18 June 2020
A Good Day
Hidden Agenda
by J.R.Thomas
“It’s now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.” said a special advisor (we won’t name them) at the Department of Industry, shortly after the second plane hit the Twin Towers nineteen years ago. She lost her job over that, but civil servants (and special advisors) never forget old tricks when assisting their ministers. Whilst the public look the other way, slip through a few things that might cause embarrassment or controversy if revealed on a quiet news day.
Not wanting to make your flesh creep, but has it crossed your mid that there is an awful lot of public focus in just two directions at this time? Whilst the after-effects of Covid-19, and the fury over the death of George Floyd and the treatment of black minorities is obsessing our media, you may have missed one or two other interesting government initiatives.
Here’s one you might have overlooked: a group of government ministers responsible for planning, local government, and economic matters are quietly working on plans to streamline the planning system for development and building works. This began, according to the Daily Torygraph, with discussions in the “Unlock Britain Commission” (we should maybe say for the record at this point that we are not making this up and we don’t think the Telegraph is either), which is reporting to No10 and others on plans to get Britain moving again. This group is coming up with innovative solutions to revive the economy, presumably at two metre distances and wearing facemasks, and has submitted proposals to ministers regarding the construction and development industry, a major employer, investor of capital, and user of local materials. (The destruction and demolition industry seems to be doing pretty well by itself in recent weeks, without social distancing or facemasks.)
The Unlock Britain Commission is made up of various persons from economists to financiers to governmental advisors, their main common feature being that most of them are unelected. The leader of this group is the Tory M.P. Bim Afolami, who occupies the illustrious position of aide to the Pensions Secretary, and he says that they think Britain’s planning system is “convoluted, expensive, and uncertain” and is holding up any revival of the economy, hence their proposed changes to improve things. They have found an easy solution; use what are called Development Consent Orders, DCO’s. DCO’s are currently rarely used except for major infrastructure projects, such as, for example, major new railway lines from London to Birmingham, and can be compared in planning terms to a bulldozer. They cut through all the normal consultation practices and procedures to get things done fast. And indeed to let the bulldozers get to work on homes and gardens fast. Tough on those affected but hey-ho, that’s democracy for you. Or rather, not.
Now, says the Unlock BC, we can use those handy DCO’s for all sorts of things; new roads, large housing developments, any infrastructure projects, digging up the green belt, whatever the government thinks would be good at reviving the economy. Never mind whether the citizens think this is good or not, let’s get Britain Unlocked. After all, the person in Whitehall is always right. Aren’t they?
The idea is that works on projects could start as soon as possible after the planning consent is submitted. Not, as in the case of Heathrow Airport’s third runway, no start in sight more than 14 years after initial proposals were filed. Say, in future, a year, or six months. Public consultation would be cut back and shortened, and much of the detailed work at local authority level removed to central government. Greater Crested Newts would be given a week to quit, ancient woodland makes perfectly good firewood. Kiln dried first, please. Grade 1 listed buildings – who wants those things anyway in modern go-ahead Britain? (North Korea tends not to bother with all this consulting and starts 7am next morning – now there is a streamlined process to emulate.)
Any reader trying to build a house extension or get consent for new business premises may think this is all a thoroughly good thing. The planning system is indeed slow, cumbersome, unresponsive, and expensive. Outcomes are far from certain, in spite of the rights given to property owners under planning law. Minor matters often seem to be, and are, at the whim of planning officers, particularly in terms of style and finishes. There is a tendency for local planning departments and especially planning committees – the political part of the process – to turn proposals down without any valid reason. They know planning will be granted on appeal by the government planning inspectorate but politically the local controllers can be seen to be “standing up for local people” – that is to say, local people who campaign against things, not local people who want to build things.
But in a democracy and in a small crowded country with little green space and lots of historically important buildings there is very good reason to have complex planning processes, even if that makes things slow and expensive. It safeguards the interests of all, prevents decisions from being railroaded through, gives time for reflection and research and proper consultation. It is, in short, an essential part of the democratic process and for the prevention of abuse by powerful developers, whether private or public. There is no doubt the current system could be improved and speeded up, and some minor processes handled differently, but riding roughshod over a long crafted planning process must be a recipe for chaos and anger among communities.
After all, this government secured its large majority by appealing to the unheard and unnoticed and it is not going to achieve that feat a second time by taking localism from the people and giving it to a central commission. It is no doubt tempting to think that because the people of, say, Manchester want better rail links, they should get them double quick. But if that means driving the lines through gardens and factories in eastern Manchester there will be some very angry losers in the process, and one of the features of our age is that minorities can make a lot of noise.
There is something else in advanced consideration, apparently at Cabinet level, and it is not intended to put this to general consultation: when public houses are allowed to reopen, with most customers inevitably standing distantly outside and bellowing across the empty chasms of beer gardens at each other, it is suggested, to help the finances of landlords and others in the industry, that opening hours should be extended. Which basically means pubs will open longer and later.
“Jolly good”, you may think, pulling your drinking boots on and heading off for a long session. But you might not be quite so keen if you live near a pub. Carousing and singing and the police turning up at 2am to enforce the social distancing rules? Not so good. Much regulation has evolved carefully over many years; it strikes a balance between, as it were, drinkers and sleepers, bar staff and police, landlords and A&E units in local hospitals. Override this balance at your peril, mysterious group of cabinet ministers. You may just find Conservative voters prefer a good night’s sleep to an extra couple of pints.
In fact, just remember you are Conservatives, with a tendency to resist change and a belief in caution and gradualism. Make haste slowly or feel the pain in your ballot boxes, Boris acolytes.
