Daily Mail Article re: National Planning Framework – “Developer’s Charter…local objections to be ignored”

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but this may be of interest to our members.  The housing minister, James Brokenshire has announced that if councils fail to build the target number of homes by 2020,  developers may be able to overrule local objections and force developments through the planning process.

This underlines the importance of developing our own sensible, sustainable plan for development in Edenfield in conjunction with the council’s wider p;lan for the borough as a whole.

Click below to read the article.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5987591/Council-chiefs-claim-planning-overhaul-developers-charter.html

CPRE article about Green Belt land

This is an interesting article describing 10 myths about the Green Belt from the CPRE.

Myth 1: Green Belt is an old fashioned idea and it’s time to pension it off
Myth 2: Green Belt is sacrosant and safe from development
Myth 3: Green Belt protection pushes house prices up
Myth 4: Green Belt has little or no environmental value
Myth 5: Green Belts only benefit people who own property within them rather than the wider public
Myth 6: Just building on a small proportion of Green Belt would leave us with more than enough
Myth 7: If we don’t allow development in the Green Belt, people will leapfrog it and commute in an unsustainable fashion from elsewhere
Myth 8: Green Belts have the effect of confining the urban poor to live at high densities in the cities
Myth 9: Green Belt policy leads to more land being used for golf courses than new housing
Myth 10: Green Belt stops any kind of development or beneficial land management at all so land is abandoned and neglected

Original source:
https://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-planning/green-belts
https://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-planning/green-belts/in-depth

Rossendale’s Local Plan in crisis – Planning officers ask councillors to give them control of the plan to meet looming deadline

If Rossendale Council fail to publish their Local Plan for formal consultation by the end of August, the Government might intervene, warns a report which will be presented to members on Wednesday (11 July).
The Local Plan is a planning blueprint for Rossendale Borough that identifies development needs for the next 15 years and allocates sites. When the first draft emerged last year, it caused uproar in Edenfield, where 808 residents objected to a proposal to remove Green Belt protection from swathes of land.
According to the report, the Government have been regularly contacting the Council to check that the formal consultation version will appear on time. The report therefore recommends that the Councillors hand over to the Planning Manager and the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Portfolio holder for Regulatory Services the task of making any changes required to rectify errors and improve the draft Plan prior to publication.
The recommendation has alarmed the Edenfield Community Neighbourhood Forum, a group of local residents and businesses established to draw up a neighbourhood plan.

Ian Lord, their Chair, said,

“We have been concerned, ever since the first draft of the Local Plan appeared last year, about the removal of land from the Green Belt. Government guidance is clear: this should happen only in exceptional circumstances. We have repeatedly asked the Council to explain these, but all the report says is that they will be covered in a separate topic paper. However, the Councillors are being requested to sign off the Plan without any information on this crucial aspect.”
“The report to Council this week mentions some minor changes from last year’s draft Local Plan, but the fact is that, on the Council’s own figures, there is an adequate supply of developable housing land in Rossendale for the next 15 years without any recourse to the Green Belt at all.”
“On present information, the draft Local Plan is unsound. It is therefore alarming that the Councillors, who should be owning the process, are being asked to surrender their responsibilities to the officers. Whilst that might solve their immediate problem of meeting their deadline, they are storing up trouble if the Planning Inspectorate later declare it to be unsound.”