PIP

Although the rot started long before 2001 and the so-called PPG3, it was always very evident that this soviet style imposition of ad hoc high density housing projects in unsuitable locations was going to degrade amenity and the relative values of properties. It is remarkable how the majority of analyses carried out by local authorities and town planning professionals concentrated on the "statistical analysis" of constituency family size, number of bedrooms in units and car ownership distributions across different sized units. Such an analysis was going nowhere because of increasing prosperity and a buoyant second hand car market meant the relationship between house size and location and car ownership was breaking down. There was therefore a lot of wasted effort in working out "operational bases" for deciding how many cars might be associated with different sizes of unit as a basis for carrying forward the planning regime with new targets for off-site parking.

What was not really ever at issue was the disastrous impact of this policy on amenity and in exacerbating an existing car parking crisis. Clearly the policy was going to impact the circumstances of residents both in economic and financial terms. The policy appears to have arisen in the dark shadows of Labour's Marxist past so old Labour in New Labour's coat. The tactic of enforcing high unit densities on just about any area of a town had the benefit of causing those who came to occupy them feeling grateful to Labour and thereby gaining a few more votes in marginal constituencies. Any notion of the need for a government to protect the freedom of the individual and property owners from the abuses arising from this policy were to be the price paid for the imposition of the policy. This is an unfortunate example of political parties getting their own way by ruling through law as opposed to there being the rule of law. It is not as if the Labour party had a mandate to bring about such chaos given that for its 13 years of governance it never enjoyed the support of more than 19% of the electorate.

The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats never showed their propensity to support the freedom of property owners by insisting on more fairness in the system. Indeed the whole political establishment turned their gaze to other things of more significance to the political parties. The plight of the population under the onslaught of this policy was to remain a slowly growing cancer, a socially-divisive approach to planning which only served to worsen the already poor relationship between Planning Committees and local residents. Local councillors became hapless apologists for the decisions taken in line with the policy, almost as if the political parties were colluding not to rock the boat by making this policy a political party issue.

In other words the political parties, as in the case of the issue of immigration, remain out of touch with the views and preferences of the electorate and permitted this undemocratic and unacceptable policy to proceed.

It is of course very convenient that planning decisions exclude consideration of the valuation of properties and indeed on the basis of observed experience little attention is given to amenity. The Bank of England economic model makes allowances for the progress and movement in property values as a basis for determining likely equity based credit. In many regions, and in particular, Portsea Island, the current planning policy undermines the effectiveness of this part of the BoE model. This is bad news for Mervyn King's quest to establish macroprudential management because the outcome of this Stalinist policy is counter-productive to supporting the best interests of property owners. This means that all political parties have driven a large wedge between themselves and their constituents because they have not taken on board the importance of local decisions being analysed from the standpoint of the economic and financial interests of stakeholders, that is, those affected by the outcomes of a plan.

The foreign aid agency (DfID) and most other international aid agencies, when dealing with foreign nationals, insist on a detailed project evaluation as a matter of course, before allocating funds to projects. So, even a building construction, would have a range of assessments, the most significant of which would be stakeholder reviews of plans, a serious analysis of the economic circumstances and likely benefits, the likely cash flow, social and environmental impact analyses. For the electorate in Britain no such care is taken to ensure that projects have such democratic and participatory credentials, but that a project only has only to meet planning regulations with the stakeholders being largely ignored is an unacceptable state of affairs.

Indeed the planning regulations seem to be designed to prevent any effective stakeholder analysis prior to the submission of plans. As a result, residents are taken by surprise and, in any case, are provided no effective way to register their concerns in a way that would influence the decisions of a planning committee. Since the general nature of current planning regulations are not generally known, especially with policy removing the relevance of the more substantive questions on amenity and car parking in decision-making, then resident called upon to comment on plan propsals are not aware that their contribution is likely to be irrelevant. This represents a corruption in procedural due process because the public are not informed as to the questions over which their views can influence decision outcomes. In reality the degree of influence is virtually zero calling into question the whole process of "participatory community decision-making"; planning is no more than a farce.

If councillors were required to assess the economic & financial implications of any decision on the stakeholders and were also required not to allow any decision that would reduce the relative economic and financial status of residents, then planning decisions might take on a more productive role and, indeed, outcome. Certainly a default outcome of such an approach would be at least better economic growth. Clearly at the moment of austerity resulting from other forms of poor decision-making, Portsea Island, and indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom, cannot afford to pursue policies which undermine the relative economic and financial status of family units since this undermines the effectiveness of any future macroeconomic management.

As things stand, planners, including small projects such as house construction, are not required to produce a stakeholder analysis to demonstrate a generalised benefit. Indeed, all that a builder can show is his likely personal profit from selling the finished unit (which would not be shared with the Planning Committee) and with no obligation to demonstrate any benefit to the community at all except for the fact that, as yet unidentified persons, might purchase or rent the property. On the other side of this balance sheet we see a depreciation in amenity and increasing parking chaos leading t relative declines in valuations across a larger number of properties and, in general, wiping out any economic and financial gains attributable to the builder's business. Such short-termism ruined several banks and has brought the whole of the UK economy to a position where there now exists questions concerning the ability of government to manage the effective reduction in debt (sovereign debt question). There is no reason why the public should have to put up with such incompetence in planning with its disruptive and negative impact on any sound economic strategy.

It is remarkable how the main political parties have supported this drift towards totalitarianism and policy conflict through their lack of interest, concern or awareness of what is going on and, in those cases where they have realised, in not being shocked into action. To a man and woman be they MPs or local councillors, they have been willing to observe this outrage, and indeed to participate in the very decisions that maintain its destructive momentum throughout the country, rather than to rebel against it for fear of becoming conspicuous to their party. This says a lot about the dismal level of representation enjoyed by the British electorate and it demonstrates the degree to which politicians are prepared to sacrifice the freedom of the people of Britain so as to preserve their own paltry status within their factional minority collectives to which belong and to whom they pay their ultimate allegiance.