When I was a Parish Councillor, I served on the Planning Committee, getting much insight into planning law from our Chairman, Tom Leadley, of Classical Liberal persuasion. Towards the end of my term of office, we were given some training from the Town Planners about changes in the pipeline. I found this rather disturbing, as the move seemed to be away from approval unless there were good reasons not to, to the 180 degree position where approval was only forthcoming if there were good reasons for the State to allow you to. (An uncomfortable shift from English Common Law to European Napoleonic law?)

Local Authorities have recently been given powers to threaten property owners who neglect to maintain their properties or refuse to let it out at affordable rents. However, our Local Councillors have been chomping at the bit to do it for years.  Compulsory purchase is an odious affront to property rights and if someone owns something, it should not be beholden on them to to do anything at all with it if they choose not to.

I saw a link to a Tory Blog that described Labours new planning laws as “draconian”. But rather than just believe it, I took a look in Hansard. This quote is from Eric Pickles MP:

The Bill shifts the balance in the planning system against individuals and in favour of the state. Under the Bill, an individual householder, business man, farmer or local resident will be prevented by law from presenting a case in objection to a scheme relating to the compulsory acquisition of their land, or from being represented by a person of his or her choice. By law, all representations will have to be in writing—thereby preventing oral representations in person—however badly affected a landowner, resident or business may be. This will work against the little guy—the ordinary person in the street. By law, no questioning or testing of the promoter’s scheme by any person, body or individual is to be permitted. Common law has recognised since the middle ages that land should not be taken from an individual without due process, including the right to be heard. Of course, it would be speedier if the powerless were ignored, but this House is built on the protection of the property rights of the individual from the state, be it a Stuart monarch or an ambitious Minister.

It is even worse than Bob Spink suggests, it is illiberal and downright authoritarian. Read the full second reading (from column 25) and be afraid. Be very afraid.