Planning system as a driver of economic growth? You don't really believe that do you?

****
It seems that "rural campaigners" are worried that the National Planning Policy Framework will be used to "drive economic growth" rather than protecting the environment:

Ministers must recognise the planning system’s vital role in protecting and improving the environment rather than just as a tool to drive economic growth, rural campaigners have warned ahead of a key Government announcement.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) natural environment white paper, due out early next week, must deliver for the whole natural environment, not just wildlife. 

The CPRE don't really think that the planning system - our biggest market distortion and barrier to business development - is there to promote economic growth do they?

....

In which the CPRE loses the plot....

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) used to be a pretty conservative organisation - it understood the rhythm of England better than more urban, 'in-your-face' environmental organisations and did much good as a result. However, it appears to have succumbed to an unholy alliance of BANANAs* and eco-loons:

"Many councils are currently facing hard financial choices.  In these circumstances it will be very tempting to seek to fill shrinking coffers by permitting any development, regardless of its environmental impact. But decisions based solely on money, rather than on whether proposed development is appropriate and sustainable, could be hugely damaging.  It could also undermine the fundamental principle that planning decisions should be taken in the public interest, taking account of land use consequences.”

Not only does this argument completely miss the point - planning committees and the local councillors that serve on them simply aren't going to "permit any development" - not and get re-elected. It beats me quite what the CPRE is after here - their press release reads like a NIMBY manifesto:

Rather than focusing on delivering housing numbers alone, the Government should also be emphasising the need for well designed and appropriately located new homes in high quality, thriving neighbourhoods.

Firstly - as anyone who has been listening to the government on housing will know - the main drivers of 'housing numbers', the Regional Spatial Strategies (which for some unknown reason CPRE supported) have been scrapped. However, the ability to develop is being pushed right the way down to local communities themselves - rural places with housing need included. What CPRE seems to want is for directed planning - the system that has failed to meet housing need and especially the housing needs of poorer people in rural areas.

In Cullingworth - which isn't exactly the deepest of deep rural areas - I spend much time seeking to bend the daft planning rules beloved of CPRE and its NIMBY supporters so as to allow small scale, sensitive housing development. And a small incentive for seeing housing developed will go a long way to getting these sorts of development underway. What won't happen is that large estates will get built on green field sites simply because there's a cash incentive. If these developments take place, it will be in the face of local opposition from residents and the Councillors they elect.

....

*BANANA - 'build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone'

....

Local food - yes please. Agricultural protection - No thanks

***

P. J. O’Rourke in his attempt to explain the US Government, “Parliament of Whores”, took a look at agricultural policy. This was his conclusion:

“I spent two and a half years examining the American political process. All that time I was looking for a straightforward issue. But everything I investigated – election campaigns, the budget, lawmaking, the court system, bureaucracy, social policy – turned out to be more complicated than I had thought. There were always angles I hadn’t considered, aspects I hadn’t weighed, complexities I’d never dreamed of. Until I got to agriculture. Here at last is a simple problem with a simple solution. Drag the omnibus farm bill behind the barn, and kill it with an ax.”

We’re no better over here. In fact we’re worse. We’ve created a pseudo-moral stance to justify tariffs, import quotas, intervention prices and all the panoply of agricultural protection. A parallel “rural development” industry that talks of local food, area protection, origin protection, sustainable this, and low carbon the other. And this industry cuddles up to those of us who like good, fresh produce and pretend that the only way we (middle class foodies) can get this lovely local produce is to support anti-trade, anti-business measures that destroy value and jobs.

I’m no fan of supermarkets – that privileged bunch of businesses enjoying the largess of a lenient property tax system. And I think we should do more for town centres – like having free parking and lower business rates, for example. But I do not believe that extending the inefficient protectionist measures of the Common Agriculture Policy or having a further raft of protections for food processes will do anything to improve access to local food.

So no I don't want national "food security" strategies, bans on air freight, restrictions of lorry movements or all the various protectionist measures dreamed up by the "rural development" industry. I just want good fresh produce - and will have it because I'm prepared to pay more for it. Simples.

I’m with PJ on this – agricultural protection serves farmers poorly, provides no real security, is corrupt and leads to expensive food. Kill it. And while we’re about this we can kill the “rural development” industry too.

...