‘Government proposals for a new quango to make decisions on major developments could save money for developers but leave the taxpayer with a higher bill. It seems that the Prime Minister and Prudence have reached a parting of the ways.’

This was the reaction of Neil Sinden, Campaign to Protect Rural England’s [1] Policy Director, to the Government’s proposals for reforming the planning system, which will be debated in the House of Commons today (Monday) when the Planning Bill has its second reading.

CPRE, as part of a broad coalition of conservation, environmental and civic organisations [2], has already raised serious concerns about the implications for democracy of establishing an independent Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) to make decisions on major developments. We believe that decisions on the location of nationally important infrastructure should be left in the hands of democratically-elected Ministers.

CPRE is also alarmed by the dismissive attitude of the Government response to public concerns about its planning proposals. 31,000 of the 32,100 responses to its consultation on the Planning White Paper in the summer came from supporters of coalition organisations. But they had little impact on Ministers’ plans, and – unlike other representations – did not elicit a detailed response.

Neil Sinden said:

‘The Government’s plans for a new IPC will make the planning system less open and accountable than it is now, but it also seems they will make it more expensive for the taxpayer.’

The figures suggest savings for taxpayers of around £900,000 from reduced costs of Government departments and agencies, but these will be more than offset by annual running costs for the IPC of £9.3 million per year, on top of a one-off £5 million bill for establishing the body. [3]

Neil Sinden concluded:

‘Individuals and communities must be fully involved and listened to in the planning process. That means Ministers taking account of public opinion that says that environmental concerns matter as much as economic ones, and not saddling the public with the costs of flawed reform proposals.’

– END –

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

2. The planning coalition brings together a broad cross-section of organisations, including CPRE, The National Trust, Friends of the Earth, RSPB and Civic Trust, which between them have the support of more than 5 million people. The coalition has come together to express its serious concerns that the Government’s Planning Bill will be damaging for the environment and will reduce the involvement of ordinary people and communities in the decision-making process on major projects. For more information on the coalition, visit www.planningdisaster.co.uk.

3. These figures are taken from page 8 of the Impact Assessment for the Planning Bill. In addition to setting out the figures for costs, the Government predicts ‘benefits to society’ from earlier completion of nationally significant infrastructure projects of £280 million per year, and reduced administrative costs for project promoters of £20.4 million per year. The latter figure suggests that it will be developers who will benefit from lower administrative costs, while taxpayers pay more for the establishment and running costs of the IPC. The ‘benefits’ are derived from Ministers’ expectation of reduced timescales in progressing nationally significant infrastructure projects through the planning process. CPRE believes that existing Government bodies could do this job efficiently, and that there is no need for a new body. We would also question the £280 million per year figure, which assumes that the new system will run smoothly – we believe it may in fact open the way for more legal and even direct challenges to development, as the public will feel less able to influence the planning process.