Sunday, 5 December 2010

The Bleeding Obvious Part 3562 - Local Planning

Just heard on radio 4 news that the 'Coalition' are planning to introduce - as part of its localisation agenda blah blah - local planning schemes set up by the locals blah blah. The bit that got my attention was where they mentioned that 'residents' would be able to make alteration to their homes without getting planning approval from the (local!) council.

Here's the bleeding obvious bit - this is about making things easier for Tesco and other corporate developers. That's the whole thing, end of story, all the rest is window dressing.
Right I'm in a hurry so I won't go off on a two thousand word ramble for once. I'm not even going to look it up ont web.

Expect the penny to drop with media commentators in about two days time.


  1. How you be so sure that 'residents' doesn't refer only to residential addresses (as opposed to businss ones)? Haven't read story so perhaps missed this.
    Did you have anythinh to say on Charles Glass's latest piece at Takimag? would like to know what you think.

  2. I just be sure. Well, fairly sure - about 80%. Call it a hunch, if you like. I've been keeping an eye on these people and I have a pretty good - unvarnished - idea of how they work. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just to make a record of my opinion at an early stage. Mark, as they say, my words.

    I haven't read the story either. I doubt the Cons have even finished writing it yet. They may not even quite realise where they are going with it yet. They're the ones who are always talking about conservative 'instincts'. I can just see it - the sloganeering half-genuine, the need for eye-catching policies ever-bnagging, and all the time at the back of their piggy little minds, the awareness that planning restrictions are a bloody nuisance, a fetter on progress, just the kind of things that their businessman chums are always complaining about - our kind of policy.

    It's always possible that this will be rumbled and someone will make enough of a fuss to prevent it, but if not, the legislation will conveniently, though discreetly, avoid making the distinction you refer to. We might even be treated to worthless ministerial assurances being made to backbenchers, about how the law is intended to be used, etc., a la terrorism legislation.