral system

Please, if we had a fair voting system, the greens (who got 1% by the way) might have had 5-6 seats.

environmental vandals with their ridiculous windmills

Sure, let us build some pretty motorways instead. Seriously, although I would like to see more focus on solar (if not here, then certainly in desert regions, where it would really deliver some wattage), I'm not sure why so many of us here are so against windmills - definitely an English phobia.

deepbluesee: This takes the biscuit:

will override environmental protection not just for our woods but for every field, hedgerow, marsh, heath and moor in England.

I challenge the writer to provide evidence that the Government is proposing to do away with Green Belt, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, etc.

The point is that green areas, say a nice wood, may be worthy of keeping even if they are not national parks or markedly beautiful. It seems the balance is skewed too far towards development, with sustainability more of an afterthought or buzzword.

Good to see the Greens doing what they do best. Proper job!

People who see this as being all and only about providing affordable housing are being terribly naive. It is about big developers and speculators acquiring land more easily, and profiteering.

I realise it's tough, almost impossible to buy your first home but we shouldn't give them room to misrepresent the failings in one area to exploit another for corporate gain. Besides, new housing estates are being built in the countryside, around towns and villages where I live. Young people here complain they can't afford them because they're the wrong sort of housing, that is not ''affordable housing''. I believe it is this failing, and not the lack of land or its approval for housing, that should be addressed.

I like the sound of LVT. I have already signed the 38 Degrees petition.

There is loads of "environment" in the English countryside. Shed loads.

It is in the towns where we need green space. And urban wildlife refuges. And city farms for the children. Urban brownfield should be greened - not built on.

I own two woodlands. Yet I would fight more fiercely to protect a single tree in the middle of (say) Bristol than for a thousand trees on my own land.

This reminds me of the initial successes of the older Green Party, before it shifted from issues like this to climate change and became the political wing of madmen like People & Planet.

I like to think of the Green Party as leading the campaign against the forest sell-off. I've got no idea who actually ran it - if anyone - but it restores some of my faith in the Greens.

It was a remarkably simple campaign, which went like this: Imagine a lovely forest, like the ones the elves live in in Lord of the Rings, or where good things happen, like Robin Hood (tax) in Sherwood Forest. Now imagine some politician selling it, and it getting turned into a car park or a Tesco. Do you support that? Of course you don't, even if you live in Zone 1 (perhaps especially?). So support us - we'll protect it.

Fantastic, and it worked.

The same thing could happen here too, although it'll be more difficult because: (1) Apart from knowing that most new housing developments look terrible, most people don't actually know that much about the laws of planning permission (much less what changes might actually mean) & (2) We are constantly being told that there isn't enough cheap housing for everybody, whether it's true or not.

@ deepbluesee

Do you know you’re right? In the entire consultation document I can’t find one single quote saying that the government wants to destroy the green belt in its entirety. How strange. Just for the heck of it though and seeing as you’re such a clever chap, perhaps you could take a moment and use your own, clearly considerable, intellectual rigour to work out why that might be? You see what Caroline Lucas, the National Trust, the Women’s Institution and the various other people who actually give half a crap about the world and the people who live in it have rather ingeniously done is analysed the consultation document and thought about what its wider implications might be. It is sort of an important thing to do for safeguarding democracy and just generally demonstrating a higher level of intelligence than an amoeba.

Oh, and the 'developers don't want to built on brownfield sites' is total tosh. I was in housebuilding in the 70's and 80's (before the policy directing this) and 70% of our output was on brownfield sites. Of course that won't have been the same for everyone, but the rule is the same - if it's viable it will get done.

Why then do we need to relax the planning regulations to make it easier for developers to build on green belt land? There are plenty of brownfield sites. They should be developed first before anyone even thinks of touching the green belt.

Are we going to see the unfettered development that happened in Ireland - large expensive houses and estates with inadequate infrastructure - all there to turn a profit ? Will these new builds follow regulations about build quality and Size (no more hutches for bantum humans please )

But Caroline, people want to own homes.

Why don't you sell 4 of your 5 properties?

More to go around and all and less need to build more houses (if each of the wealthy elite followed suit?)

I don't agree at all that there is no evidence that planning is a massive break on development. Speak to anyone involved in trying to build anything and they'll offer no end of horror stories about the present system. The fact that the majority of developments are approved by no means refutes this. You're not going to buy an option on land, pay for architects and other consultants fees to develop proposals etc etc etc if you're not confident that the planning policies in force for the site give you a good chance of success.

There is so much guidance in the current system - much of it contradictory - that planning is largely granted on the subjective whim of the planning officers and councillors involved. The system desperately needs reform - a massive reason for the unaffordability of market housing is the artificial constriction of supply by the planning process.

Sure, social housebuilding funding and LVT are issues, but that doesn't mean that the planning system isn't one.

However, I completely agree that the countryside needs protecting - for food and biofuel production, reducing the need for cars, going for walks in etc - but to keep it clear while allowing people to house themselves properly it needs to get much easier to build in towns and cities.

Swathes of present policy massively constrain building appropriate numbers of homes near where people work - overlooking distances, bogus townscape considerations, ill-founded parking fears etc etc, that aren't going to be got rid of unless central government steps in to sort it.

Here's hoping Caroline's take-no-prisoners stance on development wont come back and bite her when she has to stand opposed to renewable energy installations in her own constituency which now borders the south downs national park.

@deepbluesee

"Crucially, most Local Authorities have an up to date local plan."

Errrr. No they dont - they might have old local plans which have saved policies, they might have a core strategy, they might be out to consultation on a core strategy, they might even be on to their site specific search - all of which can be looked at as 'material considerations' in a planning application - but what at least half of LAs do not have is an up to date plan certified as being in conformity by Mr Pickles.....

Without that plan ( and it has to be a plan for growth , not protection of your local nature conservation site or productive Grade 1 agricultural land- but Im on a diet , so thats all right) then the presumption will be in favour. That means everything that isnt bolted down ( probably by EU wildlife legislation which Mr Pickles is frightened of) will be stolen. Even Green Belts and AONB if the development imperative is strong enough and can outweigh all othe rconsiderations.

From what I have seen of these planning proposals, they are essentially a mechanism for balancing our need for development with our need for responsible local decision-making.

The only sense that can be made from the repeated shrill cries from some people is that they are based not on the framework itself and its merits, but instead based on their own political biases.

This framework with local communities at its heart deserves support.