6 OUT OF 10

The more I hear about the proposed Planning (Wales) Bill the less I like it. The draft bill has been proceeding through various stages for a while, in its present form, it will actually take decisions further away from communities and further erode the democratic accountability of decision-making over land use in our country. Now none of this should surprise anyone, Labour in Wales at various levels of government have over the years long seen people as part of the problem when it comes to planning.

In essence the Labour in Wales Government has aimed to makes it more difficult for local communities when it comes to trying to stop developers building on green spaces. It was originally suggested that its Planning Bill would stop "vexatious" bids to register greens intended, it claimed, simply to frustrate development. Applications for village greens must show people have had a right to use the site in question for at least 20 years.

Affordable Housing?

The reality of the current relationship between local and central government is that when it comes to housing developments those members of the public who question or challenge planning decisions are seen as part of the problem. The Labour in Wales Welsh Government has missed a real opportunity to actually deliver a modern planning system to meet the needs of the people of Wales in the 21st century.

Plaid is right to call for root and branch reform of our planning system to strengthen local voices. That probably does not suit the labour in Wales Government who’s current Government Bill looks to be enshrining a top-down regime that will take decisions one step further away from the decisions that affect them.

Our planning system, along with our pretty much nineteenth century local government setup is not designed to coexist with devolution or for that matter to deliver planning decisions with real and lasting benefits for local people and local communities. There is a real need for root and branch reform and reorganisation of our planning system; the Welsh Government’s simply decided to tinker and tweak with existing outdated legislation rather than reform it.

The current Bill has proposed a system where a National Development Framework sets the parameters for Regional Development Plans, which in turn set the parameters for Local Development Plans. This will create a top-down approach, which runs contrary to any notions that our communities should have a stronger say in planning decisions that will directly affect them.

It would be more democratic, if even at this late stage, the Labour in Wales Welsh Government began its bill again. Starting with the simple idea that the development aspirations of our communities should be the primary building blocks of our planning system.

The introduction of unelected and effectively unaccountable members to the Strategic Development Panels must be unacceptable. While there is a need for a wide range of different voices be heard it would be both sensible and democratic for any co-opted members not have voting rights.

What should be more disturbing is that current legislation as is, contains some 65 examples of Ministers being empowered to make subordinate legislation, which will be afforded significantly less scrutiny. The legislation is effectively a government power grab with the Minister literally picking and choosing powers without any clarity as to how he intends to use them, if at all.

This potentially sets a dangerous precedent for increasingly unaccountable governance and an even more unresponsive planning system. The bill includes the creation of a National Development Framework, which would replace the deeply flawed but at least nominally publically accountable Wales Spatial Plan, which at least periodically required the actual endorsement of the National Assembly.

Whether Wales needs new strategic development plans at present is open to question? Especially as there is about to be a significant (and perhaps more ominously) a largely Labour in Wales driven reorganisation of our local government, which will by default create larger planning authorities.

Is there a need for Strategic Development Plans, as the Local Government reorganisation will create much larger planning authorities, which will inevitably take on more of a regional and strategic roll? There is a need for development planning to take place on more of a regional basis but this could be dealt with joint Local Development Plans rather than another whole new tier of Development Plans.

What is not being addressed is the observed reality that the current planning system remains too focused on railroading through large housing developments that often bring little real benefits for local people and local communities and often fail to resolve real and pressing local housing needs. We need a fundamental change in planning culture to encourage appropriate and sustainable smaller scale housing developments, which are based on good design and actively promote energy efficiency and good environmental standards.

An opportunity to address the shortage of affordable housing, to encourage more small-scale renewable energy projects, and to actively support small businesses in relation to the Planning Bill has clearly been missed.  It is time to start the process of actually addressing the flawed LDP (Local Development Plan) system, which does not deliver for local communities and fails to serve our national interests.

Our planning system and planning processes are too slow, too bureaucratic and too unresponsive to real local needs and local opinions. The current system is based on the post-war Town and Country Planning Act from 1947 and is simply outdated; our country needs a modern planning system that meets the needs of modern Welsh society. In line with the realities of devolution our country needs an independent Planning inspectorate for Wales as the old single planning inspectorate for England and Wales is increasingly unsustainable.

Local democracy on a county borough level has been undermined, as developers (and here we are not just talking about housing) simply appear to carry on appealing until they get their way or get their development retrospectively approved at a higher level. Local government officers will (and do) advise local councillors not to turn down developments (whether grounds are reasonable or not) because the developers will simply appeal until the cows come home and local government just does not have the finances to cope with this situation.

The Labour in Wales Welsh Government in Cardiff favour changing the planning rules in Wales to ‘tilt the balance in favour of economic growth over the environment and social factors’. This is something that appears to be aimed quite specifically at overturning those few occasions when our Local Authorities have rejected some developments (often at the behest of local residents) rather than putting economic needs ahead of economic and environmental benefits.

KALM Rally in Abergavenny

The proposed Planning Bill is bad news for those residents of south Monmouthshire, and the residents of Torfaen, who fought the plan and the good citizens of Abergavenny who fought to retain the livestock market. Not to mention the concerned residents of Cardiff and Carmarthen who have real worries about the impact of over large housing developments or the residents of Holyhead who opposed a planned new marina development and people who are genuinely concerned about how their communities develop.

The bottom line is that over the years our communities have been increasingly ill served by the planning system, by our local authorities (and the system of Unitary Development Plans) and more recently by our own Government in Cardiff. We need a planning system that takes account of local housing needs, the environment and looks sustainability at the whole of our country and above all it needs sit firmly within local democratic accountable local authorities which are elected by STV. 

WHAT PRICE REDEVELOPMENT?

The peaceful good humoured protests in Taksim Square (in Istanbul) ended amid violent scenes as riot police cleared the square with a combination of tear gas, water cannon and brute force. What began as initially a demonstration by environmentalists in protest at the development (a planned shopping mall) of Gezi Park has turned into something far larger and more significant a fight by a coalition of pretty disparate groups for greater freedom in Turkey and a preservation of the country's secular order.

The protestors see an authoritarian a government with neo-Islamist agenda with the highest number of journalists in the world in prison, restrictions on alcohol sales, and massive construction projects which have prioritised over human rights and environmental concerns. The protests show no sign of fading away yet, as demonstrators have regrouped in nearby Gezi Park, the proposed redevelopment of which sparked peaceful protests which have widened into nationwide anti-government unrest.

Taskin Square and Gezi Park

The unrest began back on May 28th as a protest about the plan to demolish of one of Istanbul's few remaining green spaces took place. Gezi Park is part of Taksim Square, which sits in the heart of the modern city. It has long been  a place of hugely symbolic value to many Istanbul residents and those Turks with more secular leanings. The proposed development aims to build a replica Ottoman-era barracks and a mosque on the square, in a city which critics say is pretty well-served by Islamic houses of prayer.

The Ottoman-era military barracks will be rebuilt near the site, and the historic Ataturk Cultural Centre will be demolished. Turkish critics say the decision to go ahead with the redevelopment was made too fast and without proper public and media debate. They also have questions relating to the choice of developer, in this case the Kalyon Group, a company who have close ties with the governing Justice and Development (AK) Party.

The proposed reconstruction of the barracks may have some other symbolic significance as some suggest that it was at these barracks that a failed mutiny by Islamic-minded soldiers with the intention of bringing in Sharia law took place in 1909. The barracks were demolished back in 1940, and the attempt to rebuild them are seen by opponents to have the ring of Islamism. Tempers were already high after police stopped leftist marchers holding a May Day rally on the square this year.

So for the best part of two weeks, the central square in Turkey's biggest city was under the authority of a growing protest movement. The Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told parliament (on Tuesday) that the protest movement was an international conspiracy against Turkey to destabilise its economy. He has lashed out at the foreign press for launching attacks on the country and warned protesters that they were pawns in a wider game – something that will go down well with his supporters rather than being remotely close to the truth.

Turkey is a democracy and while the protest movement has grabbed the headlines around the world, Mr Erdogan's support base is conservative, more religious and better organised than the democratic opposition which is deeply divided. The Turkish PM has won three general elections, he has hugely increased Turkey's international prestige, opened the country's EU accession talks and launched a peace process with the Kurdish minority.

The demonstrators accuse (and not necessarily inaccurately) the Prime Minister of becoming increasingly authoritarian and trying to impose conservative Islamic values on a secular state. Whatever happens from here on in there is a sizeable percentage of the population who feel deeply alienated from the current Turkish  government (something that won’t be helped by the volatile threats being made by the Turkish PM) and they won’t be put off from protesting by clouds of tear gas and baton rounds.

In Turkey and elsewhere in the world the questioned of democracy, planning and balanced development remains a contested issue. Whether we are talking building on a park, increasing the size of proposed housing developments, on shore wind farm development or building on agricultural land (Wales effectively has no green belt) the question remains just exactly who is it for? who will benefit? And how does the local community in Caernarfon, Cardiff, Carmarthen or Cwmbran or Istanbul actually benefit?

SOMEWHERE BETWEEN TRAGEDY AND FARCE

When it comes to the Afghan tragedy, a few quotes spring to mind, Karl Marx said "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." Winston Churchill said, "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it" and “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” When it comes to Afghanistan there is more than enough history to provide enough examples of what to do and what to avoid.

A scene from the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan

The long and bloody history of Afghanistan is littered literally with the would-be invaders who came to grief and eventually through in the towel and admitted defeat. This week, almost unnoticed an anniversary passed, Wednesday 15th May was the twenty-fifth anniversary of the start of the then Soviet Union’s nine month long withdrawal from Afghanistan. Around 100,000 Soviet troops had left the war torn country by February 15, 1989. This was the conclusion to ten years of brutal warfare which had killed over 14,000 Soviet soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Afghan combatants and civilians.

Learning the lesson of history?

NATO forces have been on the ground in Afghanistan since the 7th October 2001, and preparations for NATO’s withdrawal (to be completed by 2014) are proceeding apace. Unlike their Soviet predecessors who treated much of Afghanistan as free fire zone, NATO forces have been relatively restrained when it comes to using their firepower. Despite this many people have argued that just like their Soviet predecessors NATO troops in Afghanistan now find themselves engaged in waging a campaign which is "unwinnable in military terms".

‘Lessons from Afghanistan’s History for the Current Transition and Beyond’ is a thought provoking paper produced by the MOD Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre makes interesting reading.  The paper has noted that between 1933 to 1973, Afghanistan was stable and reasonably effectively governed, however, that stability was firmly anchored in the two pillars of traditional local governance and the Afghan state such as it was a weak centralized though weak state, both of which were gravely damaged after 1978.

Afghanistan history’s is littered with a series of chronic succession problems and associated conflict, the next presidential election, if successful, would be the first peaceful transfer of leadership since 1933 and only the fourth since 1747. The paper also notes that any expectations about the pace of any progress and reform should be modest and the dangers of overly ambitious reforms leading to violent reactions need to be recognized.

‘A new approach to understanding Afghanistan’s transition’ has been produced by the United States Institute for Peace also makes interesting reading. This paper by way of comparison with other countries who have passed though conflict, significant military intervention and  a post conflict period of transition looks at Afghanistan and its preparedness for life after NATO. Amongst the key issues that this report flags up is the issue of foreign aid and its impact on Afghanistan.

Another military withdrawal from Afghanistan 

Of late there has been a relative flood of papers from a whole range of military and civilian institutes studying and analysing what has happen and what may happen in Afghanistan as NATO prepares to leave. While our soldiers and their families and many Afghans may carry the physical and mental scars for decades, the politicians (at least in the West) will probably do their best to air brush Afghanistan and the consequences of NATO’s intervention out of site and out of mind.

As someone who has had relatives who have served a number of tours in Afghanistan and have come back in one piece I will (no doubt along with more than a few other people) be more than grateful when the last NATO soldier hops on the last plane and comes home. Following NATO’S withdrawal I have little doubt that what will follow will be a public redefinition of ‘success’ at least as it is applied to Afghanistan. Quite where that leaves the Afghans and Afghan women's rights whatever future they face with a still active Taliban, rampant corruption and a curtailing of foreign aid remains to be seen, but nowhere good I suspect.

ABERGAVENNY LIVESTOCK MARKET

KALM’s legal battle to prevent the closure of Abergavenny Livestock market and its removal from the town has drawn a blank as a High Court judge has rejected claims that Monmouthshire County Council (MCC) has acted unlawfully. MCC aim to replace the one hundred and fifty year old livestock market with a new market near Raglan they have already agreed to sell the old site with planning permission for a supermarket and library. The judicial review heard KALM had many complaints about Monmouthshire council's decision to grant planning permission in June last year to Optimisation Developments Ltd.

The market which covers a 1.9-hectare site is surrounded by the Abergavenny Conservation Area on three sides. KALM arguments included the claims that demolition would seriously affect the local economy and threaten to contaminate the River Usk. All the  complaints were rejected by Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, who said the council had take all conservation, environmental and socio-economic issues properly into account when reaching its decision.

MCC deputy leader Bob Greenland made much of the suggestion that the supermarket scheme could potentially bring in over of 200 jobs for local people. Interestingly enough a study by the National Retail Planning Forum (in 1998) of 93 new superstores found that each one resulted in a net loss of 270 local jobs per development. The opening a large supermarket can lead to a loss of jobs as local businesses close. Supermarket domination of the retail trade puts the local food infrastructure at risk threatening the viability of local abattoirs, wholesalers and small farms and the associated jobs.

This effect was spotted by the Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England who noted that following the opening of a large supermarket there was a loss of choice as it becomes harder to buy local foods. 64% of the local shops in Fakenham, Norfolk, and 75% of those in Warminster, Wiltshire, closed when new superstores were built in those towns. Most supermarkets sell very little locally sourced produce, with only 1-2% of their turnover coming from local foods, so, when local shops close, the outlet for local produce disappears with them.

As has already been noted by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) our local retail traders are in trouble, The UK is losing approximately 2,000 local shops every year and that of this continues then by 2015 there will be no independent retailers left in business, something that effects consumers and communities as they effectively lose any real choice in the marketplace.

I think that Government and elected representatives at almost every level (and from almost every political party) have failed the good people of Abergavenny and for small farmers from the surrounding area. MCC has been allowed to act as judge, jury (not to mention jury sector), executioner and main financial beneficiary, from the closure of Abergavenny Livestock market, which if nothing else should focus minds on the farcical planning process.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING?

At a meeting last night, in Torfaen, the ruling Labour group (naturally bereft of any fresh ideas), voted to include the land between Sebastopol and Cwmbran in the new Torfaen Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The area has now been earmarked for Housing development, in the new Local Development Plan (LDP), the new UDP itself will run until 2021.

Back in February 2012, Torfaen councillors removed the land from the Local Deposit Plan and reduced the number of proposed new houses in Torfaen to 600. A National Assembly planning inspector objected and the site has now been reinstated to the LDP and earmarked for housing. One big unanswered question related to house building in Wales is who exactly are they being built for?

Across the south east, particularly along the coastal belt around Newport and in and around Torfaen, over the last twenty years has seen a spectacular growth in the amount of housing, a significant percentage of which has never been aimed at fulfilling local housing needs. The infrastructure along the coastal belt between Chepstow, Caldicot, Rogiet and Magor is struggling to cope with existing developments and this is well before the projected expansion of housing on and around the former Llanwern site.

The north of Newport has now effectively been linked to the south Cwmbran - something that has brought little material benefit to either urban area. Similarly lining Cwmbran with Sebastopol will bring little benefit to local residents. Even if eventually housing is built on the land just exactly how much of it will be affordable to local residents?

We need to take the long view and to create Welsh Green belt land with the legal and planning protections then, we might go some way to calming things down when it comes to development planning. This would also enable us to introduce a longer term element into the process by which our elected officials (and council officers) plan and view development and redevelopment within and around our urban and not so urban communities.

This is something that could be accomplished by creating Welsh Green belt land, as part of the process we also need an urgent and open debate into the planning process in Wales - something that has been long overdue. It is worth noting that Wales only has one notional green belt, and that lies between Cardiff and Newport, Scotland has seven and Northern Ireland has 30 - each of which has its own policy guidance. It is important to note that once the Green belt or Green wedge is gone it is gone for good.

The Westminster government (in England) aims to get planning officers "off people's backs" with a relaxation of current rules. In true Spiv fashion ‘for a limited period, people will be able to build larger extensions on houses (up to eight metres for detached homes and six for others). Shops and offices will also be able grow to the edges of their premises as Plan A (harsh Public Sector Cuts) fails and a note of desperation creeps in Westminster ministers seek to boost the economy.

These sounds good; it seems reasonable, save for the fact that somewhere amongst the smoke and mirrors the plan to reduce developer’s obligations to build proportional amounts of affordable housing. Not that long ago, a matter of a few months, the Westminster government rewrote the entire planning framework (for England) despite some fierce resistance from countryside campaigners. Now Westminster ministers want further changes to planning rules (in England) in an attempt to boost house-building and revive the economy.

Not wanting to be left out, the Labour in Wales Government in Cardiff is also considering major changes to planning rules in Wales aiming to ‘tilt the balance in favour of economic growth over the environment and social factors’. This decision may be aimed quite specifically at overturning those few occasions of late when our Local Authorities have rejected some developments (often at the behest of local residents) rather than putting economic needs ahead of economic and environmental benefits.

South Sebastopol

This is bad news for those residents of Torfaen, who have been fighting the plan and the good citizens of Abergavenny who have been fighting to retain the livestock market. Not to mention the concerned residents of Carmarthen who are worried about the impact of over large housing developments or the concerned residents of Holyhead who are opposed to new marina development. In Wales we have over the years been ill-served by the planning system, by our local authorities and by our own Government in Cardiff...

THIS LAND IS NOT FOR SALE

It can be argued that in the end with people that it comes down to land, who lives on it, who owns it, what we do with it and what other people want to do with it. The issue of land tenure, land rights and land use is set to become one of the dominant issues of this century. This is an important issue that affects people in both the developed and the developing world as local people and local resources (including land) come under increased pressure from various levels of Government for development.

Forced evictions

An Amnesty International report states that forced evictions in China have risen significantly in recent years as local communist party officials sell off land to property developers, out from under the people living on it.  Amnesty International reports that many cases involve violence and harassment, and amount to “a gross violation of human rights". Local officials are under pressure to meet economic goals and vested interests are behind the coercion, the report noted.

The problem of security of tenure for farmers and local people is made worse by the fact that all land in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) is effectively controlled by the state, and laws allow local governments to claim land for urban development projects. The on-going evictions are a serious cause of ongoing social discontent and resulted in public protests across the country. Communist Party local authorities are seizing and selling off land to pay back funds borrowed to finance stimulus packages during the economic downturn.

The PRC Communist Government promotes officials who deliver growth regardless of the cost, and the development of roads, factories, residential complexes on seized lands delivers visible results. Amnesty International has reported that the system is open to abuse and evictees often received little notice, no consultation and barely a fraction of the value of their land and homes in compensation.

There have been a number of violent clashes between local people and police or private security guards across different areas of China.  Amnesty International has interviewed lawyers, housing rights activists and academics, in and outside China. Standing Their Ground (an 85-page report) has looked at 40 cases of forced eviction (between January 2009 to January 2012), nine of which it said resulted in the deaths of people who were resisting being evicted.

Peoples resistance in Wukan

There have been some successful localised resistance to some of the evictions, Amnesty notes the example of Wukan village (in Guangdong province in 2011), here local residents demonstrated on the streets after a village negotiator protesting against local officials over a land grab died in police custody.




The protests resulted in the removal of two local Communist Party officials and the punishment of others in 2012. Local villagers also won the right to fresh local elections as part of the deal.

Amnesty suggests that any optimism in relation to the Wukan case may be premature might be premature, as so far there has been no independent investigation into the death of Xue Jinbo ( the village negotiator). Also villagers have still not got any of their land back. There are also reports that Communist authorities are harassing and spying on local activists in Wukan. The Communist Dictatorship does nominally have laws in place to protect farmers and local residents, but these are often ignored by Communist Party officials at local level.

Communist Party Leaders in Beijing have acknowledged the problem exists and are pledged to improve the situation. Amnesty International has called on the PRC to put an immediate stop to all forced evictions and ensure safeguards were put in place in line with international law. Amnesty also has urged the PRC to implement new regulations (that it adopted in 2011) which should provide for proper land compensation and outlaw the use of violence in these cases.

A GOVERNANCE OF SPIVS...

The Westminster government is promising (in England) to get planning officers "off people's backs" with a relaxation of current rules. In true Spiv fashion ‘ for a limited period, people will be allowed to build larger extensions on houses (up to eight metres for detached homes and six for others). Shops and offices will also be able grow to the edges of their premises as Plan A (harsh Public Sector Cuts) fails and a note of desperation creeps in Westminster ministers seek to boost the economy.

On the surface it sounds good; it seems reasonable, save for the fact that somewhere amidst the smoke and mirrors is a plan to reduce developer’s obligations to build proportional amounts of affordable housing. Not that long ago, a matter of a few months, the Westminster government rewrote the entire planning framework (for England) despite some fierce resistance from countryside campaigners. Now Westminster ministers want further changes to planning rules (in England) in an attempt to boost house-building and revive the economy.

Meanwhile this side of the bridge a major change in planning rules in Wales aims to ‘tilt the balance in favour of economic growth over the environment and social factors’. This decision may be aimed quite specifically at overturning those few occasions when our Local Authorities have rejected some developments (often at the behest of local residents) rather than putting economic needs ahead of economic and environmental benefits.

The Labour in Wales run Welsh government will formally announce this controversial move sometime next month. The problem lies not with the planning system, which is far too weak, and has proved itself to be more than capable of blatantly ignoring expressed local concerns, with few real consequences for the decision makers. Any meaningful supervision of the planning process by the Welsh Assembly Government has proved to be pretty minimal.

Quietly in Westminster we are moving towards having ‘a Government of Spivs, by Spivs and for Spivs’. The rules and regulations are blamed for the lack of economic growth rather than it being a direct consequence of the banking crash, the bankers recklessness and years of allowing the so called ‘free market’ to drive economic policy and economic planning. Oddly enough, overregulation and red tape did not cause the financial crash – the banks did.

Poor regulation, stupidity and greed and a desire by Government’s (of all political hues) to look the other way as long as things appeared (on the surface at least) to be working all contributed. Now here in Wales, our local authorities, certainly not the best guardian of the public interest and our environment have been bluntly told, by the Welsh Government, that they should recognise that ‘there will be occasions when the economic benefits will outweigh social and environmental considerations’.

Tell that to the residents of Torfaen, who have been fighting the plan and the good citizens of Abergavenny who have been fighting to retain the livestock market in the town. Or perhaps the concerned residents of Carmarthen who are worried about the impact of over large housing developments or the concerned residents of Holyhead who are opposed to new marina development. All these people (and all of us) have been ill-served by the planning system, by our local authorities and our own Government in Cardiff – why should we expect the Westminster Government to be any different...

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE?

While the Welsh Government's decision to allow ordinary people a say on whether or not the Abergavenny Improvement Acts, which ensure the presence of a livestock market in Abergavenny, is welcome, this is is very close to a case of being too little too late and its not good enough. Before Monmouthshire County Council (MCC) can, acting as judge, jury, executioners and beneficiary, financially benefit from the closure of Abergavenny Livestock market the three Abergavenny Improvement Acts must be repealed.

Originally MCC's consultation process was limited to market users and the town council. Now local people can put forward their views, but, only in relation the repeal of the acts, they cannot make any reference of the proposed plans for the site or plans to move the livestock market from Abergavenny to a new site in Raglan.

The Welsh Government (under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) has the power to call in any applications for planning permission for their own determination, something that clearly should have been done in this specific case - so far they have chosen not to do this. They have looked the other way, using the old excuse that development proposals are best dealt with by planning authorities that know their area, its needs and sensitivities. In this case it is pretty clear that MCC's involvement in the proposed redevelopment of Abergavenny and its cattle market is more than a tad iffy.

The Welsh Government has ignored the real and pressing need to call in this proposed development. Even when MCC changed the composition of the Planning Committee because it returned the wrong verdict (against rather than in favour of the development), there was barely a murmur from Cardiff. This planning application should have been called in as it has raised issues of more than local importance, issues which are in conflict with national planning policies; issues which could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality; and give rise to substantial controversy beyond the immediate locality.

The application to redevelop the livestock market in Abergavenny will affect sites of scientific, nature conservation and / or historic interest as well as areas of landscape importance in the town. It is nonsense that the Welsh Government has acted to open consultation on the real of the Abergavenny Improvement Acts, yet refuses to take evidence in relation the planning application, its impact and its affects on the town, local farmers and the surrounding area. Quite honestly this is stuff and nonsense if not a duplicitous act on the part of the Welsh Government.

WORKING FOR WALES?

Planning permission can be a touchy subject, especially when a development (whether for commercial, housing or energy development) is controversial or the final decision is made against the wishes of local people by a fairly distant and indifferent authority. It's pretty obvious that we lack a coherent national strategic development plan for Wales judging by the half-baked way local unitary development plans have been put together over the years, doing some pretty serious damage to our environment in the process.

News that the developers are set to appeal against a decision by Torfaen council to reject controversial plans for 1,200 homes in Sebastopol, should come as no surprise to most dispassionate observers. The original application was made by a consortium of developers (including Asbri Panning Ltd, Barratt Homes and the Welsh Development Agency) for the housing to be built on farm and woodland near Cwmbran Drive.

Torfaen County Council (wisely in my opinion) rejected the application on a number of different grounds including highways, transport, access and circulation and threat to surrounding green wedges of land. The development consortium has decided to skip negotiations with Torfaen County Council and go straight to an appeal against the planning decision. Back in July, Torfaen County Councillors refused the planning application, but, have until next week to formalise the exact wording of the reasons for refusal of planning consent.

You do have to ask yourself why the Welsh Development Agency, now an arm of the Welsh Government is working against the best interests of the people of Torfaen and seeking to develop the few surviving green wedges between Cwmbran and Pontypool. For the record, our county only has one notional green belt, and that lies between Cardiff and Newport, Scotland has 7 and Northern Ireland has 30 - each has its own policy guidance.

The idea of Green belt worked and worked well, as of 2007, Green belt covered something like 13% of England (around one-and-a-half million hectares) which despite the best efforts of previous Conservative and New Labour Governments it is still relatively well protected both by normal planning controls and against "inappropriate development" within its boundaries. It's worth noting that 'Green belt' is a useful planning tool, which was introduced for London in 1938 but then ended up being rolled out to England as a whole by a government circular in 1955.

We have seen in the south east, especially along the coastal belt and in and around Torfaen, over the last twenty years a spectacular growth in the amount of housing. The fact that a significant percentage of which was never aimed to fulfil pressing local housing needs may be of note, along with the fact that Newport City Council (and no doubt others) have encouraged a growth in housing to fill predicted anticipated gaps in demand for housing in and around a large city across the bridge.

As a result the infrastructure along the coastal belt between Chepstow, Caldicot, Rogiet and Magor is struggling to cope with existing developments and this is well before the projected expansion of housing on and around the former Llanwern site. The north of Newport has now been linked effectively to the south Cwmbran - something that has brought little material benefit or improved quality of life to either urban area.

We often seem to fail to note that once the Green belt or Green wedge is gone it's gone forever, we cannot restore it. The Con Dems in England (in Westminster) are seeking to free up green belt and agricultural land for housing (and other) development. There is a real need for a Welsh equivalent to Green belt, to fringe our urban areas, to help focus out of town and fringe of town developments, not to mention helping to protect rural green spaces between and within some of our urban areas for current and future generations.