The only surprise about Bob Neill’s comment article was the absence of a wink in his accompanying photograph. I have not met a single, informed commentator who believes that the Conservative planning green paper stacks up.
Typical responses quoted in the trade press include: ‘The green paper shows a complete lack of understanding about how the planning system works’ and ‘I haven’t read anything this poor in 35 years of planning’. Even Neill isn’t convinced by his party’s proposals, as he was forced to concede elsewhere that they were ‘open to change’.
The planning system is a delicately calibrated means of mediating between conflicting and strongly-held views about the desirability and need for development. Any ill-considered alterations risk destabilising the system and causing hideous unforeseen consequences.
So suggesting a whole raft of uncoordinated and untested changes to the system is a high-risk strategy that would raise the alarm even if it came from the most highly respected and experienced source.
Yet this package comes from a singularly inexperienced shadow team, who have advanced their proposals without the benefit of any pilot studies or supporting empirical evidence. It is hardly surprising that the Conservative green paper has received such a resounding thumbs-down.
Nick Raynsford
Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich
