He was attempting to defuse an escalating
war of words – which was first revealed by The Sunday Telegraph
last month – between Coalition ministers and environmental groups who oppose
some of the planning reforms, but offered no substantial concessions to end
the row.
English Heritage are the first government body to speak out against the
framework, which is aimed at simplifying more than 1,000 pages of current
planning regulations into just 52 pages.
They say the proposed changes, which will see councils automatically grant
planning applications under a new policy of “presumption for development”,
will degrade the protection currently afforded listed buildings, historic
sites such as battlefields, national monuments and gardens.
A statement issued by English Heritage said that while the framework was a
move in the right direction, they say the changes it makes to the current
system could result in many historic buildings being entirely changed in
nature.
It said: “The way the bias towards granting permission is currently
worded will result in harm being done to the historic environment without a
justification being required, when currently one would be required.
“There is no policy to help decision-makers deal with proposals where
there is moderate or minor harm to heritage assets, such as listed
buildings. Most decisions affecting them will fall into these categories.
“The inference is that no or little justification is required for such
harmful changes, which cumulatively could have a devastating effect on our
nationally important buildings and sites.”
They say existing national planning policy offers planning inspectors and
council planning committee clear advice on how to deal with applications of
this type in a consistent manner, but the new framework does not.
Instead it states that justification should only be required if “substantial
harm or loss” of a heritage site is likely.
English Heritage also fear that many non-domestic listed buildings in rural
areas such as listed farm buildings, mills, public halls and churches could
be converted into housing as councils bow to the pressure to find more space
for homes.
The statement added: “We are concerned that non-domestic listed buildings
in rural areas are likely to come under severe pressure for a change of use
for residential purposes.”
The row over the changes to the planning laws has resulted in angry exchanges
between ministers and those opposing the plans.
Vince Cable, the business secretary, described those opposing rural
development were “semi-hysterical”.
Dame Fiona, director-general of the National Trust, accused the Coalition of
resorting to insults and “rock throwing” rather than listening to
their concerns.
She said that the dropping of the requirement that houses be build on derelict “brownfield”
sites before undesignated countryside, known as greenfield, are touched,
will result in “millions of acres of undesignated countryside that are
being placed at risk”.
She said: “What we object to in the draft planning framework is the
presumption in favour of “sustainable” development, which is so
clearly driven by economic concerns rather than sustainability.
“Planning is not there to drive the economy: it is there to act in the
public interest, to enable the necessary development to happen in the right
place.”
Ministers have insisted that the changes to the planning laws are essential to
help ensure more housing is created and to help stimulate the economy while
also protecting both the country’s heritage and natural environment.
Speaking on Saturday Mr Clark said there was no chance of a government u-turn
on the planning reforms, but he did offer to have talks with the National
Trust and other opponents of the policy to discuss their concerns.
He said: “What I’m saying to the National Trust and a few other
organisations who have expressed concerns, is let’s be forensic about this,
let’s look at the detail.
“If there are particular aspects, particular sentences that you don’t
think express clearly enough the protections that are there, then let’s talk
about them.”
Dame Reynolds also attacked the House Builders Federation after it last week
cited a 24 per cent drop in the number of planning applications begin given
permission as a clear sign that the system needs to be reformed.
She said the figures were dishonest as developers have submitted fewer
applications and the country’s top 18 house builders are sitting
on enough land with planning permission already granted to build more
than 280,000 homes.
The number of organisations adding to the dissent against the new planning
policy has continued to grow in the past week.
The latest is the Woodlands Trust, who have raised fears that the document
threatened the country’s historic woodland.
Sue Holden, Woodland Trust Chief Executive, said “The NPPF undermines the
protection for our irreplaceable ancient woodlands because the wording gives
with one hand and takes away with the other.
“It says that ancient woodlands should be protected unless there is an
overriding need for development. In the context of a strongly
pro-development document this gives serious cause for concern.”
The Theatres Trust has also criticised the omission of policy designed to
promote culture, arts and theatre that currently exists in planning policy.
It added: “There is also a great risk that land identified for cultural
uses and unlisted cultural buildings could be taken for other uses that are
promoted in the NPPF, including retail, offices, leisure and recreation and
sport.
“Without national recognition of the value of culture and the role it
plays in creating vibrant and sustainable communities, theatres, art
galleries, museums and libraries could be lost.”