So much for localism!

Back in 2012, David Cameron announced new guidelines for planning which, he claimed, gave more power to local communities to determine their own future.  He specifically stated, when interviewed by the BBC, that existing protected spaces and green belts would continue to be protected; it was about giving more power to local communities, not taking away their rights.

So, let's see how that worked out in practice.  The local planning professionals produced a local plan, designating the fields as a protected open area.  The local community made it clear that we did not want to lose the fields, the planners agreed it was an inappropriate and unnecessary development, our local elected representatives said it was a bad idea and refused consent to build houses on Hempshill Fields and destroy this unique heritage site.

Then the developers put in an appeal to the central government and the inspector, who is in no way answerable to the community, and who also confirms it is a bad idea and will cause all kinds of problems, reducing the quality of the environment, increasing already excessive traffic levels, ruining the historic setting of Hempshill Hall...and then decides that, on balance, in accordance with central government policy the developers need to make a fast buck, overrides her own conclusions and those of the community and gives in to the appeal.

Not that it is any consolation, but we are not alone.  Apparently this is going on all over the country.  It is not that communities are necessarily objecting to each and every prospective development, it is that there is no sense any longer regarding where those developments take place.  Hempshill Fields has been sacrificed, not because it was the best place to build houses, but because the people who owned it wanted to make a quick profit.  Indeed, there are any number of more appropriate places to build more than enough homes to meet the central government imposed quotas, including brownfield sites nearby.

So much then for any notion of localism and our enfeebled planning system.  It is becoming little more than a pathetically weak obstacle to developers' greed, not a constructive way of shaping our environment.  Why bother spending local taxpayers money producing a local plan, if all you have to do as a speculator is to throw a load of money at influential consultants and lawyers to appeal to central government to get it over-ruled?  Eventually you will get your way.  After all, you can submit as many applications and appeals as you want; you only need one of them to succeed.  The community on the other hand, apart from having far fewer resources, only has to lose once and we cannot appeal. 

This is a very one-sided form of justice!