It was just months ago that the government approved its long awaited National Planning Policy Framework; promising it would transform the way development was controlled and permitted in England.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Before publication of the document, known as the NPPF, many people in rural areas worried that it would weaken protection given to the countryside, allowing developers to build over it more easily.

However, a victory seemed to have been won when the NPPF’s final draft declared that authorities giving planning permission in the future would have to recognise the “intrinsic value of the countryside” in taking any decision.

The statement was particularly important in Norfolk where 70pc of the countryside is ‘undesignated’ - meaning it has no special status such as being greenbelt - and is therefore more vulnerable to development.

But now, with the economy slothful and the government desperately in need of policies to boost growth, the issue of countryside development is back.

Rural campaigners are fearful again because at the weekend chancellor George Osborne said it was “ludicrous” that it could take years to get planning decisions concluded in the UK, while the country could not afford to wait for construction generated economic growth.

Meanwhile David Cameron recently penned an article saying house building was crucial to economic recovery, but that it was being stymied by “paralysis” and “dithering” in the planning system.

A major piece of legislation to boost economic growth is expected soon and, with the government’s renewed rhetoric, rural campaigners once again fear it will threaten protections for green areas.

Intensity around the debate increased until yesterday when the prime minister’s spokesman stepped in to calm the row saying: “We are not talking about ripping up the planning laws.”

“The problem is at the moment that a decision is made, but it takes a lot of time for that decision to be made. It would be a lot better if we could get projects [decided on] sooner,” he added.

He went on: “Planning is one of the issues and another issue that is holding things back is financing [for development]. We are looking at whether or not we could do more to help that as well.”

Rather than changing the system again, the spokesman said the government was more interested in looking at whether there was flexibility to boost development within the current NPPF.

In particular he highlighted moves by councils like Cambridge, which has allowed building on protected land as long as land elsewhere is given new protection to balance the loss out.

The spokesman’s intervention comes on an issue of great concern to many Tory voters and shortly before a Conservative conference in a month which is crucial to reviving the party’s fortunes. But not everyone is completely reassured.

Caroline Davison, planning and campaigns manager for the Campaign to Protect Rural England in Norfolk, said: “I would certainly like my concerns to be allayed, but this issue seems to keep coming back over and again.

“George Osborne obviously has this sense that the planning system is holding back the economy, but it seems a strange idea. It’s not planning that is holding things up.

“There are development projects out there with planning permission but which are not going ahead, it’s the state of the economy which is holding development up.”

She added that research by the CPRE had shown brownfield sites were being made available for development across the country faster than they were being used.

Broadland MP Keith Simpson told the EDP: “My view is that there are a lot of brownfield sites still available. But there is bound to be, looking at the existing plans, some development on greenfield land.

“The pressures are going to be enormous because you have a lot of young people that want to own and rent a property.”

He added: “But it’s not beyond the wit of planners, politicians and rural campaign groups to come up with a plan that accepts some development without destroying the natural beauty that we have.”

Any announcement on planning made in coming weeks would likely come alongside an expected initiative which would see the Treasury provide guarantees for £10bn of investment from housing associations and other developers.

Meanwhile Mr Osborne has already pledged to underwrite £40bn of private investment in infrastructure projects across the country.

6 comments

  • Caroline Davison is absolutely right in drawing attention to one problem -- there are permissions granted for thousands of new dwellings on brownfield land in Norwich alone, but developers don't want to build them in the current economic climate. Building on open countryside is much cheaper for all concerned. Another issue is that local authorities have a MASSIVE incentive to grant permission for as many new homes as possible because of the government's New Homes Bonus scheme, which guarantees them the equivalent of six years' Council Tax for every new home! It is in District Councils' interests to build as many as possible -- and if developers no longer want to build them on brownfield land the focus will shift to the countryside. There are political issues at work here that go far beyond just fulfilling a need for more homes for local people.

    Report this comment

    Trevor Ashwin

    Tuesday, September 4, 2012

  • Leave our countryside alone; weakening these planning laws is nothing more than a attempt to build on greenbelt land in an effort to boost the economy and support the Tories friends the greedy developers. These are policies from a clueless government which will if they come off lead us straight back to a boom and bust economy.

    Report this comment

    John L Norton

    Tuesday, September 4, 2012

  • Yesterday Cameron was saying he wanted to 'cut through the dither' on planning applications, and how they were being held up for too long by objections, and this is the same man who constantly harps on about localism and democracy. Osborne said when in opposition that PFI's were flawed, yet changes nothing, and continues allowing this same ridiculous millstone to be hung around the neck of the British public, while massive profits flow into the pockets of the few. Sanity has left those at the top of the conservative tree and filtered down to the grass roots, they are spinning in circles, and right out of their depth. Is there any wonder the conservatives can’t see anything wrong with what is happening here at local level.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Tuesday, September 4, 2012

  • It is clear CPRE are correct in stating the existing land-banks with planning permission should be a priority.The question for the government is why there is lack of credit and lack of confidence causing the developers to sit on the land and do nothing.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Tuesday, September 4, 2012

  • The man who had the purchase of his own book paid for by the taxpayer, he is unable to decide on this issue. If brownfield sites within a ward are not exhausted, greenfield sites should not even be considered or be build upon, ideally.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, September 4, 2012

  • Why do think 80,000 people booed Gideon Osborne at the Paralympic Games yesterday? He is dumber than a box of rocks.

    Report this comment

    Vic Sponge

    Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Overcast

Overcast

max temp: 19°C

min temp: 17°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT