Businesses hail radical shake-up for planning law

Simon Walker, director-general of the Institute of Directors, said: “Being able to develop new shops, houses and factories is crucial to delivering economic growth, and too often planning regulations have prevented that. The fundamental principle that sustainable development should be supported is a very welcome one.

“Britain needs to get building again, and these reforms allow that to happen – as long as they are followed through.”

The Country Land and Business Association North Regional Director, Dorothy Fairburn, said the new planning guidelines could kick-start rural innovation.

“This reform of the planning system is long overdue. Now the Government and local authorities need to make sure it is effectively implemented to boost rural economic growth,” she said.

John Brookes, director at planning consultants DTZ in Leeds, described the new guidelines as “good news for the economy and in particular house builders and property developers who have been frustrated in the past in their attempts to deliver the numbers of homes and new business premises required to meet current and future targets.”

But Ruth Davis, from Greenpeace, said: “There is a flawed assumption from (chancellor) George Osborne behind this assault on the planning system – he thinks that we can boost the economy by uprooting decades of protection for the natural habitat and the countryside.

“This is misguided, dangerous and wrong, and appears to be based on little more than some private, cosy chats he has had with big developers.”

Local countryside campaigners reacted with concern. John King, planning officer at the South Yorkshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), said: “Although some important improvements have been made to the NPPF, it could still be bad news for our countryside. Landscapes that local people love, from the Humberhead Levels to the South Pennine hills, and South Yorkshire’s rolling countryside and lovely valleys, are now more at risk from development. We still fear more inappropriate development because the balance between economy and environment has been subtly changed, favouring development”.

Nationally, Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the CPRE, said it was good to see a clearer definition of sustainable development in the new framework and added: “We are pleased the Minister appears to have listened to the strong public views, which mirrored our concerns.”

But he said: “While recognising the scale of the housing crisis, we remain very concerned to ensure that the Planning Framework does not place undue emphasis on short-term economic growth at the expense of other important long-term, public interest objectives of planning, including the protection and enhancement of the environment.”

The Woodland Trust said the NPPF would deliver “more destruction” to England’s ancient woodland.

The trust said a total of 630 ancient woods have been under threat from development due to weaknesses in planning policy over the past 10 years and 85 per cent of ancient woodland is undesignated and therefore at risk.

Woodland Trust Chief Executive Sue Holden said: “In pushing through this framework the Government has not delivered on its promise to ensure full and proper protection for ancient woodland.

“The wording gives with one hand and takes away with the other. Ancient woodland is rare, irreplaceable, and home to more wildlife of conservation concern than any other land habitat in this country – the retention of the loophole leaves the habitat and all the wildlife that depends on it endangered.”

CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, said it welcomed the introduction of pro-pub policies in the new NPPF under which councils will have a duty to “plan positively” for key local facilities like pubs.

Mike Benner, CAMRA Chief Executive, said: “This is essential at a time when 16 pubs a week are closing. CAMRA’s research has shown that well-run community pubs are as important to community life as a post office, local shop or community centre so it’s vital they are protected.”

Comment: Page 12.