A dictionary of (planning) doublespeak

A Dictionary of Doublespeak

accountability:
failure to account to and utter contempt for the public

affordable:
not affordable, beyond the reach of lower-income local people; of property snapped up by rental companies and second-home buyers

A.O.N.B.:
an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore a place where luxury homes or industrial parks may be built (e.g. Shakespeare Cliff, Sidfields)

appeal:
a planning law allowing developers to overturn Local Authority planning refusals, Councils usually lacking the will and means to contest

Council House(obs):
a misguided post-war attempt to provide housing for social need; property to be sold off to landlords and to buy votes

democracy:
rule by the fortunate few for the fortunate few

devolution”
a scheme designed to by-pass local democracy by transferring power to self- selecting, unelected, unaccountable people with business interests

five-year land-supply:
a planning device that encourages developers to build on more green fields when they haven’t yet built on what they’ve got

flood plain:
land suitable for large-scale building developments

F.O.I.request:
Freedom of Information request – a system designed to delay, deny and obfuscate the truth, usually treated with contempt by Council Officers

green belt:
highly profitable land near large conurbations earmarked for development

Local Authority:
a soft touch for developers

localism:
a means of transferring local democracy to business associates

Local Plan:
an unintelligible, complicated process involving creative accounting in the calculation of job and housing forecasts, designed to ruin the countryside and cause distress to local communities

Neighbourhood Plan:
a plan involving much time and effort expended by local communities but carrying little or no weight when challenged by developers

N.P.P.F.(obscene):
National Planning Policy Framework, a planning system designed by developers for developers

Ombudsman:
an arbitrator without teeth, an irrelevance or charade

one-nation:
serving the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor and disabled (as in “one-nation compassionate Conservatism”)

Right-to-Buy:
a government scheme offering lucrative investment opportunities for landlords and developers to acquire social housing at taxpayers’ expense

sustainable:
definitely not sustainable; without infrastructure or local services; of land profitable for developers, especially on green fields (obscene, as in a presumption in favour of sustainable development)

transparency:
secrecy and obfuscation e.g. failure to produce, or doctoring of, minutes, failure to consult the public, etc

and if this amuses you, “definitions of numpties” on twitter might appeal:

https://mobile.twitter.com/omandprem/status/688698563690385408/photo/1

Government Petition: Give parish councils the right to appeal planning decisions.

“The planning system is unfair. It is one of the few decision-making processes that gives no right of appeal to affected third parties. The government should introduce a limited third-party right of appeal by giving parish councils a right to appeal planning decisions to the Planning Inspectorate.”

Sign here:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110489

If it reaches more than 100,000 signatures it must be debated in Parliament.

Council officers, don’t you just love ’em … not in Torridge

“A DEBATE on a planning decision which “diminished the democratic process” had councillors questioning the constitution process and delegated powers given to planning officers.

Councillor Sam Robinson put forward a notice of motion in last Monday’s full Torridge District Council (Feb 7) meeting, to have the monitoring officer re-assess their constitution and develop a protocol that will overcome what he believes “is the present lacuna and democratic deficit”.

Mr Robinson told a packed town hall the catalyst was a planning application refused by the plans committee on a five-two vote.

The application, by Turley, for up to 200 homes in Heywood Road, Northam, was refused – then an appeal was lodged but planning officers said they would not be defending the appeal.

http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/Torridge-District-Council-questions-powers-given/story-28742789-detail/story.html

Judge overturns Planning Inspector’s decision challenged by council – on grounds of landcape quality and sustainability

“A district council has won a High Court appeal after an inspector granted a developer planning permission for 85 dwellings and associated works, in a key ruling on the operation of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In August last year Gladman Developments won permission on appeal for the scheme on land north of Ross Road in Newent.

Forest of Dean District Council, which had in February 2015 refused permission, appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

In its challenge to the inspector’s decision the local authority advanced four grounds of appeal. They were that the inspector:

Failed to consider and give reasons as to whether the site was a ‘valued landscape’;


Incorrectly applied the NPPF at paragraph 134 and the test on harm to heritage assets;

Failed to consider the interaction between paragraph 134 and paragraph 14 [the presumption in favour of sustainable development] of the NPPF and therefore applying the wrong test;


Gave inadequate reasoning.


The Communities Secretary accepted that Ground 3 had been made out and joined Forest of Dean in asking the judge, Mr Justice Coulson, to quash the decision.

Gladman Developments did not accept Ground 3.

In Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 421 (Admin), Mr Justice Coulson ruled that Forest of Dean’s application on Ground 3 had been successful.
The judge also concluded that it could not be said that, if the inspector had applied the right test, he would necessarily have reached the same answer.

Mr Justice Coulson therefore allowed the application to quash.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26204:judge-quashes-planning-permission-for-85-home-scheme-after-appeal-by-council&catid=63&Itemid=31

Time to put an end to retrospective planning applications?

East Devon District Council deals with a large number of retrospective planning applications – sites that were started without planning permission. If these sites remain undetected for long enough, sometimes a local authority is powerless to refuse permission.

One major area where retrospective planning applications has been relatively common is at Greendale Business Park, for example, where the speed of development appears to have outstripped the speed of obtaining the relevant permission at the proper time. And at Pooh Cottage (see previous posts)

What excuse is there for this? One can understand, say, a single householder not realising that they need permission for a new window opening or a new drive. But can one really excuse hard-nosed businessmen and women who know the score but don’t quite manage to keep to the rules, even with the best architects and “consultants” available to them?

Once there is a Local Plan, surely there is no excuse for this. A development is either in it or it is not.

In the case of illegal developments commenced BEFORE the Local Plan came into existence, people could be given six months to “come clean” and have their cases decided.

AFTER the Local Plan has been adopted and after the six month period of grace has elapsed the ability to put in retrospective planning applications should totally cease. The consequence of starting work BEFORE planning permission had been granted should automatically be that the building(s) be demolished within three months at the applicants expense. No ifs, no buts, NO fines – they would almost certainly be disproportionate and developers would happily pay up to circumvent the Local Plan – with planning lawyers getting rich on case law.

With a Local Plan there is no case for retrospective planning applications.

Retrospective planning applications

Cottage left off developer’s plans to be surrounded by 700 houses: council suggests developers phone cottage owners to tell them

THE PROBLEM

“A couple have been left horrified after they discovered their dream farm cottage is set to be surrounded by a modern 700 house estate.
Cheryle Walton, 56, and her partner Paul Jones, 50, were completely unaware of plans to build the mini town – insisting that at no point were they consulted.

It was only when they were speaking with passer-by who mentioned the development that they found out that the 507,500 square metre estate in Chippenham, Wiltshire, is set to completely encompass their detached cottage, which currently sits in miles of green fields.

The devastated couple’s house – estimated to now be worth £500,000 – doesn’t even appear on the submitted aerial drawings of the proposed new estate – despite being right in the middle. …

… If it goes ahead, they will be totally swallowed by the estate, joining up their currently rural home with the rest of the town. The plans propose erecting 700 homes on the 50 hectares site to the north east of Chippenham. It also includes 4.5 hectares of ’employment space’, 10 hectares of public open space, cycle paths, ‘retirement living’, a primary school and a nursery. …”

THE COUNCIL’S SOLUTION

A spokesman for Wiltshire Council added: ‘The developers carried out public consultation events on these planning proposals and should have ensured all residents were told.

‘We understand from Miss Walton that she was not informed and was only made aware when she received a letter from us in January stating a planning application has been submitted by the developers.

‘We’ve suggested the developers call Miss Walton to explain what they are planning to do and why she was not involved earlier in the public consultation events.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3463832/Couple-discovered-300-000-dream-cottage-soon-surrounded-700-home-estate-hearing-neighbour-walked-dogs.html

Consultation – you’re having a laugh, surely?

Just one paragraph from the consultation document below in a section on “planning in principle”:

“2.35 Before an application for technical details consent is determined, we do not propose to require by secondary legislation that local planning authorities consult with the community and others before making a decision.

We would welcome views about giving local planning authorities the option to carry out further consultation with such interested persons as they consider appropriate. This would be based on their judgement and would be informed by the engagement that took place when permission in principle was granted.

While we think that it is important for appropriate further engagement to take place at the technical details consent stage, we consider that centrally mandating what should be done risks unnecessarily repeating engagement and takes away an important local flexibility. We do propose that it should be mandatory for applicants to notify landowners and agricultural tenants of the application (as is currently the case with a planning application).”

Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf

Yet another battle to fight: more, many more, sneaky changes to planning

The devil is in the detail here – so many “minor” changes, never seen before – all gearing up to give our LEP total control of the planning system:

“This consultation seeks views on the proposed approach to implementing the planning provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill, and some other planning measures. It covers the following areas:

Changes to planning application fees
 Permission in principle
 Brownfield register
 Small sites register
 Neighbourhood planning
 Local plans
 Expanding the planning performance regime
 Testing competition in the processing of planning applications
 Information about financial benefits
 Section 106 dispute resolution
 Permitted development rights for state-funded schools
 Changes to statutory consultation on planning applications”

Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf

WE HAVE UNTIL 15 APRIL 2016 TO RESPOND

Choose your planning application processor: a recipe for corruption?

“Councils to compete to process planning applications under new proposals
Councils will compete to process planning applications and offer fast-track application services under new government proposals set out today.

The proposals will allow the government to pilot a scheme in a number of areas where planning applications can be made either to the local authority or to another ‘approved provider’.

Councils would also be able to offer a fast-track application service similar to a fast-track passport application, either through competition pilots or devolution deals.

Communities secretary Greg Clark MP said: “Council planning departments play a vital role in getting local housebuilding off the ground, but for too long they have had no incentive to get things done quickly or better, resulting in drawn out applications and local frustration.”

Other proposals include increasing planning fees by a proportionate amount which is linked to inflation and performance, separating decision-making on ‘in principle’ issues such as location from technical issues, and increasing rights to support the development of free schools.

The proposals, which relate to the Housing and Planning Bill, are open for consultation until 15 April.”

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/councils-to-compete-to-process-planning-applications-under-new-proposals?utm_source=Public%20Sector%20Executive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6791173_PSE%20Bulletin%20Feb%2016%20wk%203&dm_i=IJU,41K3P,KSFJZ3,EMN6J,1

Owl can imagine planning consultants jockeying for the business – but “they won’t come cheap”.

District council wins appeal at Planning court which overules Inspector’s decision

“A district council has won a Planning Court appeal after an inspector granted outline permission for a 103-dwelling development.

Wealden District Council had refused to grant Knight Developments permission for the site at Steel Cross, north of Crowborough in East Sussex.

However on 16 July 2015 a planning inspector upheld the company’s appeal.
The council then applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for that decision to be quashed.

In Wealden District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 247 (Admin) the council advanced three grounds in the Planning Court. These related to:

i) Nitrogen deposition (through the additional traffic generated). The Inspector had erred in law when concluding that the proposals would have no significant effect on the Ashdown Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), pursuant to section 61 of the Habitats Regulations, in particular:

a) in finding that contributions to SAMMS (Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy) would mitigate any such effect; or

b) by failing to have regard to evidence that proposed contributions to heathland management could not effectively mitigate any such effect.

ii) NPPF 116 & alternative sites. The Inspector had erred in his consideration of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 116 when concluding that there were no alternative sites to meet the need for the proposed development, by failing to take into account relevant evidence or acting unreasonably.

iii) Inadequate reasons. The Inspector’s reasons for his findings on grounds (i) and (ii) above had fallen below the required standard.

Both defendants – the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Knight Developments – submitted that the inspector’s decision did not disclose any error of law.” …

For remainder of summary see:
http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26035:district-council-wins-planning-court-appeal-over-permission-for-103-dwelling-scheme&catid=63&Itemid=31

Is the Local Government Ombudsman fit-for-purpose?

“LGO Watch is far from the work of a few disgruntled complainants, even the LGO’s own customer satisfaction survey revealed that a whopping 73% of complainants were dissatisfied by the outcome of their individual cases. Since its founding in 2003, the Watch has amassed a legion of supporters nationwide, and a similar Scottish watch has since been set up to target the corruption in local government north of the border.

With less than 2% of submitted complaints declared by the LGO as maladministration, there is a certain weight to the claims that the tax-funded service is not wholly committed to securing justice for the public.

One reason the LGO Watch provides to explain allegations of pro-council bias within the office is the alarming fact that all three current LGOs were themselves previously chief executives of local authorities. In fact evidence shows that many of the LGO’s investigators previously worked in local government.

If you took a damning complaint about the local police force to an independent, publicly-funded investigation and adjudication group, would it be fair to have a former chief of that same organisation handle your case? …”

http://www.complaintexpert.co.uk/can-we-trust-ombudsman-with-our-complaints.html

Greenwich insists that all developers publish their (non) affordable housing data

All planning applications in Greenwich must now include full details and cost calculations of calculations relating to affordable housing (or lack of it) in their initial planning applications.

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/council-bans-developers-from-keeping-their-affordable-housing-viability-studies-confidential?utm_source=Public%20Sector%20Executive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6740360_PSE%20Bulletin%20Feb%2016%20wk%201&dm_i=IJU,40GW8,KSFJZ3,EI3XE,1

Daily Telegraph: “Developers can circumvent planning departments that take too long to clear approvals”

Sneaked in hurriedly just before Christmas, changes to planning rules means that developers will be able to go to private planning consultants of their choice rather than to local authority planning departments – a backdoor privatisation of the planning function.

Inevitably, private consultants will have worked closely with developers in the past.

This is potentially the biggest change to planning law for decades and is being introduced with no consultation and the minimum of debate.

It creates a loophole where, if a planning application is controversial, a local authority can deliberately drag its heels, see the application passed to a private consultant of the developer’s choosing and be approved. The local authority can then throw up its hands and say “Sorry, not our fault” when it patently is.

Current local authority planners will be seduced by initial high salaries offered by private consultants, leaving planning departments unable to function and with private consultants holding the balance of power.

Here is how today’s Daily Telegraph reports yesterday’s “debate” on something already agreed behind closed doors.

What a Christmas present for developers!

“Developers will be able to circumvent planning departments that take too long to process applications.

Housing minister Brandon Lewis told MPs the Government wants to pilot schemes which allow people to choose who processes their planning applications to speed up the process.

However, they were warned that allowing people to “shop around” by outsourcing planning applications risk undermining council planning departments.

He said this would “test the benefits of introducing competition” while local authorities will still make decisions on the applications.

But Labour’s Helen Hayes, a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee, warned the policy is “potentially very damaging” as it “weakens the accountability” of local authority planning services.

Speaking during report stage of the Housing and Planning Bill, Mr Lewis explained the new regulations would allow the communities secretary to decide who is able to offer their services to process planning applications.
He said: “Let me be very clear this evening with the House – this is about competition for the processing of applications, not the determination of applications.

“The democratic determination of planning applications by local planning authorities is a fundamental pillar of the planning system and will remain the case during any pilot schemes the secretary of state brings forward.
“Let me also be clear with the House that new clause 43 will require that any pilot schemes brought forward by the secretary of state will be for a limited period of time, specified in the regulations.”

Further proposals also outline how fees will be developed and allow the communities secretary to intervene if fees are judged “excessive”, MPs heard.

Mr Lewis said: “These new clauses will allow us to test in specific areas of the country and for a limited period of time the benefits of allowing planning applicants to choose who processes their applications.

“It’ll lead to a more efficient and effective planning system, better able to secure the development of homes and other facilities that our communities need and want.

“Introducing choice to the applicant enables them to shop around for services that best meet their needs and enable innovation in service provision, bringing new resources into the planning system and driving down costs while improving performance.”

But Ms Hayes, the MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, said: “New clause 43 introduces the outsourcing of planning applications. This clause is potentially very damaging.

“It weakens the accountability of local planning services and it removes with one hand the fees which the Government is enabling local authorities to raise with another.

“Fundamentally, it’s a solution to a symptom of the problem of the disproportionate effect of local government cuts on planning departments.
“This is a symptom which we alleviated by the proper resourcing, which a system of new planning fees will facilitate.

“So I urge the Government to rethink this proposal, which simply undermines local planning departments.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/12084354/Developers-can-circumvent-planning-departments-that-take-too-long-to-clear-approvals.html

More changes to planning policies: will they ever get it right?

10 things you need to know about this week’s consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including proposals to amend the planning policy definition of affordable housing, plans to require higher density development around commuter hubs, and a new presumption in favour of brownfield housing development.

1. Sanctions for under-delivering on housing targets mooted
Local planning authorities that fail to deliver the homes set out in their local plans could be required to identify ‘additional sustainable sites’, which could include new settlements, according to the consultation. It sets out further details on the operation of the housing delivery test announced in last month’s Spending Review. It says that the government proposes to amend planning policy to make clear that where significant under-delivery is identified over a sustained period, action needs to be taken to address this. “One approach could be to identify additional sustainable sites if the existing approach is demonstrably not delivering the housing required,” the consultation says. MORE.

2. Affordable housing definition broadened
The government proposes to amend the national planning policy definition of affordable housing “so that it encompasses a fuller range of products that can support people to access home ownership. We propose that the definition will continue to include a range of affordable products for rent and for ownership for households whose needs are not met by the market, but without being unnecessarily constrained by the parameters of products that have been used in the past which risk stifling innovation”. MORE.

3. Councils told to plan for needs of those who aspire to home ownership
The consultation says that the government proposes to make clearer in policy the requirement to plan for the housing needs of “those who aspire to home ownership alongside those whose needs are best met through rented homes, subject as now to the overall viability of individual sites”.

4. Push for higher densities around commuter hubs
The consultation proposes a change to national planning policy “that would expect local planning authorities, in both plan-making and in taking planning decisions, to require higher density development around commuter hubs wherever feasible”.

5. Fresh policy backing for new settlements
The government proposes to strengthen national planning policy to “provide a more supportive approach for new settlements, within locally-led plans. We consider that local planning authorities should take a proactive approach to planning for new settlements where they can meet the sustainable development objectives of national policy, including taking account of the need to provide an adequate supply of new homes”.

6. A presumption in favour of brownfield housing development
The consultation says that the government will “make clearer in national policy that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of using brownfield land for housing (in effective, a form of ‘presumption’ in favour of brownfield land). We propose to make it clear that development proposals for housing on brownfield sites should be supported, unless overriding conflicts with the local plan or the National Planning Policy Framework can be demonstrated and cannot be mitigated”. MORE.

7. Call for release of unviable employment land
The government intends to amend paragraph 22 of the NPPF “to make clear that unviable or underused employment land should be released unless there is significant and compelling evidence to justify why such land should be retained for employment use”.

8. Scope of Starter Homes initiative widened further
The scope of the current exception site policy for Starter Homes could be widened to incorporate other forms of unviable or underused brownfield land, “such as land which was previously in use for retail, leisure and non-residential institutional uses (such as former health and educational sites)”, according to the consultation document.

9. Neighbourhood planners to identify green belt Starter Home sites
The government proposes to amend national planning policy so that neighbourhood plans can allocate appropriate small-scale sites in the green belt specifically for Starter Homes, with neighbourhood areas having the discretion to determine the scope of a small-scale site.

10. Green belt brownfield policy test faces revision
The consultation says that the government proposes to amend the current policy test in paragraph 89 of the NPPF that prevents development of brownfield land where there is any additional impact on the openness of the green belt to “give more flexibility and enable suitable, sensitively designed redevelopment to come forward”

The consultation closes on 25 January 2016.

Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy is available here.

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1376060/nppf-consultation-10-things-need-know

Wilmslow allows developers to accelerate planning permission

“This premium ‘fast-track’ service will be for significant, major planning applications – from initial inquiry to submission for planning decision – and is designed to cut through unnecessary delays.

The aim of this paid-for service will be to ensure major investment and job creation in Cheshire East does not suffer unnecessary delays and to generate a revenue stream for the Council which will enable additional resources to be brought in to deal with the large number of major applications submitted to Cheshire East.”

http://www.wilmslow.co.uk/news/article/12652/council-launches-paid-for-fast-track-planning-service

Developer? Planning permission? No worries!

From Community Voice on Planning:

“We have just been notified that Persimmon have been advertising a site in Kingswood without submitting a planning application, while this might not be illegal it is definitely immoral see the link below:


http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/13834515.Developers_slammed_by_Kingswood_residents_after_promoting__quot_homes_for_sale_quot__on_their_website_before_submitting_a_planning_application/?ref=erec

We believe that this may not be an isolated incident and would advise you to check all developer websites for advertising about your area. If you find anything please let us know but also contact the advertising standards and complain.”

Julie

Community Voice on Planning

Judge quashes Wiltshire planning application due to councillor bias

“Irwin Mitchell solicitor Alex Peebles, who acted for the claimant, said: ““The quashing of planning permission for these homes is a fantastic result for those members of the community who feel very strongly that the area would have been negatively impacted by their construction. They want to protect the site of special scientific interest and the local listed buildings.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24685:high-court-judge-quashes-planning-permission-over-appearance-of-bias&catid=63&Itemid=31

What is EDDC’s “Members Advisory Panel”? We had to go to Torbay to find out!

Reference is made in the post on Exmouth below to a “Members Advisory Panel”. Efforts to find this on East Devon District Council’s website came to nought, but Owl didn’t stop there – Owl traced a copy to Torbay Council’s website where it appears it may have been used as an illustrative document.

The whole 4 page document is actually titled “EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICE – PRE APPLICATION ADVICE
CUSTOMER CHARTER” and gives very helpful advice to developers (the customers, of course) about how much help the council can give them (and charge for in some cases).

Page 4 gives details of how helpful the “Members advisory Panel” can be. Here is what they say:

“The Council also offers a Members Advisory Panel for major applications. This is a group of senior officers and Councillors and other interested parties who can listen to a presentation from the agent and then through its officers respond in writing. The Council has a protocol for dealing with requests from agents to put a proposal before the MAP. Officers can advise if a particular scheme warrants a submission to the MAP.

The Member’s Planning Advisory Group is comprised of:-

The Chairman of the Development Management Committee.
The Chairman of a possible Policy sub-committee or Policy Champion.
Strategic Planning Portfolio Holder.
Environment Portfolio Holder.
Economy Portfolio Holder – as appropriate
Communities Portfolio Holder as appropriate.
Ward Members.

The system for running this group would be as follows:

(i) Developers to make presentation to Member’s Planning Advisory Group with Officers present.

(ii) Members to have previously acquainted themselves with the site in question by a site visit with Officers.

(iii) Members to ask questions of the Developers, seek clarification, test arguments but not to give any form of view in support or against the proposals.

(iv) Advice on the way forward or changes to be made to the proposal would be provided by the Officers to the Developers in writing following advice from Members in a debate once the developers have left the meeting.

(v) Any Member of the Planning Advisory Group who has a personal or prejudicial interesting the proposal should not form part of the group for that particular site.


E Freeman Development Manager January 2011

Click to access Generating%20Income%20from%20Planning%20Pre-Application%20Advice%20final%20App2.pdf

Seems like a good time for some Freedom of Information requests here – perhaps going back several years …..

Osborne to cut planning rules yet again

“… Mr Osborne will today ‘sweep away’ planning rules on so-called ‘brownfield’ sites that have been developed before. A source said ripping up the rules would ‘increase the supply of homes for sale’.

The Chancellor will also announce an extra £5 billion for infrastructure spending from the proceeds of government asset sales. Mr Osborne is privately furious with the attitude of some local authorities who have frustrated progress on major infrastructure projects for years. Critics point to the example of Heathrow’s Terminal 5 which took almost 20 years to get off the drawing board.

He will tell activists: ‘Where would Britain be if we had never built railways or runways, power stations or new homes? Where will we be in the future if we stop building them now? …

… “The move will revive grassroots Tory fears that the Chancellor is plotting a fresh assault on the planning system, just three years after a bitter battle with the National Trust and other campaigners. The new National Planning Policy Framework was meant to be the final word on reform when it was introduced in 2012, but ministers have been dismayed by continuing delays in the system.

The Chancellor has said previously that Britain’s Green Belt will be protected in the push for new housing and infrastructure.

But new figures revealed last week that almost 5,000 acres of Green Belt land were lost to the bulldozer last year – the largest amount for five years. The Campaign to Protect Rural England described the figures as ‘the tip of the iceberg’.

In a separate warning, the National Trust said much of the country’s most beautiful scenery was threatened by inappropriate development, as planning rules were not being applied properly.” …

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3259937/Let-s-start-building-says-Osborne-Chancellor-vows-axe-planning-rules-drive-one-million-new-homes.html