take the decisions on these projects and the current inquiry system will be radically changed. I have some sympathy with the need for change.
Although I was once one of them I have always had doubts whether it made sense for expensive barristers and other experts to spend months and sometimes years arguing about government policy and whether, for example, it was preferable to have Pressured Water Design for a nuclear power station or an Advanced Gas Cooled reactor. It is certainly arguable that these are decisions for government rather than for inspectors at planning inquiries.
But every major project had a local dimension and local impact. And I am concerned that local people may be deprived of their opportunity to comment on those local implications. This is not some abstract question. Local input can frequently lead to better discussions being made – local knowledge is often invaluable.
So I asked the Secretary of State for an assurance that the Commission would hold local hearings in public so that local people can continue to have their say. I think this is an essential safeguard if the new proposals are to gain popular support.
I did not quite get the assurance I wanted but I did get some quite positive noises. I hope that when the Government’s detailed proposals are published those positive noises will be translated into action.
Another proposal put forward by the Secretary of State was a relaxation of planning control of minor projects – home extensions and the like. This sounds fine until you remember that one person’s extension could really blight the amenity and quality of life of their neighbour. So I shall look at the detailed proposals with much interest.
In this, as with so many Government proposals, the devil lies in the detail. So scrutiny of the detail will be essential. And that’s what Parliament is for.
|
