The case for planning reform

The Government’s controversial planning reforms should receive full
support as far as I am concerned. Opposition by groups like the National Trustamounts to “hysteria” in my opinion.

Coalition proposals to simplify the planning process and favour all “sustainable
development” are vital for economic growth.

Critics argue the changes would lead to urban sprawl and the destruction
of Britain’s natural environment and yet a survey of businesses by the British
Chambers of Commerce (BCC) found a majority thought the planning process was a
barrier to growth.

A total of 69 per cent thought decisions on planning were taken on
political grounds, not on the merits of an application, and 54 per cent thought
councils ignored the advice of their planning officers.

To me these survey findings clearly show that the planning process is a
barrier for companies and that, in some cases, it’s holding back the economic
growth we so desperately need.

We need to get the debate on planning reform away from hysteria and back
to common sense. Business people understand that planning has a purpose and
that developers can’t just build anything, anywhere. It’s not a case of
throwing out the rule book to grow the economy at any cost. Yet there’s clear
evidence that the system is too complicated, too costly, and too uncertain.

It creates mistrust among businesses, undermines investment and holds
back our recovery. We all want to protect areas of great beauty and natural
diversity, yet business’s experience of planning shows that the system is a serious
brake on economic growth, prosperity and jobs. It can’t be right that sensible
proposals to reform the planning system are portrayed as changes that will lead
to urban sprawl, environmental degradation and shoddy buildings.

As for the National Trust jumping up and down perhaps they should look at
their own record of development. They have built hundreds of new homes and have
planning permissions to build many more.

They apparently firmly believe that planning reforms should deliver
benefits to communities and the environment as well as the economy. However,
they have ridden rough shod over campaigners who were against their
developments and for which the gain has not been for the local community but
for the National Trust themselves.

The National Trust state that dice are heavily loaded to favour
development and local people simply won’t get enough say – Pot calling the
kettle black isn’t it?

Let us not forget the latest row that has seen the Campaign to Protect
Rural England (CPRE) accused of “gross hypocrisy” after receiving a
£620,000 grant to support neighbourhood planning.

Talk about cake and eat it. It’s gross hypocrisy for them to take
thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s cash to assist with the government’s planning
reforms yet at the same time be shamelessly opportunistic and attack them.

Their credibility is completely undermined and perhaps they should think
about paying their government funding back. But I bet they don’t.

This debate will rumble on but hopefully the Government will stick to its
guns.

Brown's "Green" Budget Giveaway?

When there is nothing else worthwhile to write about over the next week I will look at Gordon Brown's budget and see how good or bad it really is.

As part of Gordon Brown's much-heralded 'Green Budget' he promised significant tax cuts for those who buy zero carbon homes- safe in the knowledge that practically no one will be able to take him up on the offer.

The chancellor continued the trend of promising much and delivering little when he said: "I… can confirm that until 2012 all new zero carbon homes up to half a million pounds will be exempt from stamp duty."

Well that's great news, isn't it? Certainly stamp duty is one of the most expensive outlays when buying, so it's a big incentive and he should be applauded for his generous and inspiring green initiatives.

Well, not quite. You see, there are less than 25 truly "zero carbon" homes in the UK at present (as the Treasury stated earlier), so your chances of actually gaining from this tax cut are minimal to say the least.

All it really does is allow Mr Brown to claim he is pushing forward wholeheartedly with initiatives that incentivise us to "go green" without it actually costing him a penny of his tax revenue hoard.

The problem with zero carbon housing is that, while possible, its still very difficult - and costly - to achieve. That fact was highlighted by Britain's first zero carbon community experiment, BedZed, which after four years of trying - and spending - has yet to achieve its goal.

And while there are a number of "green" homes available out there, none meet the criteria to qualify for the stamp duty exemption Gordon Brown is offering.

Zero carbon homes are possible, but the trade-offs in terms of cost or life style still make them a niche product.

So either be prepared to live in costly discomfort, or continue living as you are. I know which option I'm going to choose.

Basically, Gordon is 'premature' and 'half-hearted' on green issues. In fact he is a tosser.

Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-03-29 03:24:22

It was always a Gamble

Ministers will consider whether they can rescue plans for 17 new casinos - including a giant super-casino for Manchester - after a shock defeat in the House of Lords.

The plans were thrown into disarray after peers rejected the Government's Gambling Order regulations by 123 votes to 120.

The result meant that a vote in the Commons backing the Government plans by 274 to 250 - despite a revolt by 18 rebel Labour MPs - counted for nothing.

Richard Caborn, the sports minister, said "We will have to reflect on that now as to whether we go forward or, indeed, how we go forward if we make that decision."

The outcome is a huge blow for Manchester which had seen the super-casino as the key to the regeneration of one of the poorest parts of the city.

The vote will also be seen as a personal humiliation for Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell who had gambled on the high risk strategy of requiring both the Commons and the Lords to vote on the complete package. She had previously warned that there would be "no plan B quickly" if the Government was defeated.

Mr Caborn said that there was "no doubt" that an order permitting the 16 smaller casinos "could go forward" with the support of the opposition parties. However, he acknowledged that the Manchester super-casino was another matter.

Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-03-29 03:15:25

Country doesn't want Brown

Public faith in Gordon Brown as the next Prime Minister has slumped dramatically, a new opinion poll shows.

Less than one in three (30%) believes he would do a good job in 10 Downing Street, the Populus poll for the Times found - down 10 points since December.

And things did not look like picking up as the survey also found more than a quarter of voters thought Wednesday's Budget would mean them paying more tax.

It is the second post-Budget poll to produce such findings, despite Mr Brown's flourish in almost certainly his last Budget, of cutting basic rate income tax by 2p.

Mr Brown's credentials as Chancellor appeared to remain strong - with a majority (57%) backing his record in that job.

But voters - mainly the younger age groups - had deserted his cause as the successor to Tony Blair when the PM steps down later this year.

If you look at the current government and the shadow cabinet I cannot see anything that gives me confidence for the future. Therefore the only way out is to ensure that at the next election we as a nation vote out all members of the government and shadow cabinet. It is time to start again with a fresh new look.

Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-03-24 02:59:23

Summary of Stalin Brown's Budget

Gordon Brown’s eleventh (and - we hope - final) Budget concentrated on the serious business of buying votes. I cannot be bothered to go into the nitty gritty but suffice to say this time it wasn’t Middle England he was targeting, because the 2% income tax cut is a typical Brownian fudge.

For most people, the cut in basic rate tax from 22% to 20% is a typical ‘give with one hand’ Brown manoeuvre, because removing the 10% ‘starting rate’ of income tax on the first £2,250 of income takes it away and more.

In fact, there are only a few small giveaways this year - just as well given the poor state of the public finances. The tax changes all happen in 2008. And they focus on one group that has definitely turned against Gordon Brown in the past two years. It's the Oldies that get the gold, if they live long enough!!

Gordon Brown’s last Budget is very like his first: lots of tinkering with tiny and irrelevant measures (a few tens of millions being trumpeted as an important initiative when the government spends £500 billion of our money!), a few big changes designed to win headlines but actually delivering no meaningful benefit, a few giveaways carefully targeted at those whose support the government needs, and a thick layer of Brown sauce over the whole lot so that only after scores of experts have spent weeks dissecting it will we really know what his Budget contained.

Anyone know a bent accountant?

Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-03-22 11:21:32

Stoney Middleton School fights on

As an ardent advocate of the protest movement to save Stoney Middleton School I am more than happy to announce that the school has won its first battle.

Fears over road safety and a potentially "devastating" effect on village life were enough for two parties on the school organisation committee to vote against the proposed closure of the primary school.

The final decision will now be made by the Government-appointed schools adjudicator.

Speaking after the meeting, Richard Jones, who had presented the case for retention of the school, said: "This was as near as we could get to victory tonight.

"Two out of the three independent bodies voted with us.
"It's been a stressful time but we're glad to have come this far."

Peter Hobson, chair of governors, added: "It's a brilliant result.

"We were hoping we could win over one of the parties but to get two is a welcome surprise."

Derbyshire County Council officials had earlier presented evidence showing a ten-year decline in pupil numbers, with little scope forecast for improvement.

Officer for the authority, David Humphrey, told the meeting that the council would not be saving money by closing the school as all funds would be distributed among other schools. Believe that and you will believe anything.

But he added that, in the authority's opinion, Stoney Middleton pupils could receive an equally good education at Curbar School for half the cost. A strange conclusion since class sizes will increase and so the pupils will not be getting the same one to one attention.

Jim Hickman, assistant director for educational improvement, added that he felt the mixed age groups among the school's pupils were likely to hinder their development. In which case Mr Hickman you need to look at the whole of Derbyshire since this principle exists everywhere.

But Stoney's action group spokesperson Richard Jones argued the cases of schools in Peak Forest and Litton, where the county council's projected pupil numbers proved to be out by 17 and 26 per cent respectively.

He also challenged the council's judgement that the children's prospective walk to Curbar School was safe, when Derbyshire's figures for improving road safety lagged behind the majority of authorities in England.

It was also argued that alternatives to closure, such as federation with neighbouring schools, had not been adequately pursued by the LEA.

Individual groups on the committee, made up of representatives from the Church of England, Roman Catholic Church, Derbyshire County Council and governors of other schools, took just half an hour to come to their verdicts.

The school governors and Church of England delegates said they could not support closure of the school due to concerns over road safety and negative impact on the community of Stoney Middleton.

The schools adjudicator is likely to visit the school and organise a public meeting before coming to a decision.

Councillor for the area, Nigel Allwood, said: "I want to congratulate Stoney Middleton on their wonderful presentation - no village could have done better."

But don't get complacent.There is still the big cheese from the government to convince and I can just picture what an asshole he/she will be.

Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-03-12 13:51:28