<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: National Planning Policy Framework released</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/2011/07/26/national-planning-policy-framework-released/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/2011/07/26/national-planning-policy-framework-released/</link>
	<description>Advancing ecology and making it count</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 07:10:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ecology and Policy Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Government to Publish National Planning Policy Framework</title>
		<link>http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/2011/07/26/national-planning-policy-framework-released/#comment-3765</link>
		<dc:creator>Ecology and Policy Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Government to Publish National Planning Policy Framework</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/?p=2124#comment-3765</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Government will this afternoon publish the long-awaited National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which will simplify over 1,000 pages of planning guidance into just 50 pages and set out a [...] ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Government will this afternoon publish the long-awaited National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which will simplify over 1,000 pages of planning guidance into just 50 pages and set out a [...] </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr Henry Adams (Ecologist)</title>
		<link>http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/2011/07/26/national-planning-policy-framework-released/#comment-3763</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr Henry Adams (Ecologist)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/?p=2124#comment-3763</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My first impression on skimming through the draft Planning Framework is that the above BES description cherry-picks the best parts of the document some of which are very appealing to nature-conservation-minded ecologists (including myself)- but incredibly naiveley omits to show as that all these good attributes are almost totally made subservient to the very obvious over-riding emphasis on promotion of economic growth by allowing unrestrained development, with deregulation of planning restrictions and conditions that have helped up to now to protect the environment. Eg &quot;Planning must operate to encourage growth and not act as an impediment&quot;. In fact - it reverses the whole emphasis and meaning of planning re the countryside from constraining loss of the countryside to promoting loss of countryside - to building-development. It is underlain by a neoliberal type of conservative political ideology (unleash profit-making big business greed-is-good from regulatory constraints), and promotes an associated economic GROWTH model which many ecologists see as obselete for a future to cope with climate change by resilience and with declining natural resources. Why should one ideology - favoured by big business and many of the rich and powerful, coupled with an increasingly dubious economic model - be allowed such a strong emphasis - when many of as find this thinking abhorrent.
The &quot;nice bits&quot; referred to in the BES are typical of the present government - the way it puts up a green-screen to hide what it actually wants to do - which is exactly the opposite (I could give many examples. It&#039;s first one was &quot;greenest gov ever&quot; then eg (1 of many) its current support for tar sands oil despite having the highest production emissions of carbon as cf Cameron&#039;s claims to reduce emissions - s if outsource carbon is OK then). - This green-screening is a frequent gov ploy - but missed by the writer of the text above. So the planning framework is full of contradictions - which it realizes - so tries to resolve that by saying that they are not the contradictions they seem to be (so that resolves that then?).
I hope my initial interpretation is incorrect - and that yours turns out to be correct, but the gov&#039;s track record suggests I may be right.    www.twitter.com/@henryadamsUK]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My first impression on skimming through the draft Planning Framework is that the above BES description cherry-picks the best parts of the document some of which are very appealing to nature-conservation-minded ecologists (including myself)- but incredibly naiveley omits to show as that all these good attributes are almost totally made subservient to the very obvious over-riding emphasis on promotion of economic growth by allowing unrestrained development, with deregulation of planning restrictions and conditions that have helped up to now to protect the environment. Eg &#8220;Planning must operate to encourage growth and not act as an impediment&#8221;. In fact &#8211; it reverses the whole emphasis and meaning of planning re the countryside from constraining loss of the countryside to promoting loss of countryside &#8211; to building-development. It is underlain by a neoliberal type of conservative political ideology (unleash profit-making big business greed-is-good from regulatory constraints), and promotes an associated economic GROWTH model which many ecologists see as obselete for a future to cope with climate change by resilience and with declining natural resources. Why should one ideology &#8211; favoured by big business and many of the rich and powerful, coupled with an increasingly dubious economic model &#8211; be allowed such a strong emphasis &#8211; when many of as find this thinking abhorrent.<br />
The &#8220;nice bits&#8221; referred to in the BES are typical of the present government &#8211; the way it puts up a green-screen to hide what it actually wants to do &#8211; which is exactly the opposite (I could give many examples. It&#8217;s first one was &#8220;greenest gov ever&#8221; then eg (1 of many) its current support for tar sands oil despite having the highest production emissions of carbon as cf Cameron&#8217;s claims to reduce emissions &#8211; s if outsource carbon is OK then). &#8211; This green-screening is a frequent gov ploy &#8211; but missed by the writer of the text above. So the planning framework is full of contradictions &#8211; which it realizes &#8211; so tries to resolve that by saying that they are not the contradictions they seem to be (so that resolves that then?).<br />
I hope my initial interpretation is incorrect &#8211; and that yours turns out to be correct, but the gov&#8217;s track record suggests I may be right.    <a href="http://www.twitter.com/@henryadamsUK" rel="nofollow">http://www.twitter.com/@henryadamsUK</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>