21 Comments
User's avatar
J Turner's avatar

I listened to the podcast on my way to work this morning, and the audio clips brought back horribly traumatising memories of my – thankfully short – spell some years ago working in a semi-rural local authority and dealing with a planning committee exactly like this (the ‘highlight’ possibly being the refusal of a car wash on barely concealed racist grounds, which were difficult to parse into a written reason for refusal that would survive appeal…). You’ve absolutely nailed the mix of ignorance, arrogant dismissal of experts, posturing and unwillingness to grabble with grown up issues.

One thought I had on this and the bat tunnel though: the ‘ransom’ position that HS2 finds itself in in these situations is in large part down to the Hybrid Bill consent route used, with lots of things left by Parliament to local authority approval. The DCO/Planning Act 2008 regime used for most big infrastructure promoters generally expects these issues to be resolved by the developer to be fixed in the Secretary of State's Order (with a theoretical aim of a ‘one stop shop’, though some things are still left to local approval). The obvious catch is the greater certainty comes at the cost of the effort of fixing all these issues upfront, theoretically with no certainty your application will be approved. Partly hence the reforms being proposed at the moment, especially on the standard of pre-application consultation.

Expand full comment
Sam's avatar

Very interesting, and amusing/alarming. As someone who worked for local and citywide government for almost my entire career I have huge respect for good local councillors and their role in decision making, and scrutiny, but also long experience of decisions made(or status quo of no decisions) for very poor reasons. One thing to always watch out for is protection against minor impacts to small but vocal groups by suggesting impacts on larger groups who are less vocal and sometimes not “in the room”. I don’t know f that’s the case here, but…

Expand full comment
M. F. Robbins's avatar

It’s a really good point, it was interesting how casually the councillors would say ‘oh it can just go in from this other route’ while giving absolutely no consideration to any potentially issues on that route. It often felt more like a Dobbins Lane residents committee than a county council meeting.

Expand full comment
Katie Lee's avatar

My mum lives on Dobbins Lane so this feels weirdly close to home! It’s an extremely quiet road that could certainly handle a bit of extra traffic without losing its bucolic sleepiness.

Expand full comment
M. F. Robbins's avatar

Amazing, what a coincidence!

Expand full comment
Zach Elsbury's avatar

„You’re holding us over a barrel!“ cries the councillor holding a nationally-significant infrastructure project over a far larger barrel to avoid one lorry per day for a few months.

The night of hypocrisy, arrogance, and selfishness.

Expand full comment
Mark Reid's avatar

Really interesting piece that opened up some debate around our dinner table 10 miles away in Beaconsfield. Feeling was to remember that the imposition of HS2 on the landscape and infrastructure of Wendover (and elsewhere) has been traumatising - arc lights, lorries, construction noise through the night, the landscape utterly remodelled. That a representative(ish) group of residents should resist where they can, no matter how shortsighted and ultimately futile a gesture, isn’t really surprising..

Expand full comment
Lukas Nel's avatar

Traumatizing is a strong word for “arc lights, lorries and construction noise”. Some would call it being overly sensitive.

Expand full comment
Mark Reid's avatar

Well, the landscape has been completely reshaped, beyond recognition; I think that would have an impact on your sense of the place you live

Expand full comment
Lukas Nel's avatar

Horrors! It has a railway now. Some would call that a natural part of the English countryside seeing as England invented the railway.

Expand full comment
Mr Bunce's avatar

Madness. My friend is a councillor. She happens to be a very experienced solicitor specialising in infrastructure. She tells me that she regularly has to cut across similar such deliberations. Thankfully, she has the patience of a saint.

Expand full comment
Leslie Forsyth's avatar

BCC members are not unpaid. Last year Cllr Gomm received £15,000 in allowances, and Cllr Marshall £21,000. This is not why BCC makes this sort of decision, and always has.

Expand full comment
M. F. Robbins's avatar

Yes fair that they receive an allowance (I added a footnote to reflect this). My point is more broadly that being a councillor isn't a professional role, and that affects the profiles of the kind of people who become councillor, who then make these kinds of decision. I'm not sure what the solution is exactly, but at some point there's a discussion to be had about how you get a higher calibre of people in these roles.

Expand full comment
R Barnes's avatar

Nobody should be surprised by this. Here in South Bucks, local councillors see HS2 as an invading army and themselves as brave resistance fighters, where any act of trivial sabotage is to be welcomed. Following any kind of due process would be seen as collaborating with the enemy.

Expand full comment
Pat's avatar

Wonder if George Monbiot reads your articles. Apparently there is a great nature sellout occurring led by the labour government. Not a crisis in delivering a country that a regenerate.

Expand full comment
Stuart Hamlin's avatar

Infuriating. And presumably all that will happen is that this decision will get appealed to the Secretary of State who will approve it anyway, and the good people of Wendover will get stung for costs.

I wonder if changing the voting system for local government elections would help. At the very least a more proportional system should reduce the number of one party states up and down the land.

Expand full comment
M. F. Robbins's avatar

I do wonder if an underrated danger of this stuff is that towns like Wendover end up shooting themselves in the feet down the line. If developers bend over backwards to accommodate concerns but *still* get rejected and have to appeal, and you have a government more inclined to overrule the local authority, at some point the incentive to play nice is going be pretty small.

Expand full comment
J Turner's avatar

In some cases that is true, and some developers work exactly like this - but very often the 'objective', insofar as there is one with these people, is only to be seen to be resisting. The Planning Inspectorate - the 'unelected quango riding roughshod over local democracy' with its annoying insistence on evidence, due process, policy adherence etc. - overturning decisions is sort of fine. If anything, it's double bubble as the councillor also gets to froth at the supposed injustice.

Expand full comment
theFieldWalker's avatar

Neat article, well observed.

One thing, in the footnotes?

"Parliament continues to be the only example where people seem to think paying less would result in higher quality staff."

Nope, plenty of that in my line of work :)

Expand full comment
Pat's avatar

So true…… it’s a simple rule the less you have control over company’s money in your job equates directly to your financial package. Less equals less.

Expand full comment
M. F. Robbins's avatar

Ha ha, fair :)

Expand full comment