I took part in a very strange debate this morning about the key issue of how many houses are going to be built in the South West in the next 20 years and where they should be built. The figures and plans are in a document called the 'draft regional spatial stratgegy for the South West', on which an 'independent' panel has now produced a report to the Secretary of State. For South Gloucestershire the plan means an extra 30,000 plus houses (or roughly 'four Bradley Stokes'), an increase of about a third on the already large increase proposed by the Regional Assembly. Out of the blue, an extra 5,000 houses was announced for North Yate.
A lot of MPs turned up to speak and I spoke about the implications of the Yate plans for the local roads, health services and environment. I pointed out that Yate town council was refused permission to speak to the Panel and that this 5,000 number appeared to have been plucked from nowhere.
The Housing Minister, Yvette Cooper, replied that she wasn't really allowed to say anything and that initially her ministerial brief for the debate was entirely blank on the subject! Apparently the reason is that the Secretary of State is acting in a "quasi-judicial" capacity - ie it is a bit like an MP trying to tell a judge to find someone guilty or innocent! She did however promise a 13 week consultation period - but only after the Minister has made up her mind!
Incredibly, the only elected people who have had any regional say in this whole process - the Regional Assembly - are being abolished. We do have a "regional minister for the South West" (prize if you can name him...) but he didn't turn up. We have been promised "regional select committees" which could do some of this scrutiny work, but they haven't been created yet.
It is astonishing that key strategic decisions (as well as very local ones, apparently) are being made in this way with virtually no democratic scrutiny. This one will run and run.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The question is why on earth are politicians involved at all?
Its because of central planning like this that we have houses on flood planes and part of the reason we have housing problems.
Surely the liberal response is to respect private property and let people build on their land?
Its certainly not the place of central or even regional government to be producing grand plans like this (and given our historic commitment to the importance of land in the economy - surely this counts as economic planning, of the sort Liberals long fought against?)
Tristan, I've just bought the land next to your house and have decided to build a waste incinerator. This will both reduce your quality of life and the value of your house. But it's my private property and I can do what I like with it. Thanks for your understanding
Andy
Way to go Andy!
The liveral response would be to alow for expert involvement in developing regional spatial strategies and then allowing elected representatives to have democratic oversight of such plans - including a veto over anything outrageous. The nature of this democratic oversight could be haggled over but it would probably comprise MPs and representatives of ALL the local authorities.
Why would you build a waste incinerator next to Tristan's House? The land would be massively expensive for the size of building needed, and being a residential area access would be difficult for the trucks so you would probably have low efficiency and your business would go bust pretty quickly. I hope you are not working for Tony Soprano!
I presume the point Tristan was making is that the best indicator of where to build houses is where people want to live and the best indicator of where people want to live is the market. By planning-by-committee where houses are to go you can never really solve the housing problem. If you free people to buy land and develop it then the right number of houses will be built in the right areas. Steve's article suggests he has a problem with the building of 35 000 new homes in South Gloucestershire. If you are in favour of planning should they be built in North Gloucestershire then? East? West?! If you choose to have government planned development then you will always run into nimbyism. Plus, maybe 35000 people don't want to live in South Gloucestershire? If you plan, you won't really find out. If you allow people more flexibility in building then housing goes where it is most needed - which may or may not be South Gloucestershire.
Don't mix up localism and liberalism. This is the liberal way of doing it. It may not be the Liberal Democrat way of doing it but it is the way to allow people what they want to do, so surely then it is liberal.
I would suggest that classical liberalism is based on Mill’s notion of harm – any individual has the right to act as they want, provided these actions don’t harm others and is not the same as leaving everything for the market to decide, this would be more akin to Nozick and libertarianism. Decisions as to land use can and do harm individuals and so the state has to arbitrate. However, this does not mean that the decision as to where people should live is to dictate exactly what should be built where. Instead a regularly updated, zoning plan overseen by those democratically elected would be more preferable, with individuals and companies free to build or not build according to the level of supply and demand, but within the constraints provided.
Andy
Post a Comment