27th July 2011, 02:12 PM
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.
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.