Brown urged to rethink flawed planning legislation
2 June 2008
‘The Government needs to listen to the public, ditch ill-conceived proposals for an unnecessary and expensive new planning quango, and not impose airport expansion without proper public debate.’
This was the call from Paul Miner, CPRE’s [1] Senior Planning Campaigner, as MPs debate the Planning Bill at its Report Stage in the House of Commons today (Monday).
CPRE, as part of a broad coalition of conservation, environmental and civic organisations, is calling on MPs to listen to serious public concern [2] about Government proposals which would reduce democracy in the planning process through:
The proposal for a new Commission emerged from a report by the Bank of England economist Kate Barker, despite being firmly advised against by a senior High Court judge just five years previously. [3] A number of backbench Labour MPs, including a former Planning Minister, have also spoken out strongly against the proposal more recently. [4]
The proposed Commission will be expensive. The annual running costs for the IPC are expected to be £9.3 million per year, on top of a one-off £5 million bill for establishing the body. [5] CPRE believes that there are better ways of improving decision-making on major infrastructure projects. [6]
Paul Miner concluded:
‘The Government’s plans for a Commission will make the planning system less open and accountable than it is now, and they will also make it more expensive for the taxpayer. Gordon Brown now needs to listen to the high level of public concern and learn from the experiences of the past.’
– 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. CPRE is part of the ‘Better Planning’ coalition bringing together a broad cross-section of organisations, including 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. 31,000 of the 32,100 responses to the Government consultation on the Planning White Paper in summer 2007 came from supporters of coalition organisations. But they had little impact on Ministers’ plans, and – unlike other representations – did not elicit a detailed response.
3. The Infrastructure Planning Commission idea was recommended in the final report of Kate Barker’s Review of Land Use Planning (December 2006), recommendation 10, p.86. In the 2001 Alconbury case, Lord Nolan stated that ‘to substitute for the Secretary of State an independent and impartial body with no central electoral accountability would not only be a recipe for chaos: it would be profoundly undemocratic’ (2001 UKHL 23).
4. A number of Labour MPs criticised the proposals in the Planning Bill at the House of Commons Second Reading debate on 10 December 2007. Most notably, Keith Hill MP, Planning Minister between 2003 and 2005, stated at Second Reading: ‘I wonder how we have got to the Infrastructure Planning Commission… the truth is that, within the law, all decisions involve a balance of judgments. I believe that it is better that that balance of judgment be exercised by those who are accountable to the public.’ Labour MPs are also tabling significant amendments to the Bill at Report stage, including ones having the effect of removing the proposed Commission’s decision-making powers, and to prevent current statements of Government policy from being adopted for the purposes of decision-making without fresh appraisal or public consultation.
5. These figures are taken from page 8 of the Impact Assessment for the Planning Bill. 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 both the one-off and annual running costs of the proposed IPC. 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.
6. CPRE believes that the Government can take a number of measures to improve decision-making on major infrastructure projects without setting up a new body, such as putting a statutory time limit on Ministerial decision-making; vesting responsibilities in a single departmental Minister rather than more than one as is often the case currently; and the use of performance agreements between developers, local communities and Government to manage timescales for consultations, inquiries and final decisions. In addition, the existing Planning Inspectorate has extensive experience of handling inquiries into, and advising Ministers on, major infrastructure projects and CPRE believes that it is capable of continuing to fulfil these functions.
This was the call from Paul Miner, CPRE’s [1] Senior Planning Campaigner, as MPs debate the Planning Bill at its Report Stage in the House of Commons today (Monday).
CPRE, as part of a broad coalition of conservation, environmental and civic organisations, is calling on MPs to listen to serious public concern [2] about Government proposals which would reduce democracy in the planning process through:
- imposing policies, that have not undergone proper debate or environmental appraisal, for example on airport expansion;
- removing rights for local communities to hold developers to account at public inquiries; and
- establishing an Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) to make decisions on major developments, which would not be directly accountable to Parliament or the public.
The proposal for a new Commission emerged from a report by the Bank of England economist Kate Barker, despite being firmly advised against by a senior High Court judge just five years previously. [3] A number of backbench Labour MPs, including a former Planning Minister, have also spoken out strongly against the proposal more recently. [4]
The proposed Commission will be expensive. The annual running costs for the IPC are expected to be £9.3 million per year, on top of a one-off £5 million bill for establishing the body. [5] CPRE believes that there are better ways of improving decision-making on major infrastructure projects. [6]
Paul Miner concluded:
‘The Government’s plans for a Commission will make the planning system less open and accountable than it is now, and they will also make it more expensive for the taxpayer. Gordon Brown now needs to listen to the high level of public concern and learn from the experiences of the past.’
– 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. CPRE is part of the ‘Better Planning’ coalition bringing together a broad cross-section of organisations, including 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. 31,000 of the 32,100 responses to the Government consultation on the Planning White Paper in summer 2007 came from supporters of coalition organisations. But they had little impact on Ministers’ plans, and – unlike other representations – did not elicit a detailed response.
3. The Infrastructure Planning Commission idea was recommended in the final report of Kate Barker’s Review of Land Use Planning (December 2006), recommendation 10, p.86. In the 2001 Alconbury case, Lord Nolan stated that ‘to substitute for the Secretary of State an independent and impartial body with no central electoral accountability would not only be a recipe for chaos: it would be profoundly undemocratic’ (2001 UKHL 23).
4. A number of Labour MPs criticised the proposals in the Planning Bill at the House of Commons Second Reading debate on 10 December 2007. Most notably, Keith Hill MP, Planning Minister between 2003 and 2005, stated at Second Reading: ‘I wonder how we have got to the Infrastructure Planning Commission… the truth is that, within the law, all decisions involve a balance of judgments. I believe that it is better that that balance of judgment be exercised by those who are accountable to the public.’ Labour MPs are also tabling significant amendments to the Bill at Report stage, including ones having the effect of removing the proposed Commission’s decision-making powers, and to prevent current statements of Government policy from being adopted for the purposes of decision-making without fresh appraisal or public consultation.
5. These figures are taken from page 8 of the Impact Assessment for the Planning Bill. 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 both the one-off and annual running costs of the proposed IPC. 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.
6. CPRE believes that the Government can take a number of measures to improve decision-making on major infrastructure projects without setting up a new body, such as putting a statutory time limit on Ministerial decision-making; vesting responsibilities in a single departmental Minister rather than more than one as is often the case currently; and the use of performance agreements between developers, local communities and Government to manage timescales for consultations, inquiries and final decisions. In addition, the existing Planning Inspectorate has extensive experience of handling inquiries into, and advising Ministers on, major infrastructure projects and CPRE believes that it is capable of continuing to fulfil these functions.
