+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Planning minister's in pact with developers over reforms (/showthread.php?tid=4083)
Planning minister's in pact with developers over reforms - BAJR - 12th September 2011
Oh no!
Greg Clark, the planning minister, privately has urged property developers to lobby David Cameron amid concerns that his planning reforms will be blocked, according to a leaked email seen by The Telegraph.
Property developers privately admitted that the minister's objectives "align with ours" and said they had "earned more brownie points than we could ever imagine" by helping him.
Mr Clark is spearheading plans to overhaul England's planning system, to encourage development by simplifying the rules. This newspaper has launched a campaign opposing the changes.
The minister has publicly insisted that he is introducing carefully balanced proposals taking into account both environmental and economic concerns.
However, the leaked email will add to growing fears that the minister has become too close to the property industry and is working alongside developers to force through reforms, which establish a "presumption in favour of sustainable development".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8756477/Planning-ministers-in-pact-with-developers-over-reforms.html
Jack Dromey, Labour's shadow communities minister, said the Government needed to "come clean" over its links to property developers. A spokesman for The National Trust said: “It saddens us but doesn’t really surprise us that the developers are in the minister’s pocket. All those who are 'pro’ the NPPF are those who stand to gain.”
The news comes as up to 80 MPs and peers were due to meet today in the first public show of discontent about the policy. Last night, a Government source said: “Number 10 are fully behind our planning reforms and fully behind what we are doing. The Government utterly rejects any suggestion that policy is being driven by property developers.”
Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation, defended the email. She said: “I don’t accept that this amounts to collusion – it’s simply us doing our job to support the interests of our members.”
Planning minister's in pact with developers over reforms - Marcus Brody - 12th September 2011
When even the Daily Torygraph thinks that a Conservative Minister is too close to developers, it's surely a sign that the government should reconsider
Planning minister's in pact with developers over reforms - P Prentice - 12th September 2011
Marcus Brody Wrote:When even the Daily Torygraph thinks that a Conservative Minister is too close to developers, it's surely a sign that the government should reconsider
or a sign that they are not going to
Planning minister's in pact with developers over reforms - deadlylampshade - 12th September 2011
BAJR Wrote:Last night, a Government source said: ?Number 10 are fully behind our planning reforms and fully behind what we are doing. The Government utterly rejects any suggestion that policy is being driven by property developers.?
Is it me or does that have Sir Humphrey Appleby ALL over it??:0
Methinks they dost protest too much.
Collusion...great word!
Planning minister's in pact with developers over reforms - Wax - 12th September 2011
Out side interests driving Government policy towards short term financial gain for them at the expense of the people,
who would have thought it
Lets get behind those that are actively opposing this sign the National Trust's petition write to your local MP. From a purely selfish view point it is our lively hoods that are about to go down the pan. Is there a template for a letter anywhere?
Planning minister's in pact with developers over reforms - Boxoffrogs - 13th September 2011
We all knew that when the ConDems got hold of the planning laws we were in trouble. They have tho claimed that PPS5 would be fully respected have they not?