I gave evidence to the Commons Select Committee on DCLG on Monday this week. They were inquiring into the proposal to replace the need test in PPS6 with an impact test. It's related to the problem of town centres versus out of town. The "need" test is alleged to keep new entrants out of the town centre. The Competition Commission has had a look at this and has some very far-reaching proposals, but the Select Committee has decided not to look at those. Are you still with me?
Anyway, having got through the Portcullis House security (and I had a wry smile about the effectiveness of all the checks when the security lady on the X-Ray machine handed me back my very heavy document case and said sympathetically "what have you got in there?") I went up to the Grimond Room where the Committee was sitting. (And no the cameras weren't on so you won't be able to see the highlights on the Parliament Channel.)
I was there in my capacity as Chair of the Law Society's Planning & Environmental Law Committee, with representatives of the RICS and RTPI; and the Committee launched off into a series of questions about policy. So I declared the lawyer's position as a hired gun and let the others do the talking. Till we got to a question about whether local authorities had the resources when compared with developers who can allegedly throw huge sums at a planning application. I feel strongly about this one. So I (politely) locked horns with the Hon Member who had raised it. In my view, if the nation wants a planning system it should fund it. We shouldn't be surprised that businesses who want to make money will devote commensurate resources to getting the permissions they need in order to make that money. So I said that - well actually just the first sentence.
The main thing the Select Committee wanted to know was whether we thought the new test would work better than the old. I suppose I could have had a view on that, but to be honest I had mainly swotted up on the Competition Commission stuff (which is much more interesting as it raises all sorts of problems for planning). But I did point out that if we change the test there will be lots of inquiries and litigation trying to find out what it means.
You might think however that the demo which confronted me when I left is much more interesting. No, it wasn't the Planning Officers' Society supporting my views on proper funding, but 2,000 Tamil Tiger sympathisers who were sitting down in the road in front of Big Ben.
Comments