Letter: It’s Difficult to Oppose the Absurd SANGs Policy

Published on: 12 Mar, 2019
Updated on: 12 Mar, 2019

Eashing Lane SANG

From John Perkins

In response to: We Should Fight the SANG Policy, Not The Applicants or Inspectors

Whatever their motives, GBC planners were protecting the sites identified in the Local Plan as potential SANGs (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces), albeit not necessarily protecting the tenant at Wood Street. Inspectors are simply imposing national policy on local residents regardless of circumstances and the fact that boroughs, through their joint committees, acquiesced to defining SANGs as the means of protecting SPAs (Special Protection Areas) is not important.

It’s not necessary to presume anything about the judgement of an inspector, everything is published. What is necessary is to consider whether or not that judgement is sound. My opinion is that it is not sound as it appears to be based on a doctrine that national government has decided building is desirable and so anything which enables it is right and proper. Money is not a good reason for failing to oppose that attitude, nor is the fear of failure. We all pay whichever way it cuts.

It’s difficult to oppose the policy of SANGs, absurd though it is. Protesting to the council will elicit the response that they have no choice and refer to Natural England as the governing authority. Natural England (NE) will also claim their hands are tied but refer to the EU as having jurisdiction. The EU will tell the truth and refer back to national law, which is policed by NE. SANGs have (or had) no existence in UK parliamentary law – it was invented by bureaucrats, but they won’t willingly change it, as it’s a way for them to wield their power and raise money.

At least GBC was showing who’s really at fault in compelling the Planning Inspectorate to enforce SANGs as a means to implement government policy on building.

Share This Post