Local Democracy (Debate)

Fri 5 Jan, 11:52 (last edited on Fri 5 Jan, 12:06)

Oh I do so agree with the sentiments expressed in Liz’s post of 1 Jan!

I know some of the people involved on both ‘sides’ who, guess what – mostly have the best intentions in mind but disagree over how they should be achieved.  It is perfectly possible to hold different opinions on these matters without the need for barely disguised personal abuse, usually based on misunderstanding or worse.  So if you’re fond of conspiracy theories or of slinging mud at people you think you don’t like, look away now. And I couldn’t care less who started it or how much money anyone has!

I’m not going to go into the planning arguments on the Forum – they are not straight forward and it would serve no useful purpose.  But here’s a few observations on the process from a retired (and slightly weary) Planning Inspector and main author of the Housing appendix to our Neighbourhood Plan and of its housing policies (at least until WODC and the Examiner emasculated them – another story, fortunately not crucial here). 

Local democracy comes into planning but just as we were thwarted on some aspects of the CNP so decisions on applications are constrained by rules and policies, of which there are plenty relevant to this case.  The number of representations is of less importance than their substance (except to elected politicians).  And because the permission attaches to the land not the owner or developer, the identity of the developer is or should be irrelevant – as here, that can change at any time.

There will probably be a lot of consultants’ and alleged ‘expert witness’ statements knocking around.  Sorry to sound so cynical but in my experience (20+ years) their conclusions depend entirely on who’s paying their fees.  Since the RB applications have always been supported by the Planning Officers, it’s hardly surprising their colleagues have fallen in line in the recent past, despite their earlier assessment that the site was “too remote from the settlement” to justify its allocation for development in the WOLP.  Probably the only objective assessment of the landscape and visual impacts at this stage will come from the AONB board – but visibility is far from the only issue or even the most important one.

The dismissive acronym NIMBY is usually used by developers and politicians to denigrate people who may have genuine concerns about the effects of a proposed development – and is just unnecessary.  I prefer BANANA – build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody!  It’s about as helpful.  Let’s play the ball, not the players.

The High Court does not accept or reject proposals.  Rather, it oversees the way in which decisions are made, but only where a party with a legitimate interest in the outcome asks it to.  It is surely in all our interests that local authority (and government!) decisions are made lawfully, properly and fairly.  Draw your own conclusions from the fact that WODC has been found wanting at least twice or is it three times – I’ve lost track - and may yet be again in the not too distant. 

It's for officers now to report to WODC’s Planning Committee.  That should be done as impartially as possible concluding with a balanced judgment and recommendation flowing from it.  Given their performance to date, I can’t say I share Liz’s confidence – but that’s where it goes now and you can probably still put in a representation despite the official deadline.

And finally - not about RB but as some wag put it at the Local Plan Examination, “how is it that the proposed development of a particular site can one month represent an ‘unacceptable encroachment into open countryside’ but the next be considered ‘a logical extension to the built up area’?”  At least he was talking about the planning issues - and circumstances can change.