Simon Jenkins rightly castigates the new planning framework for allowing the concreting of our countryside (What next – bungalows on the white cliffs of Dover?, 29 July). But most of us live in cities, and we are in for an even worse ride as controls are relaxed on offices turning into flats.
This is supposed to help address the housing crisis, but city centres have already become the fashionable place for the rich to have second homes and pied-à-terres, and rapidly rising prices are attracting increased overseas speculative investment. As a result, in Waterloo, for example, conversions and permissions account for the loss of over 2m sq ft of offices, converted into 2,000 flats selling from £1m to £8m, with no affordable housing whatsoever.
As the government's proposals mainstream this process, our cities will be turned inside out. The centres – with the most favourable transport infrastructure and services – will become the playground for the rich, while offices and other employment uses will be pushed to more marginal land with less transport connections. This in turn will force workers into their cars and will require the building of yet more roads.
Michael Ball
Director, Waterloo Community Development Group
• Simon Jenkins is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the national planning policy framework on the future of our countryside.
The government must recognise that it is perfectly legitimate for the answer to a development proposal to be "no" if that proposal will be environmentally or socially damaging. If we want to ensure a prosperous future for both our urban and rural environments, the role of planning cannot be to facilitate short-term economic recovery regardless of the longer-term consequences.
As Jenkins highlights: "This time it really matters" – we need people to act now. MPs need to be under no illusion that the public want a planning system that facilitates appropriate development while protecting the countryside. If not, far more than our forests will be at risk, two-thirds of the countryside could be freely handed over to developers ready to be concreted over "sustainably".
Fiona Howie
Head of planning, Campaign to Protect Rural England
• After reading Simon Jenkins's piece, I picked up my local paper to see the headline "232 homes to be built on green wedge between Hinckley and Barwell". A development that had been rejected by all members of the local council's planning committee had been passed on appeal by an inspector appointed by the secretary for state for communities and local government, Eric Pickles. The lack of a demonstrable five-year supply of housing land and the belief that the character and appearance of the surrounding area (including the green wedge) would not be harmed led to the proposal being granted. The minister for planning, Bob Neill, states "this government is determined to have a system that truly represents and serves the interests of the local communities" (Letters, 29 July). How long do we have to wait for that then?
Anthony G Wallis
Hinckley, Leicestershire
• Bob Neill's letter on the National Trust and the government's planning reforms is truly puzzling. We have made it very clear that our concerns were not about the protections that have been retained for designated places (green belt, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty). Rather, our point was about the overall effect of the draft framework, which puts considerations of profit and driving the economy forward above those of people and places. Our criticisms on these points have not been answered, which is why we have demanded that the government thinks again before going down this road.
The National Trust believes in growth as we all do – but not at any cost. Development that works must pass a triple bottom-line test – by showing that it meets the needs of people and the environment as well as the economy.
Fiona Reynolds
Director general, National Trust
• Bob Neill's claim that the government will be "protecting the countryside from encroachment" really can't go unchallenged.
Ministers cynically continue to claim to be "protecting the green belt", exploiting the widely believed myth that "the green belt" protects all countryside, rather than some narrow zones around major conurbations. Their proposals would indeed leave much green-belt protection in place but, even taken with other protections like national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty or sites of special scientific interest, would leave the majority of the countryside up for grabs.
New Labour tried to promote sprawl through the planning system, the coalition by eroding it, but both have repeated another myth – that this would reduce house prices. The government was, however, secretly warned by its own advisers in 2005 that even massive increases would have no discernible effect on prices for at least 10 years.
The current elimination of all brownfield-first policies will simply result in less land being reclaimed for development and fewer homes being built where they're needed. As ever, greenfield sprawl will simply weaken urban economies, as well as destroying land that provides us with food, water, flood control and all of the other intangible benefits of the countryside. It will also necessitate people driving ever further, undermining carbon targets.
Even America is now realising that building sustainable communities involves concentrating development on compact towns and cities served by sustainable transport, and that low-density, car-dependent suburban sprawl belongs to the past. England may be an overcrowded continent's most overcrowded corner, but it has yet to realise this.
Jon Reeds
Wallington, Surrey
• Simon Jenkins and your editorial (Planning: concrete proposals, 28 July) rightly express concern about the national planning policy framework and the localism bill.
However, a clearer distinction ought to be drawn between your "self-appointed local people of questionable provenance" and Jenkins's "shadowy, self-selected people" on the one hand; and parish councils, which your editorial fails to mention. For more than a century, parish councils in England have been the most local level of government, and their views on planning matters have been influential and balanced. In recent years our parish council in Acton Bridge has often permitted small-scale development in keeping with its neighbourhood, but has been instrumental in seeing off a huge electrical substation, a windfarm, and an intrusive pipeline, all within the green belt; and it is likely that without our active intervention these proposals would have succeeded.
What is more, parish councillors do have to stand for election, sign up to a code of conduct, and declare an interest in matters discussed. Meetings are open to everyone, and the minutes are placed in the public domain. I would urge your readers to attend a meeting of their local parish council, just to see what goes on. If they like what they see, they might consider standing themselves – and having a credible voice in the debate.
Steve Pardoe
Acton Bridge, Cheshire
Planning policyLocal politicsEric PicklesGreen politicsHousingLocal governmentCommunitiesRural affairsConservationConstruction industryguardian.co.uk
Under attack: Britain’s defence cuts | Richard Norton-Taylor
The government's cuts to defence have been criticised by a cross-party committee. Are its concerns justified?
Are cuts in Britain's armed forces threatening military operations?The Commons defence committee says so in an unusually thorough report published on Wednesday. Despite ministerial denials, the armed forces cannot go on doing what the government is asking them to do now, and wants them to do in the future, without an increase in their budget. Afghanistan, costing more than £18bn so far, and Libya, more than £260m, is being paid for out of the Treasury's reserve. However, the RAF's bombing of Libya cannot go on for much longer since pilots are running out of targets, and British troops are ending their combat role in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The defence committee says in a significant passage: "We dispute the prime minister's assertion that the UK has a full spectrum defence capability." The heads of the navy, army and air force, agree with the committee.
British forces will not be able to carry out the kind of operations it has in the past, and ministers may want them to in the future, not least because of the scrapping of existing aircraft carriers – the UK will not have one equipped with planes for a decade – and of Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft.
Is it solely a matter of resources?No. Last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR) amounted to Treasury-driven salami slices – that is to say, despite ministerial denials, resources dictated what military kit and how many sailors, soldiers and air force personnel should be cut. What the review did not do was consider what kind of future military operations Britain was likely to get involved in, and what it should get involved in. For example, will the British army, ever again, be engaged in the kind of counter-insurgency operation it has been in Afghanistan? It is very unlikely. Humanitarian missions, special forces operations, perhaps, but no more larger scale ones. The army is facing an existential crisis.
Will defence cuts threaten Britain's role in the world?Though the government denies it, the Commons defence committee says they will. It states: "The government appears to believe that the UK can maintain its influence while reducing spending, not just in the area of defence but also at the Foreign Office. We do not agree." The question is how Britain's influence relies on military prowess. Less and less so, it could be argued. "Soft power", including foreign aid (the government is increasing the British aid budget by well over a third, and a robust economy and trading position will become more and more important. The defence committee called for "a realistic understanding of the world and the UK's role and status in it". A debate about that is badly needed. That should determine the defence budget, and the size of the armed forces.
Defence policyMilitaryRichard Norton-Taylorguardian.co.uk