Read on Twitter
The new @GovUK @mhclg proposals for revolutionising the English planning system ( #PlanningForTheFuture) are now out, and they’re potentially a VERY big deal for UK #nature #conservation going forward.
So much so, I thought I’d drop a thread on it:
THREAD.
So much so, I thought I’d drop a thread on it:
THREAD.
You may have seen some of the headline proposals. Here are a few of them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53669432.
Essentially, make it much easier and quicker to get planning permission, so long as your development is ‘sustainable’, built in certain areas, and you pay the Levy.
Essentially, make it much easier and quicker to get planning permission, so long as your development is ‘sustainable’, built in certain areas, and you pay the Levy.
Firstly, it’s not all bad. For example:
- #NetGain is a step in the right direction.
- Modernisation is long overdue (why indeed do we still using planning notices tied to lampposts).
- Basing development on sustainability and systematic planning, informed by data, would be great
- #NetGain is a step in the right direction.
- Modernisation is long overdue (why indeed do we still using planning notices tied to lampposts).
- Basing development on sustainability and systematic planning, informed by data, would be great
But can it actually be done?
The doc notes a need for "comprehensive #RESOURCES...to support the implementation of our reforms" - correct. You can't have biodiversity #NetGain without employing ecologists. But (stunningly for the Johnson gov.) few details on this are offered.
The doc notes a need for "comprehensive #RESOURCES...to support the implementation of our reforms" - correct. You can't have biodiversity #NetGain without employing ecologists. But (stunningly for the Johnson gov.) few details on this are offered.
Similarly, the proposals are predicted on having lots of high quality #DATA. Do we have datasets even close to being sufficient? Not right now.
For example, here’s a challenge: who owns the land in the UK?
We don’t even have a map that answers that basic question.
For example, here’s a challenge: who owns the land in the UK?
We don’t even have a map that answers that basic question.
Then there’s ENFORCEMENT.
Shifting the Levy from planning to ‘point of occupation’ will reduce the incentive for proponents to ever pay it...so this HAS to be combined with stronger #monitoring and #enforcement. Yet enforcement is given only passing consideration (p72).
Shifting the Levy from planning to ‘point of occupation’ will reduce the incentive for proponents to ever pay it...so this HAS to be combined with stronger #monitoring and #enforcement. Yet enforcement is given only passing consideration (p72).
The proposals leave key existing problems unresolved. You really want to revolutionise planning? Then break the inherent conflict of interest that project proponents are literally PAYING customers of those who carry out ‘independent’ environmental impact assessments for projects!
As you can tell, I have mixed feelings about #PlanningForTheFuture.
I like some of the ideas, but think others are dangerous for #nature #conservation, and there is scant evidence of detailed and well-considered solutions to some of the key implementation challenges.
I like some of the ideas, but think others are dangerous for #nature #conservation, and there is scant evidence of detailed and well-considered solutions to some of the key implementation challenges.
But here’s the point:
whatever you think about it, IT’S A CONSULTATION. Go respond to it!
I’ll even include the link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-future.
whatever you think about it, IT’S A CONSULTATION. Go respond to it!
I’ll even include the link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-future.
