Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
Someone sent me through an email the other day saying that the Draft National Planning Policy Framework was now up for consultation until October.
Heres a link to the documenets in case people aren't aware
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio...tframework
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2009
Compare and contrast:
IfA Chief Executive endorses draft NPPF:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1951729
National Trust Chairman challenges NPPF:
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-c...ecture.htm
I appreciate Peter Hinton's comments are a holding position, but why could it not reflect a degree of apprehension, sufficient to at least establish distance from the Government position. Simon Jenkins clearly articulates the evident erosion of controls and demonstrates a degree of leadership that is essential if this wanton damage to regulation is to be challenged. The difference between the IfA and NT position couldn't be wider. The IfA were similarly supine in response to the consultation draft PP5, looking to secure support for barriers to entry, and leaving it to the IHBC/RTPI to highlight deficiencies and secure improvements to the adopted policy that actually protected the interests of the historic environment and the profession responsible for protection.
It was at best wishfull thinking to conceive the Southport statement as a means of interpreting PPS5 to promote an agenda that didn't strictly relate to planning policy. It would be fair to say this is even further off-line given the clear thrust of the draft NPPF and hardly measures on the scale of issues that now need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. It is time that the profession set aside the softly soflty approach and offer authorative, independent advice by supporting the NT campaign.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
I am a little surprised that the IFA would allow itself to be quoted as affirming the draft without first consulting its members or council? Its a bit preumpatious to throw their weight behind it without first seeing broadly what its members that form the majoriyt of the profession consider its pros and cons
Also with the fact that government money was spent on PPS5 which a) only came out last year and b) was broadly accepted as a improvement on the PPG 14 and 15, why didnt they include it word for word and save all the debate from the archaeological community and money it cost to relook at it in these austere times?!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2009
And the CLG response to the National Trust campaign statement is to refer to an heritage body that welcomes the proposed changes. Well I never. Perhaps the IfA may wish to ask the CLG to refrain from further claims of support until the Institute has formulated a considered view.
[QUOTE][
Response to incorrect claims by the National Trust that planning reforms will lead to unchecked and damaging development
Published26 July 2011
The Department for Communities and Local Government responds to incorrect claims by the National Trust that reforms of the planning system will lead to unchecked and damaging development.
A spokesperson said:
[INDENT]"This is plain wrong. The draft policy framework fulfils the commitment in the coalition agreement to protect the Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are similarly strong protections for the historic environment, which have been welcomed by heritage bodies. These protections are crystal clear in the document.
"In fact the policy framework gives communities a brand new opportunity to protect those green spaces outside of the Green Belt that are of particular special value to the community.
"There is a strict test that all new growth must be sustainable. Where it is consistent with environmental objectives - including maintaining the Green Belt - proposals should proceed without delay.
"These reforms allow local people to participate in planning. Having 1000 pages of planning policy made policy less clear and excluded communities."
[/INDENT]/QUOTE]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Its all a bit depressing. I would be more inspired by any response from ALGAO. They are, afterall, not in a position to roll-over and beg for charter status...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Sparky Wrote:Its all a bit depressing. I would be more inspired by any response from ALGAO. They are, afterall, not in a position to roll-over and beg for charter status...
what have algao ever done for you?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
3rd August 2011, 02:17 PM
ALGAO do plenty of campaigning to ensure that archaeology doesn't get forgotten about during planning policy changes, they just don't make much noise about it. Ask yer friendly local County Mountie about them.
The tension in the Draft NPPF is that the formal chapter on heritage follows on from PPG15/16 and PPS5's policies, but other elements from other sectors of the document could impact negatively on archaeology and the historic environment. A good example is that Supplementary Planning Docs in Local Plans can no longer constrain development, only speed it up. There goes any use of SPDs to create a local list of buildings and sites outside of Conservation Areas that Local Authorities wish to protect from demolition/alteration...
Spatial planning - it's holistic, innit.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
8th August 2011, 01:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 8th August 2011, 01:59 AM by GnomeKing.)
It is a scandalous waste of time and money to try 're-inventing' a version of PPS5 - which I think had potential to improve on PPG16...Is this Conservative Blue Sky Thinking?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/201...y-thinking
The devious encircling of policy with counter-polices designed to undermine the original intent? (Oh well - not as bad as councillor Mellor, eh!...)
Like other ConDem fiddles, this is a
Solution looking for a Problem.
This is a further step towards rampant commercialism - there will certainly be vultures ready to profit from it [*gotta eat"], some of whom will profit far more than the others.
This should be resisted, along with similar policies across many aspects of society. This is Vandalism -" a hostile take over by barbarians intent on loot and power"....
Imagined rewards offered - to smooth the way - only a few will profit.
Archaeology has not caused Economic Chaos.
Archaeology creates jobs, educates & entertains society, and raises national/local profile.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
8th August 2011, 08:13 AM
GnomeKing Wrote:Archaeology has not caused Economic Chaos.
Archaeology creates jobs, educates & entertains society, and raises national/local profile.
I agree, but the NPPF appears to have been designed solely with the intention of saving poor old developers from having to worry their pretty little heads (or wallets) about anything old or green that might already be occupying the land they's like to concrete over. Building more houses no-one can afford and office blocks and industrial units for which there is no business to use them is apparently the only way we can save the economy.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
8th August 2011, 09:35 AM
Draft National Planning Policy Framework
