[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Government change on planning consultation  

The Government has backed down on controversial measures in its Planning Reform Bill by giving local people the right to be heard when considering major projects such as runways and nuclear power stations.

The concession is that the Independent Planning Commission set up by the Bill and staffed with Government appointees will be able to hold oral hearings into controversial projects.

However, conservationists said that this still does not go far enough for them. They want guarantees that developers can be cross-examined at the discretion of the Commission.

They say without cross examination the need for a new project cannot be tested, as was the need for a port at Dibden Bay, near Southampton, which led to the project being turned down.

Another major concession that emerged with the publication of the Bill, which is intended to speed up the planning system for major infrastructure projects by taking them out of the public inquiry process, in that there may be “exceptional circumstances” where ministers may take back the right to make decisions on major projects from the Commission of appointed officials.

The occasion when this might happen is thought to be when national policy statements, which are to be devised on such matters as energy, aviation and road transport, are out of date.

The Commission is to be given the discretion to act on all exceptional details and local circumstances instead of forcing things through. There will also have to be a “sustainability appraisal” of the national policy statements.

This is believed to be an attempt to get round legal opinions commissioned by conservationists which say that national policy statements are liable to challenge under European law.

As expected, the Bill will allow loft conversions to go ahead without planning permission, provided the top stays at existing roof level. However, neighbours may find that the change will mean that they find it hard to object to attic conversions which encroach on their privacy or block light to their homes.

Owen Espley, co-ordinator of a coalition of environmental groups including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said the Government’s determination to press ahead despite 32,000 indivudual responses to a consultation in the summer suggested that the Government “is not interested in being fully accountable for major decisions.

“We are also concerned that the right to be heard is limited – hardly encouraging when the planning process should be about listening to and taking account of the views of individuals and communities, and ensuring that all the evidence is fully examined.”

Naomi Luhde-Thompson of Friends of the Earth said: “The Planning Bill will not tackle climate change as Hazel Blears would have us believe. It will fast track roads, airports and incinerators – substantially adding to the UKs carbon footprint.

“While we welcome moves to simplify the planning system for major infrastructure projects the Government must ensure these projects reduce, not add to, carbon emissions. Planning commissioners, who will make decisions on major projects, must be accountable to Government and public inquiries must give people a real opportunity to have their views heard. ”

John Cridland, deputy director-general of the CBI, said: “The planning system has fallen into a state of disrepair and is now in need of a major overhaul.

“If the UK is to meet its economic and environmental objectives, including developing new green energy sources, the planning bill needs to deliver a swift and efficient service, whilst giving all interested parties a fair hearing.”

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor


27 November 2007

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.