Government accused of misleading Parliament over 'brownfield first abolition'

Published by Ross Macmillan for 24dash.com in Housing and also in Communities, Local Government

The Government has been accused of misleading the public and Parliament over the changes being introduced to planning policy.

Ministers had previously informed Parliament that the plans will retain the approach of 'brownfield first', employed by the previous Labour government to help protect greenfield sites from having housing estates developed on them.

But Labour's Shadow Communities Minister, Jack Dromey, said that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) impact assessment indicates that the approach has been abolished.

More than 1.2 million homes could be built on the number of brownfield sites that exist across the country, he said.

Speaking in a point of order in the House of Commons, Mr Dromey said: "The Government has now made a number of misleading statements about its increasingly chaotic planning reforms.

"Last week, MPs were told by Greg Clark that the last Labour Government's successful 'brownfield first' approach, where previously developed land is prioritised before considering building on greenfield land, had been retained.

"However, the Government's own impact assessment clearly states that the 'brownfield first' approach has been abolished. In addition, Greg Clark has been describing the policy as a 'national ban' when he knows it to be nothing of the kind.

"The Government must come clean about its planning policy and the real impact it will have on communities up and down the country. Thus far the only outcome has been chaos."

Responding to a question in the Commons earlier this month on whether the Government was 'undermining' the 'brownfield first' approach, Greg Clark told MPs: "Paragraph 165 of the framework sets out clearly that land of the least environmental value should be brought forward first. That is another way of saying, brownfield land first."

The Shadow Communities and Local Government, Caroline Flint, has written to her counterpart in Government, Eric Pickles, to request a debate on the NPPF in Parliament.

She wrote: "These reforms represent the biggest overhaul of the our planning system in 60 years and the impact assessment produced by your own Department is clear that the NPPF 'represents a fundamental restructure and review of all planning policy documentation.'

"On an issue of such importance, it would be wrong for Parliament to be denied the opportunity to express its views and scrutinise the final proposals."

Copyright Press Association 2011