Planning for a better system

Indeed, in pursuing the laudable ambition of making planning policy an agent for economic growth, Ministers produced what was effectively a charter for construction companies, with developments encouraged on greenfield land rather than the more costly option of brownfield sites, and a presumption in favour of “sustainable” development which threatened to override any local objections.

The revised document published yesterday, however, reflects some of the storm of criticism which the original proposals engendered. There is, for example, an explicit commitment to prioritise brownfield sites and a welcome recognition of the importance of revitalising town centres.

Yet there is much that remains unclear about how the development policy is to be applied in local circumstances. In spite of attempts to define the weasel word “sustainable”, it remains open to interpretation and the danger is that legal disputes will mount and that reforms which were supposed to speed up the system will cause even more delays.

No one is saying that the countryside has to be preserved in aspic. On the contrary, sensible and sensitive development is crucial if rural Britain is to provide jobs and housing and stem the exodus of the younger generation.

Yet there remain doubts about the Government’s commitment to localism given its attempt to institute a system which would have allowed developers to ride roughshod over local objections. Also, there is little point in authorising huge developments in rural areas where the infrastructure to support them simply does not exist.

If the Government wants its planning reforms to succeed, it cannot impose them from above. True localism demands that the people who will be directly affected – and who, after all, are as desperate for economic growth as anyone else – are consulted at every opportunity and that each planning application is tailored to meet the concerns of the locals and the needs and capabilities of the area in question.