Politicians like anecdotes to make a point. Sometimes, these stories get the politician into a bit of a pickle. Remember “Jennifer’s Ear”? Or more recently “Theresa May’s cat”?
I have no problem with politicians using stories to illustrate a wider agenda, but I do have a problem if the stories are not backed up by weight of evidence. Politicians who choose to misinterpret the evidence to serve their own purposes are misleading the electorate and erode confidence in public debate.
It is quite clear that there are some that believe the current planning system and existing environmental legislation are constraining economic growth or are placing ridiculous costs on British business. But their arguments are supported by florid stories rather than evidence.
Last month, the RSPB, National Trust and CPRE published a report, prepared by Vivid Economics, which found that although there have been a few studies of the costs of the planning system, the claims made on the back on them have been overstated - and very little has been done to measure the benefits that good planning delivers. It concluded that while there are costs in some sectors, there is no evidence that planning has large, economy-wide effects on productivity or employment and that the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is unlikely therefore to have much effect on growth.
The case against the Habitats Regulations is an odd mixture of stories about bats shutting down places of worship, ports whose development is checked and housing developments that are thwarted by out of control agencies.
As part of the review of these Regulations, the RSPB has reviewed our engagement with the site protection system. We found that engaged with just 0.04% of all planning applications and that we objected to a small percentage of these. What's more, the use of objections has not increased over time. This suggests that the decision-making system has matured, and demonstrates that by working with developers and decision-making authorities it is possible resolve concerns.
We have found no evidence of gold-plating (over-implementation) in the transposition of the European Nature Directives into English law and believe that the laws are crucial to this Government's ambitions to halt the loss of biodiversity and begin its recovery by 2020.
While the debate about environment being a block to economic development rages, the evidence on the importance of nature to our well-being is growing. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity are major studies which conclude that it pays to invest in nature.
This month, the Government will publish its final National Planning Policy Statement and will report on the review of Habitat Regulations. The Chancellor has paid particular interest in both these issues. Here's hoping he'd been listening to the evidence rather than the fantastic stories.
Can you think of other examples of politicians led by anecdote rather than by evidence?
It would be great to hear your views.
Not quite to the point of your question, Martin, but re planning though.
Our draft local district plans are up for consultation, and for our town it states '..no area of National ecological importance...' so a pLWS of county importance has been included in an area for development. My point is, if all districts and counties throughout the country ignore locally important eco sites, we will have a country full of Ospreys and Bitterns ( lovely!), but very little else. How has this come about, and how to stop it, anyone know?