Will you object to your MP?
The threat of the Government’s proposals
You are probably aware of the highly contentious planning reforms that the government has published for consultation for changes to the current planning system and planning for the future.
Developers are failing to build the 300,000 homes a year the Government considers necessary. Any shortfall in housing delivery is down to developers who are sitting on permissions for a million unbuilt new homes already. The Government proposes radical reforms to the planning system to try to get houses built more quickly and in greater numbers. However, such radical changes are not needed. Any shortfall in housing delivery is not caused by the local planning done by your Local Authorities. It’s a problem caused by the failure of the development industry who only build when market conditions are right so that they can increase profits and dividends and pay high bonuses to CEOs. As a result, there is an almost inevitable housing shortfall for which Local Authorities are unfairly blamed. Developers should build out their existing permissions in a way that would create a competitive market and sufficient affordable homes.
As part of their proposals the Government is turning (yet again) to a “mutant” algorithm and untried computer systems. If these proposals are adopted then Sussex and all its local areas will have very many more new houses to cope with than have been planned for already. Many of these will go onto greenfield sites. This will be very damaging for Sussex’s communities and countryside and it will not help us develop a sustainable economy that addresses the climate crisis. Other proposals will take away the ability of a local community to comment on proposals and oppose inappropriate ones and still others will put your Local Authority in a planning straightjacket and limit democracy.
The CPRE Challenge to these proposals from Government
CPRE is submitting robust challenges to these proposals which are an attack on any form of democracy in planning and localism. They create a tremendous threat to our countryside which CPRE, with its membership, strives to protect. They undermine the right of communities to have their say in proposed developments.
We are writing to ask you to email your MP today using the attached template (that you can edit if you wish) and make your concerns known.
In the coming weeks and months, MPs will be debating and voting in Parliament on the legislation required to put these reforms in place. The greater the pressure from members of the public, the better. We have written to Sussex MPs and asked them to take action. MPs like to have the views of individual constituents to gauge the strength of feeling in the community so a letter from you would carry weight.
Here are just some of the major threats contained in the Government proposals:
(More information is available on our website: https://www.cpresussex.org.uk/news/reject-planning-reforms-which-are-a-major-threat-to-our-countryside-and-communities/ )
ONE. A new, and flawed, formula for assessing housing targets. MP Andrew Griffiths (Arundel & South Downs) calls this a ‘mutant algorithm’ with disastrous outcomes for Sussex and our towns, villages and countryside. Be sure to check your new local housing target. This is not comfortable reading! This formula raises housing numbers required in the South and Sussex particularly, and does nothing to ‘level up’ the rest of the country.
CPRE Sussex is warning that the government’s proposed changes to the planning system would destroy up to 450 hectares of countryside every year. That is 900 full-sized football pitches worth of land sacrificed to make way for 13,629 new houses annually – the equivalent of building another Crawley every four years.
TWO. We are not currently building enough genuinely affordable housing. The proposals, if adopted, would reduce proportionally the delivery of affordable homes.
THREE. Contrary to what is stated in the white paper that promises ‘a more engaging, equitable and effective system’, the proposals will undermine local democracy and marginalise councils.
FOUR. Local Plans would have to zone land into three types that would act as a democratic strait-jacket:
Growth Areas. These are areas marked for substantial development. Developers are given automatic outline approval, without further local consultation. Of particular concern is the removal of democratic oversight and whether designated ‘Growth Areas’ would be placed under the control of Development Corporations, quangos that would not be accountable to communities.
Renewal Areas. Suitable for ‘gentle’ development. It’s not clear what the democratic decision process in these areas will be.
Protected Areas. Such areas would include Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), Conservation Areas, Local Wildlife Sites, areas of significant flood risk and important areas of green space. These areas are promised the same process and protections as before, but how far can we trust this? Are current protections even enough?
FIVE. Further relaxation on Permitted Development Rights – for ‘pattern book’ housing, adding extra height to properties and converting inappropriate commercial buildings into dwellings.
SIX. Local Plans to be produced in just 30 months with local authority penalties for not hitting deadlines. The outcome – loss of sufficient time for evidence based site evaluations and just 6 weeks for community consultation. Removal of local policies for development management.
SEVEN. Processes will be digital using a software package called ‘PropTech’. Track and trace for Covid 19 comes to mind!
EIGHT. The reforms propose development without site specific surveys which will have catastrophic consequences for biodiversity.
NINE. A ‘one size fits all’ Infrastructure Levy, which will could allow developers to reduce the percentage of a development’s affordable housing and leave shortfalls for schools, parks and other infrastructure.
Please email your MP today to add to the growing public concern on these flawed proposals.
These proposals are completely undemocratic, thanks for your support in opposing them.
Yours sincerely,
Dan Osborn
Chair, CPRE Sussex
