As a planning officer I find often that consultees take unreasonable positions as they do not face any consequences of being unreasonable. There are also no consequences of consultees not responding within 21 days. The role of consultees within the planning system is the single greatest source of delay as they often take completely unreasonable positions which entail either revisions or detailed reports to rebut and justify not doing this. There was a case of a conservation officer who objected to painting white lines on a car park in a conservation area and environmental health who objected to battery storage on noise grounds despite the noise levels complying with national and world health organisation noise levels.
This makes it very difficult for anyone making a decision to overrule this as it creates grounds for legal challenge or political opposition, also planning committees are very reluctant to approve an application if even 1 consultee objects for political reasons.
I think particularly environmental legislation is written as an absolute requirement rather than a consideration to be balanced against economic harm. For example an application at the moment for air conditioning units in an industrial estate is being delayed due to bng (biodiversity net gain) the area of the units is 32sqm which is above the 25sqm bng threshold. This is a legal requirement so cannot be overruled unlike with planning policies.
I couldn’t agree with you less. Nature England are doing exactly what they are tasked to do protect nature. It’s is no one’s democratic right to disregard our natural environment. Biodiversity loss in the Uk runs at over 60%. When economic gain is the overriding call then the natural environment will suffer and there is so little of it left. We cannot survive as a specifies without a balance ti our natural environment. I would say for too long the capitalist system has ignored this and left our planet in the degraded state it is in today. If anything Nature England should be prescribed more powers not less!
The problem is not confined to Natural England. The HSE, EA etc. all take a similar approach.
They are very happy to tell you (or the consenting authority in the case of Hinckley) what is unacceptable but offer no direction on what might be or what additional mitigation would help. Sometimes it’s more subtle, and rather than out and out saying no, they just demand more and more analysis is done.
For developers and their project managers with deadlines to meet it’s like stumbling around a maze in the dark.
So in desperation they land on ‘Rolls-Royce’ solutions which guarantee consent but are cripplingly expensive because that at least ensures they can actually get something built.
Schedule delayed, but at least you can now make progress; budget totally blown.
Returning to the original theme of your post, no they don’t consult one another either, why should they? And since there is no guidance as to who takes precedence you can get scenarios were for example less safe but more environmentally friendly stuff gets approved for no discernible rhyme or reason and vice versa.
We (our politicians and policymakers) do however love to commend ourselves for having an ‘enviable’ regulatory regime that protects our health, safety and the environment. Conveniently ignoring the fact that nothing ever gets built, including in many cases new infrastructure that would actually improve our health, safety and the environment. We also choose not to dwell too much on the fact that other countries do much better.
The nature of these quangos and the culture that has evolved around them ensures they can totally divorce themselves from the wider consequences of their actions and have no responsibility other than for their individual and very narrow remits. Unfortunately they now have real power and are not simply bodies offering advice or counsel to ministers.
It’s the academia model of governance writ large on society and the economy.
I suspect there’s a good reason that traditionally we kept our academics in ivory towers, whilst they can be great at analysis and offering insights they are generally not so good at actually getting things done.
It's difficult, isn't it. But I'm not sure what Natural England are supposed to do: they're caught at the sharp end of an arbitration of very different desires in all sorts of ways, after years of being told they are too powerful and of politically being financially and politically neutered. In my world, someone in power needs to be able to stand up for nature (ie not be the arbitrator) because nature has just as much 'right' to exist and to develop as we humans do, and because other 'voluntary' methods haven't worked. And not only that but someone needs to ensure that we don't 'over-indulge' or be misguided in our drive for 'growth'...and that latter is the Gov'ts role (but one which I think it fails to grasp because it's too easily swayed by economics. The real nub here is that I'm not convinced that we have agreed on the definition of 'disproportionate' - which some would argue is a 'political' one, others a 'systems' one - and I think that folks are attacking an easy victim (nature and Natural England) and too often we all highlight 'totemic' examples (which so often are outliers) rather than tackling the root and systemic causes of problems and blockages in achieving appropriately sustainable growth (such as how we achieve consensus on what that actually means and how we allow for differences of opinion and outcome).
When I have read the legislation on some of this stuff it is normally pretty sensible. So it definitely is people like natural England being ultra cautious.
And yes there is a (small) chance that the judge will overturn the regulator and make the government build a £100m bat shed - but it is pretty unlikely - and at least then you’ve pushed the problem down the road a bit.
Jim Hacker said that our Government has the engine of a lawn mover and the breaks of an aircraft carrier - it seems to have got even worse.
As a planning officer I find often that consultees take unreasonable positions as they do not face any consequences of being unreasonable. There are also no consequences of consultees not responding within 21 days. The role of consultees within the planning system is the single greatest source of delay as they often take completely unreasonable positions which entail either revisions or detailed reports to rebut and justify not doing this. There was a case of a conservation officer who objected to painting white lines on a car park in a conservation area and environmental health who objected to battery storage on noise grounds despite the noise levels complying with national and world health organisation noise levels.
This makes it very difficult for anyone making a decision to overrule this as it creates grounds for legal challenge or political opposition, also planning committees are very reluctant to approve an application if even 1 consultee objects for political reasons.
I think particularly environmental legislation is written as an absolute requirement rather than a consideration to be balanced against economic harm. For example an application at the moment for air conditioning units in an industrial estate is being delayed due to bng (biodiversity net gain) the area of the units is 32sqm which is above the 25sqm bng threshold. This is a legal requirement so cannot be overruled unlike with planning policies.
I couldn’t agree with you less. Nature England are doing exactly what they are tasked to do protect nature. It’s is no one’s democratic right to disregard our natural environment. Biodiversity loss in the Uk runs at over 60%. When economic gain is the overriding call then the natural environment will suffer and there is so little of it left. We cannot survive as a specifies without a balance ti our natural environment. I would say for too long the capitalist system has ignored this and left our planet in the degraded state it is in today. If anything Nature England should be prescribed more powers not less!
The problem is not confined to Natural England. The HSE, EA etc. all take a similar approach.
They are very happy to tell you (or the consenting authority in the case of Hinckley) what is unacceptable but offer no direction on what might be or what additional mitigation would help. Sometimes it’s more subtle, and rather than out and out saying no, they just demand more and more analysis is done.
For developers and their project managers with deadlines to meet it’s like stumbling around a maze in the dark.
So in desperation they land on ‘Rolls-Royce’ solutions which guarantee consent but are cripplingly expensive because that at least ensures they can actually get something built.
Schedule delayed, but at least you can now make progress; budget totally blown.
Returning to the original theme of your post, no they don’t consult one another either, why should they? And since there is no guidance as to who takes precedence you can get scenarios were for example less safe but more environmentally friendly stuff gets approved for no discernible rhyme or reason and vice versa.
We (our politicians and policymakers) do however love to commend ourselves for having an ‘enviable’ regulatory regime that protects our health, safety and the environment. Conveniently ignoring the fact that nothing ever gets built, including in many cases new infrastructure that would actually improve our health, safety and the environment. We also choose not to dwell too much on the fact that other countries do much better.
The nature of these quangos and the culture that has evolved around them ensures they can totally divorce themselves from the wider consequences of their actions and have no responsibility other than for their individual and very narrow remits. Unfortunately they now have real power and are not simply bodies offering advice or counsel to ministers.
It’s the academia model of governance writ large on society and the economy.
I suspect there’s a good reason that traditionally we kept our academics in ivory towers, whilst they can be great at analysis and offering insights they are generally not so good at actually getting things done.
It's difficult, isn't it. But I'm not sure what Natural England are supposed to do: they're caught at the sharp end of an arbitration of very different desires in all sorts of ways, after years of being told they are too powerful and of politically being financially and politically neutered. In my world, someone in power needs to be able to stand up for nature (ie not be the arbitrator) because nature has just as much 'right' to exist and to develop as we humans do, and because other 'voluntary' methods haven't worked. And not only that but someone needs to ensure that we don't 'over-indulge' or be misguided in our drive for 'growth'...and that latter is the Gov'ts role (but one which I think it fails to grasp because it's too easily swayed by economics. The real nub here is that I'm not convinced that we have agreed on the definition of 'disproportionate' - which some would argue is a 'political' one, others a 'systems' one - and I think that folks are attacking an easy victim (nature and Natural England) and too often we all highlight 'totemic' examples (which so often are outliers) rather than tackling the root and systemic causes of problems and blockages in achieving appropriately sustainable growth (such as how we achieve consensus on what that actually means and how we allow for differences of opinion and outcome).
When I have read the legislation on some of this stuff it is normally pretty sensible. So it definitely is people like natural England being ultra cautious.
And yes there is a (small) chance that the judge will overturn the regulator and make the government build a £100m bat shed - but it is pretty unlikely - and at least then you’ve pushed the problem down the road a bit.