Friday, 25 May 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

Posted in: Discussion | Policy forum

21/02/2012 12:11 pm

mrkfm

mrkfm

Posts: 29

I’ve been reading the thoughts of one of the Inside Housing regulars about the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This document appears to be a complete disaster and yet there is no comment on this by him apart from to support it as the way to solve our housing crisis.

I provided evidence on several occasions in the comments section and as would provide some analysis on this as that is what Inside Housing are here to provide as I understand but this hasn’t been forthcoming.

Therefore I thought I’d open it out for people to comment and will briefly summarise what the problem appears to be.

In short – this is meant to reduce red tape I believe and let people build more houses. In reality, housing providers, government departments and housing bodies are saying that not only does the NPPF create more confusion; it may actually end up slowing down the process of agreeing new builds due to the contradictions in the document. Amazingly, according to one representation by Shelter on this, the NPPF could result in housing being built which is "unaffordable to people of average or below average incomes"!

It also seems that the document could encourage ANY form of development which can all be classed as "sustainable" despite the fact that it could mean "motorway service stations, roads to the airport and advertising hoardings".

In short, it could make things worse whilst destroying the environment with developments that create little more than urban sprawl which aren’t sustainable and aren’t affordable and will take longer to build. I think this is worthy of intense debate and think it’s about time it was discussed on here..

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this discussion

Post a reply

Sort: Newest first | Oldest first

Author

Message

mrkfm

mrkfm

Posts: 29

21/02/2012 12:24 pm

I continually struggle to get stuff on this forum due to problems this site has with formatting but hopefully you will see below the two main links to the evidence: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/05/george-osborne-motorway-sustainable-development www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/1526/152606.htm

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

mrkfm

mrkfm

Posts: 29

27/02/2012 12:28 pm

I'm surprised no one is commenting on this.

Everyone is always complaining that we need to build more housing and yet a planning document comes along which appears to be a mess and might result in less properties being built and yet no one is discussing this! 

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Anonymous

Anonymous

27/02/2012 12:31 pm

Probably because it has been done to death, but Pickles like his fellow storm troopers are forcing it through anyway.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

John Locke

John Locke

Posts: 1

27/02/2012 6:03 pm

Mrkfm

You are right to raise this as an important topic as I believe the 1947 Planning System is directly responsible for the housing crisis we have today. I don't think the NPPF is radical enough. It won't prove instrumental in encouraging more development, probably the reverse. The problem is the concept of 'sustainable development' and the idea that housing is pollution. We really have to challenge this. The solution is not to define sustainability better or have more 'sustainable development' but to oppose this self-limiting concept - a concept that kettle's people onto brownfield land in the least attractive areas. That's why I support the Dale Farm Gypsies. I see them very much as being in the vanguard of challenging this protocol and the snobbery of the Green Belt.

As to the reason why Inside Housing has been quiet on the issue of late, I suspect it is only because there is little further to say on the NPPF until it is published in March - most likely on Budget Day.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

mrkfm

mrkfm

Posts: 29

28/02/2012 9:05 am

Thanks John.

I'll revisit this in March because like everything else as these things need to be challenged in advance.

The coalition appear to be rushing through policies with little thought that appear to cause more problems than they solve whilst conveniently making a small percentage of people richer, whether it's corporations, private landlords etc

As noted above, there are already widespread concerns and it seems to me that if this is the case then I would have thought that Inside Housing would want to provide some critical analysis of this.

The article by George Monbiot succinctly highlights the underlying agenda of these NPPF in reality, and as this is where it is headed, it needs to be highlighted because this is precisely where all arguments come back to on the forums and any articles about housing whether here or in other media - more affordable, and sustainable housing.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Rate this topic

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

You must be signed in to rate.

Post a Reply

You must sign in to rate this topic or make a post

sign in register

Why not register?

Registration allows you to sign up for newsletters, comment on articles, add posts in the forums, quiz our panel of experts, and save articles and jobs in the My IH section.

Register now

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters

Most active members

People are discussing

tags Accountability, advice, affordable, Affordable Home Ownership, affordable homes, affordable housing, antisocial tenant, benefits, Big Society, budget, building, consultation, councils, Cuts, debate, development, discussion, early intervention, Government, housing benefit, housing policy, politics, rent, support, tsa

Most discussed

Most recent posts

  • From Chris, 27/04/2012 11:56 am in Housing Benefit cap

    Did the MP ever acknowledge how the policies that he supports would not lead to rent reductions but would instead lead to the mass displacement of the poor?

  • posted Anonymously, 26/04/2012 1:06 pm in Does Westminster serve as an example of the dangers of Right-to-Buy?

    It appears that they were working harder to socially cleanse the Borough than they were on reducing rents!

  • posted Anonymously, 25/04/2012 4:31 pm in Rent free way of beating greedy HA's

    As a housing professional who understands rent setting regimes, what I find more concerning is the general lack of understanding as to how / why social rents increase and the way in which they are set.

  • From simon ryan, 23/04/2012 2:32 pm in HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANT FAILURE

    agree or not we all have the same ends we are trying to reach ,we just go about it in different ways , in an ideal world there wouldnt be a problem but in the world we live into today , the only way to achieve the out come is to comunicate with each other and debate ,, even then no 1 person or group can achieve the ideal world because we all have different opinions on how it should be , ide be happier with some of the posters on here as leaders  of my H/As than some who are ...

  • posted Anonymously, 16/04/2012 2:51 pm in Sub Letting

    This would cause chaos with people pulling all sorts of scams to get a tenancy. If they need to be housed and qualify for social housing, then they need to get themselves on the waiting list where they will be allocated a home as and when one comes available also their needs must be assessed against the needs of everyone else on the waiting list.

  • From mrkfm, 28/02/2012 9:05 am in National Planning Policy Framework

    Thanks John.

  • posted Anonymously, 19/02/2012 9:19 pm in S21 notice given in advance of any problems

    jono 6.30 pm "...You could always save, or advance your career and either move into private accommodation or buy a home. That way you would liberate yourself from your evil social landlord who provides you with a property, maintains it for you and probably does other things to try and improve your local community, all for a rent which probably doesn't cover all its costs or afford the building of new homes."... There you are, you impersonate fully the spirit of evil landlords philosophy (fat salaried executives and directors who have made a good career and good life out of ...

  • From F451, 08/02/2012 9:16 pm in RSL`s and Government Incentives

    Have a look at the related story threads on this site and you will pick up a number of views and arguments.

  • posted Anonymously, 08/02/2012 4:47 pm in Ending an 'Affordable' Tenancy

    AFFORDABLE? Another huge con on those with the least in our society... It is the new face of the Rachman Landlord in our age, enthusiasistically embraced by HAs and social landlords, done with all the care in the world and in the tenant's best interest of course.

  • From Neil Meager, 27/01/2012 1:00 pm in Shapps Speaks - but then what?

    All i see around me is evidence of a society divided up by race age & gender & sexual orientation in fact a more cynical part of me wud say theres a Nazi program being put in place. I see buy to let landlords running nice homes better than government housing but excluding the poor from major cities using the LHA system. RSLs budgets being slashed making their task of providing decent homes impossible & yet tenant empowerment programs being setup which is easy to see will plug the gap & replace RSLs which shud face bankruptucy soon. Homeownership ...