Motion slams ‘philistine’ National Planning Policy

Daily Mail – oh I wish he would stop using the figure of 1 million and a half brownfield sites – they have been told again and again and again that he is misquoting and misreading the NLUD data, it is pdl suitable for 1 1/2 homes – it is only a few thousand sites – and not all of those will be viable however you define viability.  If he desont understand teh difference between a site and a home he will simply be ridiculed by the HBF and rightly so.

William Wordsworth would be ‘having fits’ about the development planned for the countryside, former Poet Laureate Sir Andrew Motion has said.

Now president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, he made the claim as he criticised the  Government’s ‘philistine’ relaxation of planning laws in favour of builders.

He said: ‘It is pretty clear that Wordsworth would be having a series of fits about what is going on now and the great tragedy of it is that a lot of this stuff doesn’t need to happen.

‘There are a million-and-a-half brownfield sites available – build on them. The Government should be incentivising builders to build on them which provides the kind of housing that we need.

‘It regenerates often rather decayed landscapes, it means we don’t have to create new infrastructure. It is plain good sense.

‘We need to be extraordinarily vigilant about this because when it is gone, it is gone forever.’

Wordsworth immortalised the Lake District with his 1807 poem Daffodils.

Sir Andrew also referred to Philip Larkin’s 1972 poem Going, Going in which he wrote of his concern ‘that will be England gone’ because of shoddy development.

The former Poet Laureate blamed the National Planning Policy Framework of 2012, which aimed to cut red tape, saying it was the work of ‘philistine’ Whitehall officials.

 Sir Andrew told the Daily Telegraph: ‘I feel in my lifetime there is a greater risk to our countryside because of these careless loosenings of things which need to be very properly defended.

‘It is philistine but worse because it is so unnecessary. It is a betrayal of the heritage, it is the pursuit of money and development.’

He also criticised councils for approving ugly ‘boxlike’ homes.


4 thoughts on “Motion slams ‘philistine’ National Planning Policy

  1. He clearly means sites, or plots, for 1.5 m homes, a much more understandable and measurable concept than the developers’ one of a site with many plots within it.

  2. Too right he and others do not know what a greenfield, brownfield, greenbelt or countryside site is.

    They keep banging on about not building on greenbelt land but over most of the country the alternative is building in the countryside on greenfield sites, that in my opinion is worse than building on a lot of the greenbelt as a lott of the greenbelt is poor quality and adjacent to present hoiusing and jobs>
    All the building in the countryside in our local district of Selby has increased commuting to over 65% into Leeds, Wakefield and York that lie within the greenbelt. If a lot of that housing had been constructed within the greenbelt the travel to work time and distance would have been much less, and so would the pollution and fuel use!

  3. Agree on the hopeless confusion of Green Belt and greenfield – but Motion did not do that in this extract. As for ‘units’, he’s a poet, not a developer or planner, and it is for the latter groups to demystify their language rather than to ask the rest of us to learn techno-speak

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s