The long awaited draft National Planning Policy Framework was published yesterday and the consultation started:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951811.pdf
It certainly has 'streamlined' planning guidance for the UK, and will quite rightly face severe criticism from the conservationists due to the heavily one sided approach in favour of development.
This then must mean it is good for the landscaping industry, particularly the larger businesses whose work is so intrinsically with the development and construction industry, and will by default help to 'boost' the industry as a whole. But the large majority of landscaping and horticultural businesses will not witness any 'boost' to the industry. We now know from experience that no matter how well the development and construction industries are doing, the landscaping industry is kept firmly in its new place - 'the poor cousin' ; accepting diminishing wages, presented with sites which fall well short of the 'minimum' standards in which to accomplish the landscape vision, which is usually so obviously nothing more than a blueprint from the cheapest landscape architectural firm whose vision is usually a sea of cotoneaster and hypericum.
However the word 'sustainable' takes an unprecedented dominance within NPPF, although the Brundtland definition of sustainable development has been somewhat abused. This does allow for the landscape industry to take the reins. But it cannot do so without entering its hat into the arena by way of replying to the consultation.
Can we sit back and leave up it to the imcumbent accreditation organisations, who have little choice but to follow the 'development is good' line. Nor can we assume that NGOs and other interest groups will speak up on behalf of the land based practitioner, when it is clear that 'big society' ideals are more about empowering those who often take the whole of the cake, leaving the landscapers the crumbs for which they have to habitually fight to get also.
Landscaping is the most 'SUSTAINABLE' angle of development. It may not be able to provide small scale energy saving devices but it does control all the other myriad of issues that are at play within the context of sustainability. The amount of knowledge and skills needed by landscapers in tidying up the mess left by the construction industry for the benefit of people, the community and biodiversity is immense, yet never considered by others. There is even now a general believe that landscapers simply provide the plants, which do the job themselves and should something go wrong the plants and landscaper are wrongly blamed when it usually the fact that the soil profile has been so destroyed, consolidated or polluted by the developers as to render any remediation by way of landscaping virtually impossible. But the landscaper perseveres and often achieves the impossible simply by way of working for nothing.
What is needed is a comprehensive look at 'sustainability' with the landscaping industry practitioners at the forefront of discussion. They provide a key to correct and workable sustainable solutions, the use of natural materials and tricks for maximising biodiversity. Landscape practitioners must not be sidelined in favour of an ever growing community of pseudo specialists, self made consultants et al, who simply do not have the knowledge or experience to tackle sustainable land management in what is always a site specific location.
Whatever will be thrown at the draft NPPF there is little doubt that the consultation will last its course and as such it is imperative that every organisation and landscaper needs to respond as they are one of the largest stakeholders involved. This is a real opportunity to change things in favour of the land management practitioner and lead them quickly back down the road towards joining other industries, with fair pay and influence, and possibly overtake them to become the standard bearers of sustainable good practice.
National Planning Policy Framework - What about our woods?!
The Fantasy of Sustainable Development
Comments