Places change. We recognise that development is necessary – we need to build many more new homes for people to live in. We also rely on the planning system for visitor centres and green energy projects. Benefactors occasionally give us land for investment purposes, and where the local circumstances are right, we sometimes release sites for housing to pay for conservation work.
The current system does need some reform. Councils need more power to tackle climate change, plant trees, restore nature, and increase access to green space and culture in our towns and cities. But we can’t rush into this without careful consideration. What’s proposed is too dismissive of what currently works, and we have concerns about the scale and pace of change.
What should we make of the proposed growth, recovery and protected areas? They shouldn’t lead to concrete deserts with no green spaces, lacking corridors for nature and sustainable travel. Or urban developments that unnecessarily sacrifice historic character. And if they're to work, they'll need genuine public scrutiny along the way, not just at the planning stage.
This new system would rely on a quality of data at a local level that simply doesn’t exist. How will it deal with unrecorded archaeology or the discovery of unexpected species? Where these are discovered, or there is a lack of data, councils should still be able to insist on site specific assessments.