observations on landscape character and the relationship between people and place, between people with each other, in the environment they live in, through time....
Showing posts with label National Planning Policy Framework. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Planning Policy Framework. Show all posts
Scientists at the U.S. Forest Service and partners at universities, non-profits and other agencies predict that urban and developed land areas in the US will increase 41 percent by 2060. Forested areas will be most impacted by this expansion, with losses ranging from 16 to 34 million acres in the lower 48 states. The agency highlighted the results of a new study in a press releaseissued last month.
The researchers also concluded that, over the long-term, climate change could have significant effects on water availability, making America potentially more vulnerable to water shortages, especially in the Southwest and Great Plains. Population growth in more arid regions will require more drinking water. Recent trends in agricultural irrigation and landscaping techniques also will boost water demands.
The assessment’s projections respond to a set of scenarios with varying assumptions about domestic population and economic growth, global population and economic growth, global wood energy consumption and U..S land use change from 2010 to 2060.
Frederick County, Maryland. Photo courtesy of Kay Hagan
The study is part of an assessment mandated under the federal Resources Planning Act. It summarizes findings about the status, trends, and projected future of forests, rangelands, wildlife and fish, biodiversity, water, outdoor recreation, wilderness, and urban forests, as well as the effects of climate change upon these resources. Key themes from the findings include these:
Land development will continue to threaten the integrity of natural ecosystems;
Climate change will alter natural ecosystems and affect their ability to provide goods and services;
Competition for goods and services from natural ecosystems will increase;
Geographic variation will require regional and local strategies to address resource management issues.
In 2010, a study by the American Farmland Trust found that 41 million acres of rural land had been permanently lost in the preceding 25 years to highways, shopping malls, and other development. The rate of recent farmland loss at the time of AFT’s report was an astounding acre per minute.
As troubling as the trends and forecasts are for forests and farms lost to development, it does not have to be this way. We need to stop the madness. Market preferences are now trending in favor of closer-in, more walkable living. Let’s build future development that responds, conserving the landscape in the process.
Kaid Benfield is the director of the Sustainable Communities and Smart Growth program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, co-founder of the LEED for Neighborhood Development rating system, and co-founder of Smart Growth America. He writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment. For more posts, see his blog's home page. All posts »
Planning policy has a profound influence on our landscape. Planning restrictions were relaxed in the 1930s - a response to the Depression. The result was an explosion of suburbs and bungalows across green fields -- so much so that the loss of large areas of Arden mourned by Tolkein, its swansong was the description of The Shire in the Hobbit. As seen in this area around Sarehole Mill where Tolkein stayed View Larger Map ...and Selly Oak to the West TheGreen Beltwas an idea to counteract this growth - first proposed by the Greater London Regional Planning Committee in 1935. It was adopted by the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 - which allowed local authorities to impose this restriction in their Development Plans. Powerful House builders have their eyes fixed on removing some of these restrictions, hence a "simplified"National Planning Policy Framework which supersedes all previous planning policy advice. However, the lawyers suggest it may be stymied by introducing clouds of uncertainty, leading to greater delay than the previous rule-led process. The battle to defend forest against urban sprawl and the peripheral effects of urban growth is not strange to Londoners. A central place in the public demand that created the green belt was the battle for Epping Forest. From http://www.hillsamenitysociety.co.uk/detail/efbattle.htm
The history of the massive legal battle preventing the destruction of Epping Forest.by Matthew Geyman The Destruction of the forest to the East of the River RodingDuring 1851 the 'Office of Woods and Forests', endorsed by the House of Commons, recommended the complete destruction of the woodlands of Hainault to the east of the River Roding for use mainly as arable land. This was during a drive to increase the value of the Crown's land by making 'waste land' cultivatable. Often, this land was no longer required due to the decline in venison hunting by royalty. Within six weeks, a period of time short enough to prevent effective public protest, steam ploughs anchored in the rich earth had ripped out the roots of the entire forest, including the famous ancient 'Fairlop Oak'. Today, Hainault & Chigwell Forest is only about 800 acres and was opened to the public in 1905. The area is comprised of previously private woods and some replanted forest at 'Fox-burrows Farm' by the London County Council in the earlier part of the 1900's. Epping Forest Under ThreatOnce a Royal Forest, used by since the Normans as hunting ground ("the Kings right of vert and venison"), the 'Forest of Essex', latterly 'Waltham Forest' and now 'Epping Forest' narrowly missed the fate befallen by so many beautiful woodlands in the squeeze of population, indstry and nature. Epping Forest's manorial, sporting and soil rights were not owned by the Crown as Hainault had been, although it did posses forestal rights. However, Commissioners for the Crown offered the forestal rights for sale at £5 an acre which effectively gave 18 local lords of manors the right to 'enclose' areas of the forest for their private usage. By 1870, half of the forest's 6000 acres were surrounded by fences and development had begun in many parts. Eventually, public opinion was aroused and the feeling that open spaces should be protected began to prevail. Beginning in 1863, a legal contest was brought by bodies such as 'The Commons Preservation Society', founded to protect open spaces, successfully managed to pursuade the The House of Commons that Epping Forest was being rapidly destroyed. The Commons recommended that the Crown's forestal rights should be enforced, if not sold already. In 1865, another committee argued that, despite the extensive enclosures, commoners' rights still existed on those forest lands and that the enclosures prejudiced them. Local Resistance The enclosures were widely despised and the first of many recorded acts of resistance in this time was in 1866 by a labourer named Thomas Willingale. Willingale asserted his right to continue lopping trees, as had his ancestors, in Loughton Manor; despite a ring fence erected by the local lord preventing it. Willingale was convicted of theft, but The Commons Preservation Society supported his case and the publicity generated from legal actions in support of the practice further generated public interest. Willingale died before the case was concluded. It was not an easy battle, however, as the lords of the manor were confident of their right to enclosure. A Bill introduced in parliament would have given the public access to only 600 acres with an option to 400 more, leaving the remaining 5000 acres in absolute control of the manorial owners. It was only through the strong resolve of the Society that this compromise was not accepted and the Bill was dropped. A Royal Commission was appointed to establish the rights of the forest and terms for it's future keeping. The 'Forest Fund Committee' gained support of the Corporation of London, which owned 200 acres of land which included Wanstead cemetary. This ownership gave them commoner status and rights, meaning that they were able to take up the public's cause in the courts. Arguments on both sides raged and in 1871 a law suit that had taken three years to prepare was brought against the lords of the manors. The Corporation argued that the forest was without boundaries ('intercommonage' allowing grazing rights in all parts of the forest) and the lords argued that each manor was separate and therefore if commoners local to each manor could be 'satisfied', the right to enclose was inherent and this had no bearing on rights in other manors. The Forest Saved In November 1874, the Master of the Rolls upheld the Corporation of London's action in a judgement which was thorough enough to be beyond dispute. The rights were judged to be of such antiquity that even if the majority of commoners agreed to relinquish their rights, a single opposing view would veto the decision. The enclosures were proved illegal, no appeal was brought and the forest was secured for the public. In 1878 the 'Epping Forest Act' was passed and the Corporation were appointed as Conservators of the 5542 acre forest. Ownership of the deer was granted to them and the commoners rights were preserved. Compensation was given to the lords of the manors and where property had been built, an agreed curtailage was allowed to be retained at a price. Queen Victoria visited in May 1882 and, at a massive event at High Beech, formally declared the 'People's Forest' open. Massive crowds visited in the summer, mainly from the East End of London. In the following years, as many as 100,000 people used Chingford Station in a single day in an attempt to reach London's oasis of tranquility (by now with funfairs, large refreshment 'Retreats' and Today Commoner's rights still prevail, however the death knoll was effectively sounded for cattle grazing in the forest when new restrictions regarding the age that they could be taken to market was enforced after the recent BSE scares.
Planning policy has a profound influence on our landscape. Planning restrictions were relaxed in the 1930s - a response to the Depression. The result was an explosion of suburbs and bungalows across green fields -- so much so that the loss of large areas of Arden mourned by Tolkein, its swansong was the description of The Shire in the Hobbit. As seen in this area around Sarehole Mill where Tolkein stayed
The Green Belt was an idea to counteract this growth - first proposed by the Greater London Regional Planning Committee in 1935. It was adopted by the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 - which allowed local authorities to impose this restriction in their Development Plans. Powerful House builders have their eyes fixed on removing some of these restrictions, hence a "simplified" National Planning Policy Framework which supersedes all previous planning policy advice. However, the lawyers suggest it may be stymied by introducing clouds of uncertainty, leading to greater delay than the previous rule-led process.
The National Trust and Council for British Archaeology have responded to the UK government's "National Planning Policy Framework" - a small document that sweeps away a series of specific planning policies. The NT, in particular, campaigned vigorously against the original proposals, but have cautiously welcomed the amended "Framework". The following is the text of the National Trust "Wordpress" statement , the CBA's Britarch statement and the IfA's response. I suspect they think this is the best formulation that can be obtained from the present government, not that it represents a solid framework for future planning.
Here’s our Direct0r-General Dame Fiona Reynolds’ take on it in her own words:
“There are a number of important changes that have been made to the draft, responding to concerns that we and others raised.
These include:
the primacy of the plan is confirmed, ensuring that development must be consistent with the plan
a better definition of sustainable development, based on the 2005 sustainable development strategy
the insertion of references to the use of brownfield land and theneed to promote town centres
removal of the incendiary default ‘yes’ to development where there is no plan
reference to the ‘intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’, recognising the importance of countryside outside designated areas
confirmation that existing plans will remain in force while the new NPPF is introduced, and that there will be a one-year transition for the preparation of new plans
“All these changes improve the document and give it a better tone and balance.
“Now the serious business of planning begins. The country needs huge effort at a local level to get plans in place that properly reflect the integration of social, economic and environmental goals, and protect places people value.
“The National Trust, along with many other organisations and people, will play our part and watch to see how it works in practice.
“Over 230,000 people signed our petition against the draft NPPF – a sign of the huge public concern it generated. Now we owe it to them and future generations to get good plans in place to deliver the improved ambitions set out in the new document.”
Anything to add? Please feel free to comment and share your concerns below and you can join the conversation with us about planning on Twitter (@nationaltrust) using the #planning4ppl hashtag.
The Council for British Archaeology's Director, Dr Mike Heyworth said
We welcome the strengthening of the NPPF to reflect a more balanced approach to sustainable development and the importance of the Local Plan as the strategic envelope for neighbourhood planning. It remains to be seen, however, whether 12 months will be sufficient for local planning authorities to put their Plans in place and whether they will be sufficently robust. It is a measure of how far we have come in the last 25 years that there is a chapter for the historic environment in the highest level of national policy-making and that the natural and historic environment appear alongside each other in integrated policies.
We are also pleased that Historic Environment Records (HERs) retain a central place in the information base for planning. This is particularly critical in view of the way that some local heritage services, like those on Merseyside, in Sandwell, Middlesbrough, and Redcar & Cleveland, have recently declined to maintain the Historic Environment Records for their areas. The new policy makes it clear that this is a requirement of national policy as part of the evidence base for planning. The CBA will be pressing these authorities to justify how they can meet the NPPF’s requirements without an HER.
We greatly regret, however, the loss of the Government’s policy objective for planning in PPS5 and the draft NPPF to contribute to knowledge and understanding of our past by capturing evidence from the historic environment. While the new policies are designed to ensure that arcahaeological evidence is secured in a manner proportionate to the importance of heritage assets and the impact on them, it is nevertheless deeply disappointing to see this important principle is no longer explicit in the NPPF. The Government’s aim may be to secure the fabric of our history but knowledge and understanding of their heritage is equally important to local communities.
The CBA is optimistic about new opportunities to work with neighbourhood planning groups to provide advice, information and encouragement for creative local planning that respects and celebrates the heritage. We will be pressing CLG to support the Practitioner Guidance that is essential to underpin the high-level policies in the NPPF, including the importance of the knowledge-gain from archaeological investigation where heritage assets will be lost. Clear guidance to local authorities on the provision of Historic Environment Records will also be needed. Draft Guidance has been in existence for several months and the priority now must be to see this is issued formally with endorsement from the Government.
The Institute for Archaeology says IfA responds to the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Submitted by Kathryn Whittington on Tuesday 27 March 2012
The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) is pleased to see that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for Englandpublished today addresses a number of the concerns about the treatment of the historic environment raised by it with Government before, during and after the consultation process. They include
recognition that the historic environment makes a positive contribution to society, the economy, our culture and our environment
removal of the provision that the default answer to development should be ‘yes’
support for Historic Environment Records (and, tacitly, for the dedicated expertise required to support them)
clarity that policies in the Framework relating to decision-taking (including those requiring proper consideration of the impact of proposals on the historic environment) apply to Neighbourhood Development Orders as well as other decisions affecting the historic environment
clear recognition that the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset is a material consideration in determining the application
rebalancing the NPPF so that it unambiguously reflects the supremacy of local plans and clearly acknowledges the environmental and social aspects of sustainable development
transitional arrangements in Annex 1 to ensure that there is adequate local plan coverage
However, concerns remain, in particular
the continued emphasis on economic growth without explicit recognition of the equal importance of environmental and social aspects of sustainable development
the continued presence in paragraph 14 of the phrase ‘significantly and demonstrably’ in the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless the adverse effects of development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Nonetheless, IfA welcomes the additional rider in paragraph 14 rebutting the presumption where ‘specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted’ and the implicit recognition that proposals which contravene such policies protecting the historic environment are unsustainable.
The Institute’s Chief Executive, Peter Hinton, said
‘It was essential that the NPPF carried forward the principles of PPS5 to achieve Government’s twin objectives of conserving the historic environment in a sustainable manner and of ensuring wide public benefit from expert investigations of those elements affected by development. While the NPPF may not contain all the provisions we consider necessary to achieve that end, it provides timely support for the historic environment at a time when local authority archaeology and heritage services continue to be under severe pressure. IfA has campaigned hard to ensure that the NPPF has not brought the end of developer-funded archaeology. What we need now is a firm response from Government to those local authorities that mistakenly believe that they can comply with the framework without securing the services of professional historic environment advisors.’
Tim Howard, IfA Policy Advisor, said
‘To support the historic environment chapter of the Framework, a Practice Guide must strongly reinforce the importance of archaeological standards and accredited expertise. It must ensure appropriate protection in practice of both designated and undesignated heritage assets proportionate to their significance. Our draft Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services fulfils a similar aim and sets out what is required for the management of archaeology under the Framework.’
IfA will continue to lobby for improvements to the Framework including Government endorsement of supporting guidance.
The draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published by the UK Government, ...finally sounds the death-knell to the principle established in the 1940s that the planning system should be used to protect what is most special in the landscape,...
The National Trust have criticised the Government’s focus throughout its consultation document on economic growth, which sends the message that schemes which deliver this alone will be enough to get planning permission. This will focus developers’ and local authorities’ attention on the narrow grounds of short-term financial gain, rather than delivering the wider public benefit that good planning can deliver. They say:
the reversal of development controls in the public interest comes at too high a price. The NPPF’s concept of sustainable development puts too little weight on benefiting people and the environment
the removal of much detailed guidance to local authorities leaves too much power in the hands of developers who will only need to show that their proposals will deliver growth for other important considerations – for example impact on communities, nature and landscape, and the environment – to be pushed aside.
local people will have to rely on a development plan to protect what they treasure and shape where development should go. Yet only some local authorities have development plans in place and many local authorities and neighbourhood groups do not have the resources and specialist skills to create plans that genuinely integrate social, environmental and economic considerations. If there is no up to date development plan, planning applications will automatically get consent.
The National Trust have launched a campaign to show what people value about their local places and the importance of strong planning principles. A twitter feed will ask people to tweet their views with #NTlocal to build up a national picture.
But what has this to do with Tolkien? Click and read this http://gu.com/p/xdffe The Shire - in Lord of the Rings is n's paean to the Forest of Arden landscape of his Edwardian childhood, which was being covered over with uncontrolled, unplanned sprawling, pre-Green Belt, suburbs of South Birmingham. See Birmingham Museum's Sarehole Mill
This sprawl was no accident or Act of God. It was as a direct result of the Wall Street Crash and subsequent Depression. In the 1930s -as now- planning restrictions were opposed by speculators as a restraint on economic growth. Opposed to them, report after report advocated regional planning that would integrate growth in depressed regions with national development guidelines. See Town and Country Planning: 60 Years of Planning - challenges, then and now
The National Trust say, "The Government’s planning reforms, could lead to unchecked and damaging development in the undesignated countryside on a scale not seen since the 1930s."
