Get the next four copies of this fantastic magazine delivered directly to your door.
Always featuring numerous articles on a wide range of eco-building projects from all around the UK, most of which are written by the very people that designed or built them. It is the ideal read for architects, builders, developers, self builders and anyone interested in eco-building, including interested homeowners/clients.
|
|
|
Campaigners disappointed by planning review |
|
 
|
|
|
|
18 Oct 2012, 10:09 PM
|
A low-key announcement about the promised review of 6,000 pages of planning best practice guidance by Ministers yesterday (16 October) is ringing alarm bells among countryside campaigners CPRE.
|
Led by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, the review was accepted by Government as necessary following the high profile debate over the streamlining of government planning policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012.
NPPF guidance covers crucial issues such as development in the Green Belt, tests for new houses in the countryside, town centre planning, and viability checks on development proposals. The review is to be completed in a six week period before the Chancellor’s autumn statement on 5 December and there will be no formal consultation. A Review group of four independent planning experts has been established and the group will not have to engage the public in its review, but merely draw on ‘appropriate expertise that they may wish to consult at their discretion’.
Paul Miner, Senior Planning Officer at CPRE, says: ‘We are surprised and disappointed at how the Government has chosen to announce and run this review. Despite the short timetable for the review and lack of consultation we will consider the issues in detail, making our views clearly known to Lord Taylor and his group. National planning guidance is critically important to making planning work well, for example in ensuring that we get more investment in town centres and Ministers keep track of large developments in the Green Belt. There should be a full and open consultation before any decisions on the future of this guidance is made’.
|
|
|
|
