Planning should be both quicker AND democratic
As usual, Labour MPs who criticised a cotroversial government policy have bottled out of actually voting it down.
The government has survived a Labour rebellion over plans to speed up the planning process for big projects such as airports and nuclear power stations. A bid to ensure ministers get the final say on decisions by an independent body was rejected by 303 votes to 260. More than 60 Labour MPs had signed a Commons motion warning that the new planning quango would be undemocratic, but only 17 Labour MPs actually put their votes where their signatures were.
Ministers say the bill will speed up the planning process. Hazel Blears argued that big projects which could boost the economy and Britain's energy security were being "clogged up" in "antiquated" planning processes.
It was "unacceptable" that major projects such as the upgrade of the North Yorkshire power grid had taken just over six years to get through planning, while some wind farm applications had taken, on average, two years, she said.
"Our current system takes too long. It's immensely costly. It's almost impenetrable in very many cases to members of the public. There's a lack of transparency and a lack of clarity," she said.
The government have correctly identified a problem but come up with entirely the wrong solution.
We DO need a faster system for planning infrastructure projects. Where they are wrong is the belief that this cannot be done while retaining an element of democractic accountability.
The reason that major planning inquiries and other aspects of the planning system take years and cost so many millions is NOT because they allow democratic testing of the arguments. Nor is the problem that every interest group with the money and/or enough committed people to do so can put forward their concerns and challenge the proposed scheme.
The problem is that present bureacratic procedures allow everyone to cross-examine everyone else, and require key planning documents to go through stage after stage of pre-consultation, consultation draft, deposit stage or equivalent, etc, etc, etc.
This allows the same points to be raised and debated ad nauseam again and again and again and again and again.
What we need is not the total abolition of democracy in decisions about major infrastucture. What we do need is to allow each group to have their say, and each point debated properly, ONCE - and not dozens of times.
The government has survived a Labour rebellion over plans to speed up the planning process for big projects such as airports and nuclear power stations. A bid to ensure ministers get the final say on decisions by an independent body was rejected by 303 votes to 260. More than 60 Labour MPs had signed a Commons motion warning that the new planning quango would be undemocratic, but only 17 Labour MPs actually put their votes where their signatures were.
Ministers say the bill will speed up the planning process. Hazel Blears argued that big projects which could boost the economy and Britain's energy security were being "clogged up" in "antiquated" planning processes.
It was "unacceptable" that major projects such as the upgrade of the North Yorkshire power grid had taken just over six years to get through planning, while some wind farm applications had taken, on average, two years, she said.
"Our current system takes too long. It's immensely costly. It's almost impenetrable in very many cases to members of the public. There's a lack of transparency and a lack of clarity," she said.
The government have correctly identified a problem but come up with entirely the wrong solution.
We DO need a faster system for planning infrastructure projects. Where they are wrong is the belief that this cannot be done while retaining an element of democractic accountability.
The reason that major planning inquiries and other aspects of the planning system take years and cost so many millions is NOT because they allow democratic testing of the arguments. Nor is the problem that every interest group with the money and/or enough committed people to do so can put forward their concerns and challenge the proposed scheme.
The problem is that present bureacratic procedures allow everyone to cross-examine everyone else, and require key planning documents to go through stage after stage of pre-consultation, consultation draft, deposit stage or equivalent, etc, etc, etc.
This allows the same points to be raised and debated ad nauseam again and again and again and again and again.
What we need is not the total abolition of democracy in decisions about major infrastucture. What we do need is to allow each group to have their say, and each point debated properly, ONCE - and not dozens of times.
Comments
In Copeland, Democratic Accountability goes clean out of the window. The Council run round protecting the unlawful actions of the developer and not a single elected representative will challenge it.
Then you wonder why the public don't trust politicians, YOU like to be heard saying the right thing but YOU certainly don't practise what you preach.
In St Albans we frequently took enforcement action when developers built things without planning permission or ignored conditions.
In one recent case in my former ward of Sandridge, a local family who had built something which the council and inspectors had decided was not within the planning rules - and to be fair to the family concerned, they had a vastly stronger case than the developers of Whitehaven Golf Course do - were forced to demolish the house they had constructed.
In another case while I was planning portfolio holder in St Albans, we applied for and obtained an order committing to prison the head of a "traveller" family who had repeatedly ignored planning laws and failed to comply both with planning enforcement orders and with court judgements upholding them. There are plenty of politicians who have tried to apply planning rules to everyone, but very few who can actually say that they've gone as far as getting someone who broke them, let alone a gypsy, sent to prison.
Copeland does not have such a team and I have queried whether the resources for enforcement are adequate.
So if you look at my record in office, and not the irrelevant situation where I have been in opposition, your statement that I don't practice what I preach does not stand up to scrutiny.
When is the flagrant breach of planning conditions by Whitehaven Golf Club (employing Copeland BC's former Director of Planning) going to be addressed by any of our elected representatives?
The deliberate breach which is to the detriment of public safety and has been ongoing for over two years, yet Officers, Councillors of all flavours, and yourself have failed to put it on the agenda. Is democracy dead in Copeland?
You talk the talk Chris, but you certainly don't walk the walk.
The St Albans reference became relevant because you had a personal go at me, and your argument can be disproved by pointing to the fact that when I was actually running the same service in another council, I did successfully take action about the same sort of problem.
The intransigence of Councillors of all flavours on Copeland BC has clearly shown that none of you consider democratic accountability to be important. You would all rather sit there and condone the Officers maladministration and possible corruption than hold them to account. Then you wonder why the public have contempt for politicians and government.
Don't quite think the situation justifies doing a Cato and declaring "Whitehaven Golf Course Delenda Est" at every meeting.
I don't want the Golf Course destroyed, I want our Rights protected and the Law upheld. The breach occurred over two years ago, it's a hazard to public safety, action should have been taken a long time ago.
I look forward to receiving a copy of the minutes.
Although if the matter does not come to the planning panel soon, I will be raising it at full council, and if that is necessary I will be happy to send you the minutes.
We don't all work to geological timescales.
We are still waiting.