The Public Inquiry revealed many problems with the UK’s planning system, as well as a few strengths.

• The applicant, and the City of York Council which had voted by a very narrow margin to give outline permission, had huge resources available to put their case and to pay experts to make claims on their behalf. For example parties both paid highly expensive legal teams (estimated cost £100,000-200,000) to be present throughout the period of the inquiry. In contrast those opposing the scheme, the villagers of Heslington, CPRE and some interested individuals had little or no professional support (the Heslington Parish Council could only afford legal representation for one week). This means that money is partly a determinant and not the quality of the argument. Given that in this inquiry public money was being spent, how come only one side could access that public money?
• Much of the expert evidence given was bought by the University or the City of York Council. Those paying the experts gave them a brief and the experts knew they were being paid to find evidence that favoured the clients. This means that there is an inherent bias in the evidence being presented on such important issues as the environmental impact of the proposal. Surely society needs a greater independence. The experts should be given briefs by the local planning authority, before any permission is granted, not by the developer.
• There were several examples of the evidence being presented by the University being challenged yet the University was very rarely required to provide proper evidence in support of its assertions - they were always given the benefit of the doubt. The clearest example was the planned lake where it was clear that a proper analysis of the impact of climate change had not been conducted. At first it was claimed the application had no need to consider climate change, then experts tried to pass the buck that it was not their remit, then it was argued the analysis submitted was a provisional one and was not complete and finally an expert was asked to provide reassurance that there would not be a problem but they did not provide a full analysis. The second example was when it was shown that the university’s need for more office space for spin-off companies could only account for 12% of the office space being planned yet the Inspector did not demand that the university justify its guesses.
• The whole system is based on winner takes all rather than on a system aimed at seeking the best overall scheme to serve society through compromise and discussion.

Some of the evidence given to the inquiry is summarised on the web pages that can be accessed from the panel on the left.

Richard D Firn

17.03.09