Andy Lester is conservation director of the wildlife charity A Rocha UK. He also works as Chair to his local Wildlife Trust group, speaks nationally on wildlife issues and regularly writes columns for newspapers and magazines. Andy is married to Jacqui and live in Hampshire with their four boys.
The residents of Roseacre and Little Plumpton have woken up to the fact that democracy is dead – at least it feels that way in the north of Lancashire. Many of you will remember the victory over fracking giant Cuadrilla back in June this year. At that time a huge public campaign against fracking resulted in the rejection of two schemes in Lancashire by the County Council. Surely this was a great example of democracy in action? Local people had done their homework about the risks of fracking; had enlisted the support of a wide range of local and national groups and managed an effective and honest campaign against test drilling. The council listened to the objections; decided in favour of the public they represent and Cuadrilla was sent packing.
But now we learn that Cuadrilla’s appeal against the decision made by Lancashire County Council has receive the sympathetic support of our “Communities and Local Government” minister Greg Clark. In 2016 the government planning inspector will hear the appeal from Cuadrilla – but won’t be allowed to make a decision on whether drilling can commence next autumn. Instead that decision will fall to the minister responsible for representing communities. The minister alone will make a decision that won’t only impact the residents of Roseacre and Little Plumpton – but will send shock waves around communities across the UK who still believe in the power or people pressure and democratic change.
When John McDonnell through Chairman Mao’s little red book at George Osborne; he was saying far more about the state of our politics than this blog has time or space to articulate. But one of the big points John was alluding to was the risk that we are choking free speech and democratic principle in favour of big business. It is a model more akin to the darkest days of China or Soviet Russia rather than democratic Britain.
But perhaps the most significant concern of all is the risk that democracy in our villages and towns will die in 2016 because we feel totally disempowered. If the current government is allowed to step in to overturn the interests of local people represented by their County Council – it is a totalitarian step into a political abyss. Where just like in China and Russia today, the wider public feel they have nothing to contribute because whatever they say or do it won’t make a difference to the outcome.
Despite my doom and gloom-there is a chink in the armour of our government. The U-turn (for that is what it is) on tax credits prove that people power can still work. The only way to bring about change inside the democratic process is to lobby your MP hard. Some of the MPs of all parties are genuinely decent men and women who want to get re-elected. If we give them plenty of evidence of why a decision is not in the interests of local people – they are forced to act and the government are left with no choice but to listen. Tough times indeed – but hope in our democracy is not quite dead – yet.
[registration_form]
Yes, and on a much larger scale, the likes of TTIP are being driven through by corporate interests and their technocratic enablers. That’s designed to minimise risk for multinational corporations and reduce the ability of democratically elected Governments to regulate their products and activities.
You are right, this is all about denying grass roots democracy any voice.
A little caution in playing the democracy card, especially local democracy, when it comes to arguing for or against a particular case. First, we cannot compare this to Russia or China – there nobody can get rid of their national governments if they don’t like what they do. Second, it is especially fraught with danger on topics related to the environment. Good, local people are equally likely to (and have) protested against renewable solar, wind and waste to energy power proposals on their doorsteps. I am not criticising either their protest or their perfectly human (and therefore reasonable) motives to do so. Democracy will always give us decisions and solutions that some may not like – the last few days typifies that. What if the good people of Lancashire had come out whole-heartedly in favour of fracking? There was some but not so well organised or vociferous local people who were in favour including those living in poorer areas desperate for jobs. I suggest one could write a very different article calling for the Government to intervene on the basis that this concerned the national and global issue of climate change. True democracy is shown when we accept there are alternative views but get on with arguing the case in an honest, legal and moral manner and no matter how the odds may be stacked. Any other way lies fascism which can be of the left or right, religious or secular, environmental or materialist. We should stick to the arguments lest we fall foul of a local democracy decision that we may not like.
I don’t think it’s just local democracy or nimbyism here. I think, if it was put to a national referendum, the majority would vote against fracking. Putting aside environmental concerns, fracking will lose more jobs in an area than it provides, nearby house prices will fall even if they sell at all, tourism will suffer etc etc. The point of the blog is not that there are in any democracy those that are overruled by the majority, but that one person (the minister) can overrule the majority of local population and their elected representatives and probably the wishes of the nation. This is not democracy. There are so many better alternatives out there that would better serve the national interest. We waste so much energy – one small example – the communal areas in flats near me leave lights on 24/7 even though there is good natural light.
Sorry Ian, that doesn’t wash.This is a
typically cynical tactic from a government that is proving that it doesn’t listen on a daily basis.Folks up and down the land are being ignored, patronised and even blamed for their ineptitude
” First, we cannot compare this to Russia or China – there nobody can get rid of their national governments if they don’t like what they do”
In what way are we different to Russia? They also have multiparty elections – their democracy is marred by a few people running a highly partisan media.
Lets just remind ourselves 63% of the electorate rejected the Conservatives manifesto, and yet we cannot get rid of them, and they are imposing an agenda more extreme than they admitted to. Remember the austerity agenda is not about a shortage of money, it is an ideological choice.
Cameron got as slim a portion of the electorate behind him as Churchill did when he lost in a landslide to Atlee in 1945. And yet Cameron is setting about to dismantle those very achievements Atlee’s government put in place in the following few years – the town and country planning system, with its democratic checks and balances, and the system of SSSI’s, National Parks and AONB’s being another.
Where in the election was the Tory’s proposal to handover decision making on planning decisions to a department that won’t admit to the briefings it has from the developers and their lobbyists?
We need to recognise that the neo-liberals currently in power have a radicalism and sense of self-entitlement that we have barely seen in the last 70 years of government.
What has happened is no surprise to anyone in Lancashire. If you come from any area north of Watford Gap, you are of no worth to this set of gangsters.
A general point, not in specific reference to fracking, but about the main thrust of this guest blog.
National government sometimes, quite legitimately, needs to over-rule local opinion when something that is collectively necessary is locally unpopular. There are many essential things that nearly everyone, including me, wants built or done somewhere else.
If local opinion always carried the day, there would be no power stations – but everyone wants the lights to turn on. There would be no landfill or waste processing sites or waste from energy incinerators but few want their own rubbish piling up in their gardens or the hallways of their flats. There would be no airports, but people still want to go on holiday and do business overseas. There would be no traveller sites, but few would admit to wanting to live in a country that treated gypsies like Nazi Germany did. There would be no new motorways or railways (or in their day canals) but people still want an economy capable of funding the NHS. There would be very little new house building, certainly in villages, but I want somewhere to live and I think most existing village residents want somewhere for their cleaner and their own kids to live too, though preferably not together. Many people say they want more renewable energy ( I do) but I always see mass objections to every wind or solar farm proposal.
Local opinion would often overrule SSSI and other nature conservation legislation. Are we as happy with that outcome if the locals want mile high flood defences and no SAC saltmarsh? More dog exercising areas and no breeding waders? No tree felling and so no ancient woodland restoration? Local opinion is not always even locally right. Often, and deserving of respect, but not always.
We elect representatives to take decisions, and we hope that they will take difficult decisions in the national interest when they need to. If we don’t like their decisions we can vote for someone else next time. If however we demand that national politicians bow to every local concern every time, we don’t have democracy, we have a form of anarchy where the desires of the vocal and empowered trample over the needs of the marginalised and unseen. It is essential to the functioning of any nation state that the national interest sometimes overrides local opinion.
Democracy is not the dictatorship of the parochial.
Very well put, Jbc.
Jbc writes good sense. Democracy is not having 64 million different opinions acted upon. That would be chaotic. Democracy at every level happens (and I’m on a Town, a Borough and a County Council) when you elect someone with whom you have a degree of political sympathy to make decisions on your behalf: if you don’t like their decisions you change your vote at the next election. Edmund Burke was spot on when he informed his Bristol electorate c.1774, of the following:- “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
In the national interest, would be good if it were the case? Open, transparent & honest politics for the public good and principles over profit, we can dream?
Andy,
I take objection to your blog entry that “residents of Roseacre and Little Plumpton have woken up to the fact that democracy is dead – at least it feels that way in the north of Lancashire.”. The appeals process specific to the Cuadrilla applications are the same as for any other significant development. More information can be read here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/463405/procedural_guide_planning_appeals.pdf.
Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows the applicant (Cuadrilla in this instance) to appeal to the SoS to determine the application – these are known as recovered appeals. So if democracy is dead, it has been dead since 1990, a quarter of a century. This is not my experience.
Secondly, why has this been undertaken? My answer makes reference to this website (http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/appeals/planning-appeals-general/#paragraph_005) and I would strongly argue that the first, second, fifth and obviously thirteenth bullet points are very relevant.
These are, for ease of reference:
Proposals for development of major importance having more than local significance;
Proposals giving rise to substantial regional or national controversy;
Proposals of major significance for the delivery of the Government’s climate change programme and energy policies; and
Proposals for exploring and developing shale gas, as set out in a statement to Parliament on 16 September 2015.
The above policy has been in place in various versions between March 2014 and September 2015 as Government policy has evolved. However, arguably, it has been in place since 1999 (see the following statement to parliament: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990616/text/90616w02.htm#90616w02.htm_sbhd5).
Anyone can submit an objection (or support) as part of the process and, as I understand, make representation at the Inquiry in person, or through a legal representative. There are set guidelines that the SoS has to follow in order to make the decision.
Regardless of one’s view on fracking, no one can rationally argue that it is not an important decision of national (and clearly international) importance. Thus within the framework of our planing system, and covering Labour, Coalition and Conservative Governments, a decision of this nature was very likely to be called in by the SoS.
Note that the policies have evolved across Parliaments and involved both major parties and perhaps influenced in Government by the Liberal Democrats. The public still has a say, providing that the objections are material to the decision. This is, in my view, the very essence of democracy.
And by the way, I have deep reservations about fracking personally when renewable energy is being constrained.
Richard
I usually agree with you Richard, but I’m not sure I do in this case. It’s quite right that these two individual planning applications be called in for consideration by the Planning Inspectorate – but going one step further such that they are considered by the minister appears odd to me. These are comparatively small planning applications – they’re not of the scale of, say, a new nuclear power station, large barrage, high-speed rail link etc – in themselves, they’re not nationally-significant, are they? Does this mean that all local fracking-related planning applications will be considered by the minister? If not, why not?
Messi,
The legislation allows for the SoS to ‘recover it’. So it is nothing new. Established since 1990 (or thereabouts).
As fracking is relatively new technology and obviously controversial (scale in this instance is not relevant), the SoS (and presumably lawyers within the DCLG) consider it appropriate to move the process forward in this way. It is of national significance, in my view, merely because fracking is new technology, the Government (rightly or wrongly) are pursuing it and a decision relating to this industry hasn’t been undertaken before now. National significance doesn’t have to be something large (by area, volume or number). The actual fracking site (in general terms) as I understand is quite confined, i.e. it doesn’t sprawl across tens of fields.
My understanding of the process is that the Inquiry will go ahead but instead of the Planning Inspector (PI), who is appointed by the SoS, making the decision, it will ultimately be made by the SoS, with possibly steer from the Inspector; i.e. they may ‘recommend’ refusal/ granting; whereas if it were not recovered, the PI would issue the decision. This might be a legal nicety or it might have added significance (this is beyond my current state of knowledge) but it is not an erosion of democracy. I don’t think the SoS will collect all the information, bring it to his/ her desk, read it, and then make their decision in isolation. They’d sooner hand it on to someone else if this were the case – and would they understand it?!
Will all fracking applications be ‘recovered’? Well, if the Lancashire one is refused then the next one (if there is a next one) would likely go down the same route as it would be the ‘first’; assuming that Government policy remains as is. If fracking becomes the norm, then I don’t think so (after a while).
And finally, whilst you don’t have to pay for an appeal (i.e. a fee), the costs are huge to developers (lawyers and specialists fees are not insignificant; indeed if a planning application is ‘called in’ for Public Inquiry, this can be sufficient for the developer to throw in the towel). So they would normally avoid a PI at all costs, almost literally. Given what is at stake here (for Cuadrilla), they have pursued this because, hazarding a guess, if they didn’t, what would be their commercial position and relevance in the UK?
The story is far from over (or certain) in my view. There could easily be a new Government in office before the arguments on this one conclude.
Hope this helps?
Richard
I’d generally agree with Richard and whilst much of what he says is fact, planning law I fear has been changed to favour development. Natural England now specialise in supporting developers through their DAS offer for example.
Experience has shown that developers will fund the ‘first’ through the system at all costs because they need that precedent to ‘persuade’ people not to fight. It has been the case that some Local Authorities fear an expensive PI, particularly when it relates to protection of the natural environment.
Remember also that if the decision goes against a developer yes they can appeal, if it goes in their favour then what recourse the public? There is no right of appeal other than JR (& the Govt are changing those procedures / costs etc.) & the last time I was involved in preparation for JR it was astonishingly expensive, financially and in the amount of work behind the scenes to provide evidence to the legal experts.
Odds – stacked in favour of private profit not public good? But I’m sure examples will flood in where decisions have been based on scientific evidence and well presented planning law and developers legal budgets played no part?
Can see the Lancastrians concern when central government plans to overrule their decisions.
Was also going to thank Andy for his latest A Rocha article about how the size of the human population was a taboo subject, and we should be talking about it. Rather undercut by discovering he has, unbelievably, 4 children. What on earth happened there? Are you keen for the human population to double or what?
“What on earth happened there?”
I’ll tell you when you’re older
Living 10 miles from Roseacre I followed all the issues. Yes local democracy was over-ruled in the Fylde, but not by the government.
This became apparent to me in early 2014 when I witnessed the manipulation of local Communities by Friends of the Earth as part of their campaign, those connected to Occupy and self-styled experts on fracking. They worked on local communities with their less than honest scare stories, turn justified concerns at a newish technology to an irrational fear. Great damage was done to the local communities.
FoE have recently capped it with their appeal for funding to support the people of Lancashire.They should not be deciding what WE OURSELVES want.
You will find a bit here on FoE’s shameless October appeal implying that the Lake District will be fracked
https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/dont-let-fracking-destroy-all-of-this/
What you all need to do: cut your electricity usage by 13% then I would not have SIzewell C Nuclear power station built next door (or Hinkley point). Any takers in Lancashire?
What 13% of my electricity should I cut? We use min water in the kettle, keep lights off, leds for lights etc
Any suggestions please?
But you wouldn’t suggest, surely, that most people are pared down to the minimum energy consumption? Well done you for not wasting a single kilowatt-hour but I am afraid that society as a whole cannot claim to be anything like as frugal.
Quite, ditto above and we get oodles of hot water from closed fire back boiler the water from which also rises naturally to upstairs radiators without the use of electric pump!
Rural residents tend to be frugal and careful with an empathy for footprints ….
Jbc
You have had a Hilary Benn moment on this blog site
“we have a form of anarchy where the desires of the vocal and empowered trample over the needs of the marginalized and unseen.”
andy said, “Local people had done their homework about the risks of fracking; had enlisted the support of a wide range of local and national groups and managed an effective and honest campaign against test drilling. The council listened to the objections; decided in favour of the public they represent and Cuadrilla was sent packing.”
Whoa! As for homework has Andy seen all the inaccurate rubbish on the sites (FB and web) of Roseacre and Westby? They did not enlist the support of a wide rnge of groups , but groups eg FoE , GP and others like Mike Hill came in to co-ordinate an effective but unhonest campaign. At the hearings in June locals put up inaccuarte claim after inaccurate claim, some of it so absurd. The councillors were fed false info and thus totally let down the people of Lancashire of whom I am one.
I think people who have their own website should always be cautious about raising the issue of inaccurate rubbish on websites…
How is it ever democratic to recruit a gang nationally to overwhelm local voices in a local issue? Tw*tface has a lot to answer for in this corruption of process.
David Hodd: I recall that That Evil Woman was elected only by about 35% of the people that voted. That lasted for rather a long time until the Blur victory in 1997. With such a large majority, electoral reform then could have been enacted with ease. But it wasn’t.
I’m going to call her Margaret Thatcher – like Harry Potter, I am not going to be to frightened to use her name.
Actually your recollection is wrong. Assuming wikipedia is correct, the Tories gained the following share of the vote at each election in the Thatcher era:
1979 43.9% (interestingly Callaghan gained the same popular vote in 1979 as Cameron did this year, despite the so-called “winter of discontent”)
1983 42.4%
1987 42.2%
1992 41.9%
Moreover, her roll back of the state is not quite as extremist, although its damage is still rumbling on.
“frightened to use her name”
It was the most polite one I could think of. Who is Harry Potter?