Trouble ahead in Eco Town, by Peter Featherby
When people are on the march, what does 'the public interest' really mean in relatrion to the Government's Eco Towns?
THE eco-town concept is now close to home with the possibility of a location being chosen in Rushcliffe Borough; probably on the disused RAF Newton station. The suggestion from Government that Rushcliffe should try and designate a site for such a town raises some interesting planning and judicial points in the context of democratic decision making.
The issue of the eco-towns concept was based upon a series of criteria to which the application should adhere in forming a plan for a development. These criteria have now been fully documented and are fairly open to address different schemes for different locations and requirements - subject to certain very basic essentials such as size, being free standing settlements and well linked by high quality public transport.
The Government then called for suggested sites and received over 60 proposals which resulted in a short list of 15, with the proposal from the appropriate department that Rushcliffe should look to find a site within its boundaries, following the rejection of an application at Kingston-upon-Soar which did not reach the final 15.
Since that list was published, many local authorities have had an opportunity to consider the plans put forward and have experienced the considerable opposition from many organisations and ad hoc groupings of objectors. It seems that there is little enthusiasm from the local authorities affected or the electorate for this type and method of development as considerable opposition is building against many of these proposals, which in some instances are reshaped previous applications that have been turned down.
2,000 protesters marched with Ben Fogle protesting over the suggested site at Ford Eco-Town in West Sussex. At Middle Quinton, Stratford-upon-Avon, campaigners are proposing to instruct the law firm SJ Berwin to consider launching a judicial review over the apparent lack of public consultation in the early stages of this particular scheme following Government announced policy of giving greater cognisance to consultation at local level. Three county councils, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Leicestershire are unhappy about proposed sites within their jurisdiction. Closer to home, Bingham Town Council voted unanimously against the suggestion that Rushcliffe should site an eco-town at RAF Newton.
However, there are some local authorities that will give support to the concept of an eco-town but at the moment it seems that the majority of the 15 sites short listed will receive a rough ride by district council planners and county councils.
The final arbiter of a planning application that goes through the full process of a planning appeal following a public local enquiry is the appropriate Minister, who gives the final decision on an application. I find it difficult therefore to fully understand that Government is suggesting a certain course of action as is the case in Rushcliffe District when, at the end of the process after consultation and a possible local enquiry, the local wish is disregarded. Is there not a conflict of interest for the Minister who will eventually adjudicate?
Should an application for RAF Newton, if all the correct criteria are in place, be subsequently granted? Is the Minister not likely to be accused of having pre-judged the application? The party line would appear to be that these proposals are in the “public interest” but one wonders what this really means in the context of eco-towns if the majority of the applications are strongly opposed.
The new planning proposals that applications for major infrastructure works such as nuclear power stations, airports and similar projects will be decided upon by Parliament through the making of a National Policy Statement, and then be implemented through the Infrastructure Planning Commission, will bring some common sense and more democratic openness to the phrase “public interest.”
It seems likely that when all the objections by individuals, local authorities and judicial reviews are dealt with, we shall see the 15 proposed new towns reduced to about 5. As Baroness Andrews, a junior House Minister suggested, only the most likely sites will eventually be chosen and those are probably the ones where the objection is least held.
Publication date: 02/07/2008 13:05:19
More articles by Peter Featherby
Back to Columnists