By Michael Elliott

Regene

ration

Britian

Planning minister Greg Clark said the changes in England were “absolutely crucial” but he also agreed to talk to opponents of the proposals.

He said “particular aspects” could be addressed if groups such as the National Trust felt they were unclear.

Shadow communities minister Jack Dromey said he welcomed the government’s willingness to talk.

Mr Clark said the government would not back down on its aim to boost house-building and encourage business.

Campaigners say they fear excessive development under the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.

The plan, published in July, streamlines policy that is currently more than 1,000 pages down to just 52 and fea-tures a presumption of “sustainable development”.

The Department for Communities and Local Gov-ernment says it intends to transform a system whose “volume and complexity have made plan-ning increasingly inaccessible to all but specialists”.

But the National Trust said the plans “failed to protect the everyday places that local communi-ties love” while the Campaign to Protect Rural England said the government needed “to listen and make further improvements or the conse-quences for the English countryside and the char-acter of our towns and villages will be grave”.

‘Goodforbusiness’

In the times of a worrying economy, local councils look increasingly to reclaiming abandoned spaces. But are all brown field sites suitable for redevelopment?

Greg Clark defends reforms to the current systemMr Clark told the BBC it was “absolutely crucial” for the government to simplify planning processes so that homes could be built and to encourage business.

“We’re building fewer homes than can accommodate young people that need to be housed, we’ve got a problem of homelessness, overcrowding, poverty as rents rise.

“For companies expanding or relocating they need a new building and it’s crucial that when they’re thinking of Britain as a place to relocate they know they won’t have to wait years with vast expense and uncertainty.”

The housing minister denied there would be any back-tracking on the plans, despite his agreement to hold talks.

He said it was “quite right” to consult because of the extent of the changes, and invited oppo-nents to be very specific about any concerns.

“Let’s be forensic about this - if there are particular aspects or sentences that you don’t think express clearly enough the protections that are there, then let’s talk about it.

Labour’s Jack Dromey welcomed the government’s de-cision to talk to campaign groups, but said ministers’

previous stance showed “how out of touch they are”.

“Labour is in favour of sustainable develop-ment - but what the Tory-led government

are offering is a downgrading of the rules which protect our natural environment.”

Mr Clark also criticised the National Trust for using pictures of Los Ange-

les in its campaign against the plans.

He said that such large-scale urban sprawl was “not going to

happen here” and reiterated the government’s commitment to pro-

tect the green belt, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Councils would also have more re-sponsibility under the new regime - which would mean better plan-ning decisions, argued Mr Clark.

Shaun Spiers, the chief executive of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, rejected Mr Clark’s assur-ances and said the proposals would give too much say to developers.

“What the government is talking about is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, but if you read the National Planning Policy Framework in its draft form, what is clear is that is a presumption in fa-vour of development, and at every point sustainability is undermined.

“What they’re really talking about is a policy of ‘build, build, build’. This is about economic develop-ment. It’s about prosperity over people and places.”

Peter Nixon, the National Trust’s director of conservation, welcomed Mr Clark’s invitation to hold talks but also criticised the changes.

He told the Times newspaper that the government had the right “aspirations” but the proposals cur-rently did not allow planning authorities to make decisions in a “balanced way”.