The question of whether the economic benefits of a proposed development should override any environmental considerations, or vice versa, plagues planning systems the world over.

This question has come to the fore in our local system over the past few years in relation to a number of high profile schemes and it is clear to see how party politics has coloured the priority over in this time.

Successive DUP Ministers Wilson and Poots, whilst in charge of the DoE portfolio, clearly set out their stall to encourage economic development. There was the Sammy Wilson ‘economic statement’ that was subsequently successfully legally challenged, the publication by Edwin Poots of dPPS23 and (the now defunct) dPPS24, both of which had economic benefits at the root of the policies.

It could be argued that the current Environment Minister, the SDLP’s Alex Attwood, has tried to redress the balance again. The focus on protecting the built heritage and the scrapping of dPPS24 could be seen as a shift towards a greater consideration for the environment in the planning process.

Nevertheless and regardless of the political hue of Ministers, the lack of clarity inevitably results in indecision and inaction by officials in relation to major and ‘controversial’ proposals. This is typified in the recent announcement in relation to the ‘Runkerry’ application. Minister Attwood has given his officials a further 10 weeks to make a recommendation; at the end of a 15 year determination process. Yet, the question has remained unchanged over that time… economic benefit Vs. environmental cost?

The latest development in the English system has tried to provide some clarity on the big question. The Draft National Planning Policy Framework condenses over 2,000 pages of planning policy into just 58 pages with the overall theme being a presumption in favour of development and decisions should seek to protect environmental and heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. In other words, if the potential impact is minimal or quality of environment/feature is not significant, then permission should be granted.

A sound basis for making decisions? I think so.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 11:15 am by Chris Bryson and is filed under Current. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.