WHAT A BUNCH OF AMATEURS

‎"… it's time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying in

our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is

buying power and influence." David Cameron, February 2010

**

***

As the row in the media over the Government's proposed NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development rages on, we have been working to dispel the inaccuracies portrayed by the main opposition - the National Trust, supported by the Council for the Protection of Rural England....

Greg Clark and his officials are, however, deeply concerned at the level of opposition that has been provoked by the National Trust and are worried that Number 10 might be spooked by this mobilisation of middle England and do the sort of U turn that they did on the forestry sell-off.

We have been firing off letters to the press, and have sent a letter to No 10 supported by the leading developers in the commercial property industry...

The upshot of all this is that Minister Greg Clark is delighted with the BPF and hugely grateful for our efforts.

He is of the opinion that the Chancellor will stand firm in the face of opposition from National Trust members in the shires - but he doesn't believe we can afford to let up and should seize every opportunity to press the case for planning reform. We are not, of course, a mouthpiece for CLG ministers but on this occasion their objectives definitely align with ours - so we can afford to be enthusiastic in our support, with the advantage that we have now earned more brownie points than we could ever imagine!

Best,

Ghislaine

*****

The planning minister, Greg Clark, has privately urged developers to lobby David Cameron lest the pressure from the Tory shires becomes to strong and Osborne folds his tent. In light of Mr Cameron's statement, and the above email from the lobbyists to their planning committee, can Mr Clark remain a minister?

Answers on a post card marked for the attention of Louise.

Photograph: Rural England at its most impressive

TORY POLICY ON PLANNING IN ENGLAND SEEMS CONFUSED

I’m glad that the Calman Commission rejected any calls from whichever quarters to repatriate Scottish Planning decisions to England.

I suspect that nuclear power stations were our biggest worry at the time. But now, of course, we would have reason to worry about the relaxation of planning regulations, and the instruction to local planning authorities that there should be a “presumption in favour of sustainable developments” when looking at building permits.

Well... of course, only if you don’t have a minister as your MP.

Because, unbeknownst to us, there are ministers who fight tooth and nail against developments in their own constituencies while advocating the laissez faire policy elsewhere.

The Telegraph, no less, that bastion of Torydom has blown the whistle on a few of them.

Eric Pickles criticised the previous government’s attempts to relax planning regulations, fearing “sprawling housing estates dumped by Whitehall on green land”. Clearly, as he is so closely involved with this project, these sprawling estates are now a good, rather than a bad thing.

Gideon signed a petition against the development of an energy plant in his constituency.

Joan Hanham, the ex Tory leader of Kensington & Chelsea Council, and now a junior minister in the Communities Dept, even objected to a memorial garden for Diana in her constituency, but is pushing this legislation from her place on the red benches.

Justine Greening (Putney) is a supporter of the Thames Super Sewer project, but she doesn't want it tunnelled from her own constituency. Michael Fabricant has objected to a development in his own constituency but, as a Whip will be pushing people through the lobby to support the government and Grant Shapps, the housing minister, has also opposed plans for thousands of new houses in his Welwyn Hatfield constituency.

But the pièce de résistance has to be the cities minister Greg Clark (above), the person responsible for the legislation, who fought a development in his own constituency warning that it would cause "yet more pressure on our precious green spaces". Clark has now, in an incredible volte face unbelievably accused those who criticise his legislation of displaying “nihilistic selfishness” for trying to stop people getting on the housing ladder.

Sheesh! You couldn’t make these people up.

With every day I am more relieved that this awful coalition have little remit in Scotland. Life must be getting day by day more impossible in England.

PS: I have a great idea for a massive housing estate of affordable houses and houses for rent. I'm going to propose it for the space right behind, at the side of and in front of this nice family mansion in Oxfordshire (top pic). I can see no reason why it should be turned down, and if it is I will go straight to the local MP.

Individual liberty and Planning law

The Times reveals an interesting move by Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, in the so called small government coalition, to introduce new regulations to stop developers concreting over thousands of gardens. Measures to stop “garden grabbing” by property developers are to be announced today after growing concern about high-density housing. Developers sometimes buy up one family house and gardens and build flats or three homes on the same site. Residents have little success in blocking these developments because of the demand for social and private housing.

Private gardens are often the main victims of denser development in city and suburban areas as authorities come under pressure to build new homes. In future residential gardens will not be classified as “brownfield land” — or land that has already been built on — which has made it difficult for councils to refuse developments.

How very interesting in light of the government’s commitment to small government and not restricting the right of the individual to say have guns or make a shed load of money by building a multi-storey car park at the bottom of their garden. This surely will have the individual liberties nutters jumping up and down demanding to be able to build what they like on their gardens. After all if I buy a Grade 1 listed Tudor mansion and want to install a sunken Jacuzzi bath a lift and a heli-pad on the roof why should nanny state restrictions stop me?

Greg Clark, the Planning Minister (yes they have one, pictured), will also announce the abolition of minimum targets for the amount of housing in a given area, which has contributed to a mushrooming of homes. Under current stipulations at least 30 homes need to be built on every hectare of developed land, making it difficult for large-scale developers to get planning permission for bigger homes and gardens. This I admit seems sensible and will hopefully stop those ghastly housing developments where you can hear people going to the toilet in the next door house it is so close. But somehow I don’t think it will, after all the more houses you can cram on the more money is to be made.

Campaigners say the abolition of the density targets will end cluttering, ill-thought-out high rises and homes that are too small. Some planners have warned, however, that the combined decisions will lead to more development on greenfield land, which has never been built on. The Planning Officers Society has said: “If it’s garden grabbing out, then it may be countryside grabbing in.” In the past five years 180,000 homes have been built on gardens and land already containing a property.

A survey commissioned by the Communities Department earlier this year showed that garden grabbing is an issue for more than 40 per cent of councils but is concentrated in relatively few areas including the South East, London and the West Midlands. Aren’t these the heartlands of the small government lot? Surely it’s not a question of small government till my neighbour wants to build a nuclear power station in his garden and then its hurray for planning restrictions and petty fogging bureaucracy?