I agree with everything Fiona Reynolds has written and do not agree with the proposed Government changes. In my own small village of Winchelsea a small bungalow, which would have been ideal for a first time buyer, has been sold and a huge house with double garage has been built on the site, completely out of scale and character with the surrounding countryside. Another huge house has just been built, again completely out of character with its surroundings and immediately has gone up for sale at over £600,500 - hardly affordable housing which the Government is so keen to provide. What was the Planning Department at Rother Distrct Council thinking of - and these proposed new changes by the Govenrment will make it even worse

Rother District Council, like many if not all planning authorities, have always been quick to allow development of "mansions". If the new so called reforms go ahed unchecked the Developers and supermarket chains will not be happy until the whole country is covered in concrete

The National Trust has my full support in it's aim to fight again the relaxation of the Government's proposed changes to the present planning laws/regulations. Urban sprawl of into the green belts is not a good idea.

Having recently visited the Potteries, and seen acres of derelict land -- +large ares of boarded up terraced housing and closed
factories, i suggest that the Governments does a proper study of ALL of our old industrial towns and cities first ... with a view to putting these areas into the 21st century. The present condition of derelicion is a national disgrace!

There is plenty of land.A mixture of Luxury flats and other apartments--as along the Thames could be the answer to the housing shortage could be considered. Let's revive our old cities and towns first

Jan Newbert.

We fully support the Trust's objections to the current proposals which should be modified by negotiation to ensure protection of the countryside.No doubt the number of pages of the planning rules can be reduced without jeopardising this objective.
A comparison of maps of the 1930's with current editions shows the enormous increase in development in this country. The control of mass immigration would help to relieve the pressure on housing
Short term economic problems should not be justification of permanent damage to the countryside and nor should the amount of money donated to the party(ies) in power influence the issue.

I absolutely support the Trust's objections to the new planning proposals.

The economy has always had its ups and downs but to try to boost the economy at the expense of our precious countryside would be short-sighted in the extreme. Once something has been destroyed it is impossible to re-instate it.

I am surprised that a Conservative government which, traditionally has protected the countryside and our wonderful heritage as taken this line.

Susan Basu

We completely agree with the Trust's views on the Government proposed changes to the planning system. Too much power being placed into the hands of developers is a remedy for disaster. The Trust works for the nation and the places of interest and hitoric houses are safe in their hands. The government should stop and think again.
Perhaps the Government should consider outloading the hudreds of thousands of illegal immigrants; this would surely free-up a vast number of accommodation units.

I am 100% with the National Trust on this matter and I hope they will continue to press the Government to abandon the proposals.

We completely agree with the Trust's views on the Government proposed changes to the planning system. Too much power being placed into the hands of developers is a remedy for disaster. The Trust works for the nation and the places of interestand historic houses are safe in their hands. The government should stop and think again.
Perhaps the Government should consider outloading the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants; this would surely free-up a vast number of accommodation units.

To fail to oppose this retrograde proposed legislation would be to negate the efforts and success of those who fought so hard in the past to preserve what we have of our natural countryside. Arthur Humphreys.

We agree with the Trust's views on the proposed changes to the planning system. I also feel that the Trust should make it clear to the members which MP's are supporting these changes.
With 3.8 million members, the Trust should name these MP's
as nothing concentrate the mind of an MP more than the possible loss of their seat at the next election.
Why is it we can give billions in aid to other countries while proposing to destory our country side to boost the economy.

I belong to our local Residents Association and over the past few years we have managed to deter property developers from taking the option to purchase a house and part adjacent gardens to build up to six four bedroom houses in the proposed area.

There had been no consideration for the infrastructure with regard to an already congested area.

Reluctantly the local planning authority rejected the applications only after organised protests from us,however,
it now seems that things were merely put on hold and we understand that there are new moves by the developers to make fresh applications.

We await further developments with unease regarding the proposed Government changes to planning regulations.

urban electorate is not connected to food production and stewardship of the countryside. they would unwittingly destroy what they value.
brown sites in towns and cities should be prioritised for new residential.
housing should be in blocks 4 or 5 etage, with efficient shared heating, laundry and childs play room. sprawl developers should not dictate residential strategy.

An extremely good and strong article. We must be green and manage planning and think of future generations and not be ashamed of our legacy. There are ample empty sites through out the country eg Biggn Hill airport, where development can take place and what about the land banks that developers are currently holding?
The countryside must be used, shared and protected - we only get one chance.

Don't ruin our countryside. What is happening to England's green and pleasant land? Apart from us, who else can live on concrete?

Every neighbourhood has more than one 'Brownfield site'. What could be more challenging to developers and be a plus for economic growth, getting skills employed from architects to brick layers, to build again on an abandoned plot - large or small. Could be the infrastructure is still there. Everyone could take a lesser profit - even the taxpayer contributing less to the unemployed. Non-cooperative landlords could be exposed. We may not need to spoil the countryside from Day-One.
Local councils should lead the way by building once again council houses to rent which encourages the mobility of labour and discourages mortgage debt. Maisonettes could be brought back, rather than high-rise flats or houses, on the smaller plots.

Brownfield sites should not need the long process of planning applications - often just putting back what was there before eg dwellings, shops,, roads, footpaths etc.

I support this campaign as I think brownfield sites should be developed first and then we could look again at the housing needs of our country. I do however believe that where there is a defined need for affordable housing in the countryside to allow young people to continue family work in rural jobs ie farming, planning permission should be given with condition that the applicant live and work from that house for a specified number of years and that the house should remain in perpetuity for local people.
Furthermore I think that the purchase of second homes in a rural area should be made more difficult but I do not know how!!!

As a retired English Heritage Historic Buildings Architect I would like to make the following observations. Like a number of well intentioned but poorly thought through government proposals, the National Policy Planning Framework, in trying to speed up the planning system is going to do untold damage to the townscape and landscape of this country. To offload a greater responsibility for planning decisions on local authorities, many of which have no plans in place to cope with this change and who often lack staff with the necessary skills and vision to be trusted with such important matters is a serious mistake which will shortly be regretted, and put the present government into serious disrepute for a very long time. The likely damage the NPPF will cause cannot be reversed and the evidence will be in place to condemn the authors of this misguided legislation. I could not vote for a political party which exhibits such lack of careful forethought. To have aroused the wrath of the non political National Trust to oppose these proposals should be taken as a warning, very seriously.

There must be better ways of promoting economic growth than giving property developers carte-blanche to ruin our beautiful countryside.How about promoting some good old British manufactured goods, on brown field sites of course? Clothes and footwear spring to mind for a start.

Once the countryside is built on it is lost forever. Please fight these proposals for future generations.

Please leave our beautiful countryside just as it is. We all need to find space to breathe, think, and relax, without our lovely green spaces where do we find our peace. Please leave the countryside as it is for my grandchildren to enjoy.

Once the land has been built on it will be lost forever. I fully support the National Trust in this petition.

There are plenty of houses in The Uk - just too many people. This is the real issue that needs looking at.

I support the National Trust whole heartedly with this petition and wish them the very best of luck in their campaign.

Fiona is absolutely right on this. What exactly do the government mean by " a presumption in favour of sustainable development" - the vagueness leaves the gates wide open for urban sprawl. This proposal is ill-conceived, unintelligent and is premised on poor and inadequate data.
Many local authorities do not have robust Planning frameworks to ensure either adequate protections for the green field sites or adequate data to make judgements around planning and economic growth.
Well done the NT.

We fully support the stance taken by the NT over the latest planning proposals.

I support the National Trust with this petition and hope that their opposition to what is proposed is taken on board.

I support the National Trust's opposition to the government's awful policy on planning and hope that it will be successful.

I fully support the National Trust with regard to its opposition to the government's latest planning proposals.

I fully support the National Trust in their stance against
the governments policy and planning proposals. They
seem to only be prepared to spoil everyones
enjoyment. Leave it all alone.

Once more the"green" caring government is backtracking. We fully endorse the National Trusts stance and hope this "planning" proposal is very much amended.

i fully support the views of the National Trust regarding the government's policy and proposed planning changes. All too often this government has had to back-track over proposals (re Forestry Commission etc.) indicating a failure to think through adequately. The same applies in this case.

Christine Cook
We all long for economic growth but not in the way the NPPF is promoting. All power to the voice of the National Trust

We fully support the National Trust's vehement opposition to this Government's irresponsible proposed changes to the planning laws.

We fully support the National Trust to the proposed changes to the planning laws

We fully support the stand that the National Trust is taking.

I am much more ready to trust the judgement of National Trust experts , than those who seem committed to exponential growth, and putting financial gain before heritage .

The Government should take notice of the concerns of the National Trust. Once the land has been developed for profit it is too late to act.

I back National Trust in their fight against the new planning laws.

We fully support the National Trust's objection to the proposed changes in planning law. Development needs a clear regulatory process if damage to our heritage is not to be pit at risk.

WE both support the National Trust's objection to the changes proposed to the existing planning law.

I back The National Trust in it's fight against the government's proposed changes to planning law.

We both fully support the National Trust's stand against the new planning laws.

It is of vital importance that our countryside of such wide variety is protected and sustainably preserved.
Flora , fauna and people all need such environments and depend on each other for healthy lives.
We all need breathing spaces.
Visitors to the UK constantly remark on our "greenness" and those who now live elsewhere say they miss the "green" most of all.
It is our duty to preserve this land for future generations.
Yes, we need new homes , but look for brown field sites and empty houses as priorities, restrict house size and enforce consistancy within our planning authorities. Brown envelopes scams should be severely punished.

1. It is the beauty and ordered peace of our countryside and historic small towns and villages that forms the basis of a loyal, patriotic and committed society.
2. These places provide not only emotional strength for their inhabitants but also a solid source of income from visitors from abroad.
3. The Government and the Planning Inspectorate have absolutely not satisfied the thinking voter that area and regional planning searches have been done disinterestedly.
4. There are extensive areas of brownfield locations and planning blight which ought to be cleared up and which can make good housing development.
5. There are many miles of beautiful old city housing which have been left abandoned because local authorities do not want to convert them to desirable starter homes.
6. Developers want to appropriate greenfield sites because it is cheaper to develop them and they will make a larger profit.
The Government's proposals simply reinforce greed and laziness, at the loyal citizen's expense.

We fully support the aims of the National Trust in its fight

against the Government's proposed changes to the existing

planning Law

We support the aims of the National Trust in its fight

against the Government's proposed changes to the existing

planning Law, which we believel, without question , will

alter the fabric of the countryside

I would rather put my trust in the National Trust than
the Conservative Government who are making financial gain
from this proposal.
WHO WANTS A CONCRETE JUNGLE ON OUR DOORSTEP

We fully support the National Trust's petition against the Government's planning reforms. There are plenty of derelict areas and sites where business parks have been speculatively built and which are under used which could be utilised for redevelopment - could it be that such areas hold no attraction or financial gain to future developers?

My understanding from specialists who deal with nothing but planning law that this intended 'simplification' of our planning system seeks to overturn about a thousand pages worth of established planning law and rules and in its place create a fifty two page 'simplified' set of rules that give a clear bias in the direction of development over conservation.
I.e. the presumption being of development over conservation / protection if no other plans exist for the intended development.
This has nothing to do with 'growth' that benefits us all. This is corporate government for the corporate world, purely for corporate profits -- and much to our collective disadvantage, great loss of countryside amenity and enjoyment -- permanently.
It is nothing less than a 21st century equivalent of the Enclosure Acts between 1791 and 1840. Then 16,000,000 acres of common land were grabbed by those that owned land; to the huge detriment of the common people. This is / would be the corporate world being given a vandals charter to do what they like with our countryside for their gain and ALL our loss. For ever.
I can see it now; A five storey 'vistor experience centre and theme park' right next to Stonehenge. Purely for profit of course. And a thousand more like it elsewhere. Yeah right! No thanks.

We fully support the National Trust in its latest condemnation of planning regulation changes

In our experience Developers already have too much influence in planning matters, and should certainly not be gifted even more powers by this Government

We support the National Trust in its fight against the Governments proposed changes to the existing planning laws. There are plenty of Brownfield sites available, and Business Parks which are under utilised and should be re-developed.

I support the National Trusts approach .We have adequate space in our urban areas where there are many properties worthy of renovation and space on Brownfield disused industrialv sites. The Govt should concentrate on meeting our own food supplies and preserving any open spaces for wild life and leisure/heritage activities

The 'buzzword' is 'sustainable development'. There are four pillars to this - economic, social, environmental and cultural. The Government's plans enshrine the first and seem content to let the other three be of only minor concern, almost an afterthought. Social, environmental and cultural concerns should continue to be protected by statute, otherwise they will be ignored in the pursuit of short term economic benefit.

We believe that the National Trust has the muscle to represent its members interests, in the contest with those who stand to gain pecuniary advantage through ill-conceived planning. We do appreciate that there is an essential need for sensible and balanced Town and Country Planning policy, and that already exists.

12 October 2011

Chris. & I are most concerned about the loss of "Green Belts" There are many empty dwellings which should be made available by , say, compulsory purchace or where ownership is unknown valued and if an owner comes forward in the future the valuation sum paid out by the Goverment or Local Authority. Also second homes should pay rates of ,say, Four Times Normal. Second homes have pushed up prices to an extent that many youngsters can not get on the property ladder and are forced to travel to work greater distances than would otherwise be the case.

Any pressure to chanfge the government's plan must be exerted. Brownfield sites should be used up first plus all the empty houses, blocks flats etc. Near me there is a huge establishment empty for years becaue the owners cannot agree on its future. What a waste!
Green belts in cities are vital to the health of its inhabitants - human and other. Our rural areas are so precious not just for their inhabitants but for urban dwellers to enjoy, renew and refresh themselves. Our AONBS arevital too not only for us but for visitors from other countries who bring a major boost to our economy. Keep fighting!

Uncontrolled, unregulated planning allows financial interests to over ride all else. There has to be controls otherwise all that has been strived for and achieved will be at huge risk. The overwelming desire for private advancement, personal wealth and complete uncaring will follow. Our environment has had huge support for quite along time why do we want that to go? Sadly controlls are needed because private develpment does usually not care for any major enviromental problems. Please do not relax planning we do not need this.

I totally support the National trust on this issue.

I have read this article and support the National Trust on these matters.

I have read this article and fully agree that the National Trust, as a powerful champion of the beauty of England should lobby the government with all its might and main and I support such action to protect our embattled countryside.

Strict planning laws must be kept in place at all costs. Clever property developer lawyers will exploit any relaxation in planning law. We must safeguard our countryside for future generations .

We entirely agree with the National Trust on this issue,and
hope the Government can be persuaded to reconsider this
proposed retrograde legislation.

We fully support the National Trust on their views regarding the government's proposals to make changes to planning legislation.
Yes we need economic growth but NOT at ANY cost.
Once an area of beauty is lost it is never recovered.

We completely agree with The National Trust
on this matter and the hope the Government
will listen,

I

Economic growth will not be achieved by allowing developers to run wild over the countryside. We have
evidence in all districts to show how they disregard
people and countryside when they see a chance to make a profit.

I fully support the National Trust on their views regarding the government's proposals to make changes to planning legislation.
Strict planning laws must be kept in place at all costs. Clever property developer lawyers will exploit any relaxation in planning law. We must safeguard our countryside for future generations .

A very dangerous policy, we are a small island with little free space, we cannot just go on building, building, just to line the pockets of a rich and powerfull few!
We now have the threat of the Governments stupid energy policy with Wind Farming destroying millions of acres of our countryside with ugly turbines, which are proving to be useless. Thousands of tons of concrete will cover the landscape for ever, with someone else to clear up the mess when wind farming proves the biggest pink elephant in the near future.

if we dig up all our woodlands and our feilds of green,
then there will be no england ever to be seen.
we cannot stop progress only delay but who will be brave enough to say I denighed the children the dreams of old
castles great houses etc? a lot of churches have a very small congregation would you pull them all down? this is our history this is england , in short goverments seem all about fast bukck policys we should work on quality making this country better and then the real wealth will come to us, as the national trust is doing a pretty good job I do support them and hope the goverment will take time to examine there ideas a little more

I fully support the National Trust objections to the government proposals to change the Planning System in order to promote economic growth above all else, without regard to all the things we treasure in our countyside.