Morning:
20°c
Johnny Depp has become, in his young middle age, like a star of the movies’ golden period
Secret deal hatched by News of the World to hush up details of phone-tapping was sealed in a tiny room at the Royal Courts of Justice
More...
Green belt under threat in planning law shake-up
Last updated at 14:07pm on 05.12.06
A shake-up of the planning system could put our countryside at risk
The green belt system came under attack today in a major government report on planning regulations.
Tens of thousands of homes and shops should be built on protected land around cities such as London, according to the radical findings.
The report calls for the biggest shake-up of Britain's planning rules for decades. It warns that current restrictions are harming the economy and slowing house building.
It proposes a series of changes, including:
• Allowing councils to approve building on green belt land.
• A new independent Planning Commission to approve major projects such as nuclear power stations, airports and roads.
• Removing the need for planning permission for homeowners if neighbours agree with an extension.
• Making it easier to build out-of-town shopping centres.
• A new tax on landowners who fail to develop derelict or vacant sites.
• The green belt system, which imposes strict controls on building, has acted as a "corset" around London for 50 years.
The report, by economist Kate Barker, recommends replacing the green belt with "green wedges" or "green corridors" with gaps for homes and other development. She claims that radical change is needed because current restrictions are stifling choice and competition among businesses. Ms Barker adds that rising population means more homes are desperately wanted.
In remarks that will infuriate conservation and rural groups, Ms Barker says that much of the green belt is "low-value agricultural land, with little landscape quality and limited public access".
Her report declares that large swathes of such "urban fringe" land is often run down and should instead be used for homes or businesses.
Ms Barker even claims that parts of the green belt actually harm the environment by forcing commuters to "leapfrog" it with longer journeys to work that produce more harmful emissions. She admits there have been major benefits from the system in preserving historic towns and forcing developers to use inner-city sites.
But Ms Barker warns that there has been a "social cost", with only "higher income groups" able to buy homes in protected areas and poorer families in cities forced to cope with the loss of green space to infill development.
The report claims that while the green belt system is still popular with the public, many people do not understand the economic costs it imposes.
It includes an opinion poll claiming that the public most want to protect land with important wildlife or scenic beauty and are less worried about preserving "land on the edge of towns and cities". Ms Barker said that "some urban developments and new settlements should take place clustered around transport corridors or at the edge of urban areas". She said that the green belt "in some areas, especially the South-East, have become 'green blankets' stretching 20 to 30 miles around cities".
The economist added that some parts of the green belt could be improved with new woodland planting on fields currently unused by farmers.
She highlighted a report which claimed that three per cent of such agricultural land could be used for 950,000 new homes, "so increasing housing affordability for first time buyers".
Friends of the Earth today said that if the Barker proposals are implemented, it will "have a devastating impact on the environment and local democracy".
On planning rules in general, the report advocates similarly radical proposals. Ms Barker states that the current system of giving the Communities Secretary the final say on big projects should be phased out. A new independent Planning Commission would instead determine applications for "major infrastructure" projects for energy, waste, transport and water.
Plans that were "in the national interest", such as nuclear power plants and wind farms, would be subjected to the new system. Ms Barker was asked to comment on criticism that local communities will feel that their fears about big schemes on their doorsteps could be " steamrollered" by the new Planning Commission.
She told a news conference at the Treasury in London: "We know there is a fundamental difficulty. We know that we need to have things in the UK placed somewhere like large energy projects, waste projects. We know that these are the kind of developments that communities, at first sight, are not likely to welcome near them.
"Equally it is in the national interest that these are proposed and provided somewhere."
Ms Barker was scathing about the delays and costs caused by the current planning regulations to both businesses and homeowners.
She said that lengthy delays were hitting economic growth and deterring foreign businesses from setting up in the UK. In one controversial move, the report suggests developers could use "community goodwill payments... to pay households a fixed sum to help gain their acceptance for a project they would otherwise object to".
Ms Barker denied today that such a system would effectively sanction "bribery" of residents. Another crucial change will be to change the presumption in planning to assume that applications will be approved unless their are economic or environmental reasons not to do so. A New Zealand system of "side agreements" could remove the need for planning permission if neighbours agree to minor changes to one of their homes.
Reader views (7)
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
Englands history of town and village growth was the making of a society where business and families intergrated for a better standard of life. Unfortunately progress has seen the introduction of the green belt which is nothing more than a haven for those who can afford a higher lifestyle without the congestion suffered by those in over developed areas.
It is about time the future of our children was taken into account, give them a chance to dream of owning their own home and a future that is not tarnished with the greed and snobbery that is bringing this country to its knees. How many families are forced to live miles apart because of the high cost of housing. How many are forced to travel miles to live in a home they can afford while a government talks of the dangers of pollution from cars. If petrol is in short supply the cost goes up if there is a drought the price of food goes up. We are facing a crises due to the shortage of building land. Just how much intelligence is needed for those in controll to see the complications we are facing. Having been in the building trade for 40 years am appalled at the prices paid for a simple building plot. Without the shortage of land a plot today costing £360,000 would be nearer the £200.000 mark, this figure could still be lower if more land is available. The money that could be saved could perhaps be spent to help our car industry and other manufacturers who rely on the building of houses. These are my views but I like to dream.
- David Seear, pyrford surrey england
So let me get this straight - they're going to remove the need for planning permission and make it easier for us to improve our homes with one hand... and then using their new 'snooping' laws are going to gain access to our properties and charge us for any improvements which add value with the other!
Don't be fooled, they wouldn't go out of their way to make our lives easier if there wasn't money in it for them somewhere along the line. Find out how much you'll be taxed each year for your home improvements before you take advantage of not needing planning permission.
- Karen, London, UK
The last time I sold a house, the buyer's solicitor wanted to know if the garden decking (3 inches above the grass), had, or needed planning permission! There is a whole industry of busy-bodies and solicitors earning their keep on the back of these stupid laws.
Their only use is to keep minor civil servants in jobs. And civil servants love the status quo as it gives them power way beyond their salary grade.
However, don't shed a tear for them, they'll be re-employed as recyling bin inspectors before you have to say "planning permission".
- Stephen Smith, Guildford
I'm very worried by what I've read about the Barker Report, and I echo Steven Redman's view that it will lead to a massive growth in suburban sprawl, and hence to the exacerbation of traffic problems.
My own view is that not enough use is being made of 'brownfield sites', those that lie within city boundaries, but take care and a bit of hard work to develop.
I fear that the push for use of greenfield sites comes from the volume housebuilders who have huge landbanks, and would find it easier and more profitable to build on virgin sites.
The report will allow greedy supermarkets to gobble up yet more land, regardless of the wishes of local people.
It seems to me that it was disastrous to employ an economist to produce this report: obviously, her main preoccupation is to do with money rather than with the quality of life.
- Sasha Lubetkin, Bristol, England
Kate Barker's recommendation that more green belt and protected land be given over to new construction shows a shocking lack of common sense and joined-up thinking.
If our urban and suburban transport networks are already running at maximum capacity, then what will the effect of creating more suburban sprawl be? Will Kate Barker (at a later date) be recommending the demolition of houses and businesses closer to the urban centre to make way for new road and rail construction projects which will be needed to pipe commuters in from the outer territories?
For a clear demonstration of total gridlock (not to mention hideous smog and pollution), see any of the Chinese mega-cities for what happens when you combine commuting and car ownership with unchecked urban and suburban sprawl.
When will Britain wake up and take the option of building high-rise accommodation in London and other urban centres? Everyone living closer to work (as well as each other) would mean less commuting and lower carbon emissions in the long term. Of course there would be additional burdens on water and sanitation resources, but long-established high-rise cities such as New York, Hong Kong and Singapore prove that it can be done!
- Steven Redman, Epsom, England
Thank goodness the planning laws are going to be simplified so that ordinary citizens know what is going on. The proposals to slightly relax the Green Belt are also long due.
- Dhanraj, Basildon, Essex
Finally we get to see some good things coming out of this government, I applied for a loft conversion back in July, and my first set of plans were rejected even though they met the current guildlines set by Hounslow Council, having re-drawn a further set of plans, I am still awaiting a decision almost two months down the line! With this new law - hopefully I'll get a bigger loft conversion - cant wait!
- Raminder Bhalla, Hounslow
