Government faces protests over planning bill independent commission plans – and eco towns

Planning and development regulation difficulties look set to add to the woes of the Labour government as both proposed planning legislation and eco-towns proposals attract rising levels of dissent.

Planning minister Caroline Flint, hoping to calm the waters, is encouraging local government and council leaders to forge stronger links between planners and other departments. ‘We have got to get away from a culture of working that sees planning as a separate and specialist activity,’ she stated. She added that the police and primary care trusts should be involved in shaping local plans.

Flint also claimed that the proposed eco-towns policy statement will not permit applications to bypass local plans: ‘Where an up-to-date local plan exists the eco-town should be considered in the light of this.’

Flint said the planning policy statement on eco-towns could benefit councils assessing other types of eco-development.

Yet protest is mounting. A former Labour environment minister is planning a backbench rebellion over government plans to devolve major planning decisions to an unelected commission – the proposed Independent Planning Commission (IPC).

Gordon Brown faces a possible backbench rebellion over reforms to the planning system and the so-called ‘cult of experts’ over accountable decision-making. It has been claimed that up to 40 MPs could defy the government by voting for rebel amendments to the Planning Bill.

If realised, and supported by opposition parties, a rebellion by this many MPs would be enough to overturn the government’s 65-seat majority.

The bill proposes easing the planning process for major infrastructure projects, such as nuclear power stations or trunk roads, by setting out national policy statements (NPCs) devised by ministers on infrastructure provision, and leaving final decisions to an independent planning commission (IPC).

Meacher said the current proposals allowed ‘no or very few opportunities for local people to oppose decisions’, and could prompt ‘sabotage’ actions by disgruntled local residents. He said: ‘These reforms are fundamentally anti-democratic because they remove the need for developers to consult and gain consent.

‘The public will not even have a right to be heard when far-reaching policy is being drawn up in the national policy statements, let alone when decisions are made on the ground. I think people will be prepared to use resistance to delay – I hesitate to say ‘sabotage’ – developments.’

Possible amendments to the Planning Bill would include giving community groups rights to be heard in front of the IPC, the possibility of community engagement in formulating the NPCs, and giving the IPC the ability to force a developer to make changes to ‘reasonably mitigate’ community concerns.

Gideon Amos, director of the Town and Country Planning Association, said: ‘Peers are undoubtedly very concerned about the bill.’ .

Ministers say the change will make the planning process faster and less expensive. But the motion warns it would give the independent IPC ‘inordinate and unprecedented’ powers to push through developments against public opposition.

Labour's MP for Sheffield Attercliffe Clive Betts, who tabled the amendment, told BBC Radio 4’s World at One: ‘I think it is really very worrying that matters such as a new nuclear power station, a new airport or a major new motorway could all be eventually determined by an unaccountable, unelected commissioner, not by a politician who is elected.

‘I hope we can persuade ministers that they have simply got this one wrong.’

And Selby MP John Grogan told the programme: ‘Big planning decisions should ultimately, I think, be taken by ministers... They shouldn't be signed off by an unelected, appointed planning commission.

‘By all means speed up the planning system, but at the end of the day, these are essentially political decisions and they should be made by a politician who can stand up and be counted.’

Mr Grogan said that the perceived success of the independence of the Bank of England had encouraged Mr Brown's inner circle to favour handing over decision-making powers to experts from outside the world of politics.

But he warned that ‘there is a limit to the cult of experts’, pointing to the unexpected and politically difficult decision of an independent panel to award the proposed super-casino to Manchester.

Planning minister John Healey indicated that the Government remained open to further discussions on fine-tuning the Bill, but insisted that the creation of the IPC would in fact strengthen the involvement of Parliament in the planning process and allow local people a greater say.

How it works now
At present, ministers make decisions on major planning proposals without reference to Parliament and their judgments are subject to challenge only through the courts, he pointed out.

Under the new arrangements, the IPC would make its decision within the framework of a national policy statement drawn up by ministers and scrutinised by Parliament.

These statements would go into considerable detail about what ministers want; for example naming appropriate locations for the siting of new nuclear power stations.

And Commissioners would have to report to Parliament and give evidence to House of Commons select committees.