UPDATED: Central planning

Now all the caveats about difficult cases and bad law notwithstanding, and the sensitivity of the case, being one of a severely wounded veteran fighting this government's ridiculous war in the arse end of the world, it is, quite categorically, none of Downing Street's business to be interfering in a local development control decision:

Joe Townsend lost his legs while serving in Afghanistan

Gordon Brown has ordered a council which told a disabled soldier he could not build a specially-adapted home on his grandparents' land to reconsider.

Wealden council had said the planned building in Pevensey, for Royal Marine Joe Townsend, 20, who lost his legs in Afghanistan, would be "intrusive".

But Downing Street said the "country owes Joe huge gratitude" and said the authority must "do the right thing".

The Sussex council said it had told the government it hoped to find a solution.

A statement issued by the Prime Minister's office said: "The whole country owes Joe huge gratitude for the sacrifice he has made for our country, and it is unacceptable that he is being stopped from having the home of his choice.

"Wealden District Council must do the right thing immediately and reconsider this case." [From BBC NEWS | England | Sussex | PM orders rethink on soldier home]

Now, I'm no great fan of the present development control system. It allows too many interfering busybodies to poke their nose into what people choose to do with their own land. A better system would be based on private negotiation with land occupiers surrounding the site who would be most directly affected.

However, with the benefit of modern technology, it is possible to have a look at such planning applications nowadays and see what was actually said by the council. What is also interesting to note is that the same grandfather made a similar application for a detached house in the grounds of his property seven years ago, and unless young Joe was a child soldier of thirteen, which even the British military seems to frown upon these days, it was not for him presumably!

The council made exactly the same observations in that case too - the proposal was for a building outside of the area designated for housing in a rural setting which would be intrusive into the rural views. Now whether that is actually true, or reasonable, of course I cannot tell from a distance, but they do at least appear to have been consistent.

What is more, they do not appear to be refusing outright any facility for Joe, but suggesting that it be attached to the existing house. There are all sorts of good reasons for this - not the least of which is the question of what happens when the specific need is no longer required, or when someone wants to sell the main house.

So, it would appear on a cursory investigation that Downing Street has been dragged into something that has been going on for a number of years - starting with a speculative application to create a new house for no specific purpose other than as an extra asset, in an area which the local plan seeks to preserve as rural open space, and which, on the face of it is now using poor Joe to achieve a similar aim.

Downing Street, of course, all too keen to be seen to be supporting "our boys" where they have so signally failed them previously - through lack of equipment in theatre, lack of facilities for wounded veterans of a conflict we shouldn't be in, and a complete disregard for the military covenant they owe to the good people they send out on their crazy geo-political adventures - appears to have become embroiled in a most inappropriate way in the affairs of the legal planning authority for the area.

Astonishing that they (the government or the BBC) can do what appears to be less investigation than I have managed in half an hour! But then that's meddling Gordon for you. Controlling everything but in control of nothing.

Of course, if my cursory investigation and resulting opinion is totally wrong, I shall retract all of this - but there is more than meets the eye ging on here and Downing Street have cocked up in "instructing" a local council to "do the right thing".

UPDATE:  It seems that lots of people have been getting involved in this.  The Fister's reaction appears to have been brought on by populist TV tosspot Noel Edmonds who featured the decision on his Sky TV show as mentioned at the Press Association here.  I wonder if Noel was given the full history?  It is also mentioned at the Telegraph and Guardian who both mention that David Cameron has got involved. 

Now, it may be that both this decision, and the decision seven years ago to refuse a similar applicaiton were a "matter of balance" as planners would say, and that reconsideration of the application, without an appeal, is warranted. 

But there's also a matter of principle here, that number 10, nor really David Cameron (the council is Conservative controlled incidentally I believe), should be butting in on the basis of a television program.  I wonder how his Tory councillors elsewhere feel about DC telling some of their number what to do - is this their definition of "localism"?

If this was a court of law (and development control is a "quasi-judicial" process) Noel Edmonds, the Fister and Dave would be held in contempt I think and any decision made on the basis of their intervention somewhat tainted.