Individuals

Section 106 clauses are the only way to build social conditions into the development process, sitting employment and training targets for local labour and diverse groups in society, as well as equality objectives. These cannot be replaced by an Infrastructure levy.

The Lawton Report of 2010 called for “more, bigger, better and joined-up spaces for nature.” A decade later this lack of habitat has still not been addressed. In his letter of September 2020 to the Prime Minister, Professor Sir John Lawson calls for bringing nature to people: “We need a focussed programme of ecological restoration within and surrounding our towns and cities.” This is what we now need to be building. Some of the poorest-designed new settlements are Urban Extensions. These are often driven by large housing targets being imposed on local councils, who attempt to dispatch them with high volume houses on a greenfield site. So imposed housing targets create unwanted consequences. Better to resource initial planning at the landscape scale, involving the Wildlife Trusts, and organisations such as Building for Nature and Transport for New Homes, or the wealth of planning expertise that does exist. It needs to be joined up with transport planning, environmental planning, and agricultural planning - these have to connect, because we can use our landscape to provide simultaneously for both people and nature and agriculture and climate change mitigation, if we plan our land use wisely. Enlightened innovative design with community-creation, place-creation and making space for nature are what it needs to make great places.

It makes sense for Local Authorities to have control of the development of their boroughs and for residents to have a say in the planning applications that affect their areas. It is important that the London Plan and local plans are the policies that local authorities adhere to. The government is giving too much say to developers.

I fully support this charter.

The proposed reforms to the Planning system are the biggest challenge to democracy that are currently being put forward by this government. These reforms are rapidly heading towards even greater autocracy. The aims they are claiming to propound are spurious and meaningless and are purely included to attempt to give good reasons for bad legislation. This will result in a charter for developers to build whatever they wish, wherever they wish, whenever they wish with no thought to true affordable housing, the economy - other than their own, the environment, existing residents, countryside, habitats, pollution, quality of build. The many key workers of cities, towns and villages will still not be able to afford to buy their own home or be able to afford the uncontrolled rents since the deregulation of the Housing Associations that at being run for profit by large 'friendly to this government' overseas, and a few home grown conglomerates, to provide unregulated sub standard accommodation for vast profit - some at the expense of the tax payer - that will become the slums of today and tomorrow. A fine legacy for this government with purely self interest and 'party donations' at the heart of these reforms.

The new planning proposals will be a developers charter. The planning regulations as they stand can and are being manipulated to disempower at a neighbourhood level. The GMSF has been used by Rochdale council to bulldoze through proposals which have nothing to do with the principles of the GMSF but everything to do with increasing council tax and new homes bonus take by building on precious and protected green belt land. This is evident in the wholesale loss of green belt which is protected for a purpose, such areas are the lungs of the borough for all and once gone are gone forever. It is not necessary when so much brown field is available. Nowhere is the financial motive mentioned in any of the GMSF papers for any of the green belt site proposals. This is typical of the smoke and mirrors which characterises the whole process, the GMSF is a huge exercise in deception and misinformation with regard to the potential green belt loss. The lack of transparency and authoritarian imposition of decisions undemocratically decided will only get worse with the new bill.