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.

Human rights issues on house pull down

Planning councillors will decide today on the future of a home built without planning permission on a green belt site in Sheffield within 160 metres of the Peak District National Park.

Permission was granted last year to put a series of animal shelters on land known as Cold Mountain Stables, off Redmires Road in the city, but a larger wood-clad building was also constructed at the same time.

According to council papers, that building is now occupied as living accommodation and councillors who sit on a planning committee are being recommended to authorise council officials to have it removed.

That could involve legal proceedings against the owners if the action is sanctioned by councillors, with council staff asking that the building, its concrete base, wooden decking and balustrade outside are all removed, along with "any other paraphernalia associated with the building".

A report to councillors states: "The building is occupied as living accommodation in spite of warnings from officers during its construction that this is unacceptable. The erection of the building is an unacceptably intrusive development, which is detrimental to the open character of the green belt, an area of high landscape value and the Peak National Park."

Officials were asked to investigate the impact of potential decisions on the human rights of those living at the property. Well there's a surprise.

Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-03-28 03:52:36

Menage ban in the countryside

Francesca Ludlam, from Grove Lane in Somersal Herbert, is a member of the British three-day eventing team and is training for 2012 Olympics. As part of her training she uses a training area,known as a menage, for 40 minutes per day.

But homeowners surrounding the sand-covered menage are upset about the noise made by her horse during the practice sessions and complained to Derbyshire Dales District Council.

Her father Michael has been battling to keep the menage since 2000, when a council enforcement notice ordered them to remove it.

They refused, and appealed against the decision, and a legal battle ensued that saw Mr Ludlam fighting for the menage’s use in the High Courts.

The arena has been used since 1985. In the late 1990s it was resurfaced to improve drainage, and land surrounding the arena was sold to nearby houses so they could extend their gardens.

Francesca said: "The land was sold on the agreement that the menage was there and would continue to be used.

"But in 2000 a complaint was made and we were told we would have to remove the sand surface and grow grass over the top.

"It’s the only flat area of land we’ve got, so I’ll still keep using it regardless, but I think a grass surface will be a lot more noisy than a sand surface, so it doesn’t make sense."

In her report to the planning committe, inspector Jean Jones said: "I have no doubt that there could be a disturbance to both adjoining occupiers at times when instructions are being given, maintenance carried out or people other than the rider are present.

"The council has not carried out a noise survey, but, given the sporadic nature of use, it would be difficult to do so.

"I consider the menage to be materially harmful to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers because of its proximity and use.

"It is sandwiched between their rear gardens which could expect to have more peace and privacy than frontages and the village is very small, with low levels of activity, so sounds will be noticeable."

The latest appeal decision was dismissed on February 13. Michael Ludlam said: "I’m very passionate about this, and will take it as high as it needs to go.

"We will now go to the High Court of Appeal again and, hopefully this time, will be allowed to keep the menage as it is."

I have been through a planning application for a menage and witnessed the same stupid arguements about noise. On that occassion the planning department dismissed the objections and I hope this will be the case here.

Perhaps the residents of Sommersal Herbert are not used to country life and should get back to the towns where they will no doubt have much more to moan about.

Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-03-13 05:49:12