Re Observer: Fast track for planning laws

[Anthony Rae]

Just as a short response to this issue: don't think these changes are simply proposals which may happen in the future.  In some sense, they have already happened, by way of the changes introduced by the 2000 Rules for public inquiries introduced by the possibly little known Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 1624. 

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001624.htm

(See also DETR Circular 05/2000 Planning appeals: procedures, which I don't think is available on the web). 

This drastically curtails the amount of time allowed for the preparation of your case before the PI starts.

It is only now that we are starting to face the first PIs held under the new Rules that the impact of these changes is being understood.  Some work is being done on the extent of this threat and no doubt you will hear more of this soon.

Anthony Rae


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Mobbs" <mobbsey at gn.apc.org>
To: <foel at listbot.com>; <envlist at nwjones.demon.co.uk>; <waste at foe.co.uk>; <cymrugroups at foe.co.uk>; <activist_list at listbot.com>; <allsorts at gn.apc.org>; <schnews at brighton.co.uk>; <diggers350 at yahoogroups.com>; <traffic_reduction at foe.co.uk>; <global_irl at yahoogroups.com>; <rad-UK at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:51 PM
Subject: TRAFFIC_REDUCTION: Observer: Fast track for planning laws


> http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,521809,00.html
> 
> Fast track for planning laws
> 
> The Observer, Sunday July 15, 2001
> by Nick Mathiason
> 
> 
> The most radical shake-up of the planning system for 50 years is on its way 
> from the Government.
> 
> Prompted by Treasury concerns that the present system puts Britain at a 
> disadvantage to competition from other countries, Ministers want to create a 
> fast track for projects of 'national interest', such as major transport 
> infrastructure improvements to prevent them being mired in long legal 
> wrangles.
> 
> This will infuriate environmental campaigners, who will argue such a move 
> panders to big business and is anti-democratic.
> 
---------------------------------------------------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]