Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

Sheilbh you've led me astray once more!   

[Josquius]

I'm other news truss is back.
Apparently the problem in the uk is the  sneering left wing extremists that run the country and regularly get together with other far left figures at davos

BBC News - Liz Truss targets 'secret Tories' with new campaign
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68218299

[Sheilbh]

On planning - and why I think state v lax is the wrong framework because even when the state is building it still needs to go through these hoops - this doesn't seem great. Doesn't seem like a system that works

The tunnel trapped in £300m planning limbo for 15 years and still not started
ExclusiveThe planning application for the Lower Thames Crossing already adds up to 359,866 pages

An artist's impression of the northern entrance to the proposed Lower Thames Crossing (Photo: Joas Souza)
author avatar image
By Hugo Gye
Political Editor
February 6, 2024 6:00 pm(Updated 7:01 pm)

A state-owned company has spent nearly £300m filling out a planning application to build a 14-mile road, official figures have revealed.

The Lower Thames Crossing, connecting Essex and Kent, was first proposed by the government 15 years ago and has not yet begun construction.

National Highways revealed in a Freedom of Information response that the application for planning permission has cost it £297m so far, separate to any future building costs.

The revelation has sparked fresh calls for an overhaul of how the UK's infrastructure planning operates to make it easier to build new roads and other transport facilities.

The "development consent order" consists of 2,383 different documents adding up to a total of 359,866 pages, although National Highways says that many of these are duplicates or revisions of the original submission

Pro-growth campaign group Britain Remade has calculated that if laid end to end, the application would extend for 66 miles – five times longer than the actual road.

The cost of the planning documents equals nearly four times the amount spent on the ongoing Covid inquiry so far, and is more than half the average cost of building a hospital.

The Lower Thames Crossing is intended to relieve pressure on the Dartford Crossing, currently the main route between Essex and Kent.

It would involve digging a 2.4-mile tunnel under the Thames, further downriver than any existing crossing, and would connect to the M25 at its northern extent and the M2 to the south.

The overall cost of the project is now estimated at £8.3bn, nearly 50 per cent more expensive than originally thought, with construction due to begin in two years' time with a target completion date of 2031.

Sam Richards of Britain Remade told i: "Britain Remade fully backs the plans for the Lower Thames Crossing, but spending £300m just on a planning application is simply astonishing. But unfortunately this is set to increase further thanks to our dysfunctional planning system.

"For the hundreds of millions of pounds one part of government is paying another part of government for permission to build the Lower Thames Crossing, Norway could build the longest and deepest road tunnels and have change left over.

"The Lower Thames Crossing is symbolic of what is wrong with our planning system. From multiple rounds of consultation to last minute government delays for no good reason, currently it's simply far too difficult and takes far too long to get anything built in Britain."

Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove has promised to streamline the planning system for infrastructure projects in future. A Government spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mark Bottomley, the Lower Thams Crossing's development director, said: "The Lower Thames Crossing will provide a vital new transport route to help grow the UK economy and improve the journeys of millions of people every year by tackling congestion on the Dartford Crossing.

"We understand that for many the new road is needed urgently and the length of time which goes into the planning can be frustrating. However it is vital that a project of the size and complexity of the Lower Thames Crossing goes through a rigorous, democratic planning process that makes sure we take every opportunity to maximise the benefits and reduce the impact on local communities and the environment."

A Government spokesman said: "We are already reforming the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to make the process of delivering new infrastructure faster and easier, and we consulted on proposals for operational reform last year. We will be publishing the response to our consultation soon."

[Zanza]

That sounds even worse than here. Also 8.3 billion for 14 miles of road is eye watering.

[Josquius]

That is another mad thing in the UK. State owned companies that don't get any special advantages for being state owned.

I've heard of the lower thames crossing a lot before but I imagine many haven't.
It's fascinating hs2 gets so much hate and fuss but this one is largely just left to get on with its far more environmentally destructive and substantially less useful ballooning budget

[Sheilbh]

Yeah

Also £300 million and 15 years before construction even starts

I also feel like "many of these are duplicates or revisions of the original submission" isn't the defence National Highways maybe feels it is on the 2,500+ plus documents they've had to file (obviously I get that as they're going through this process they can't criticise it in public but still). "Don't worry - much of this work is both expensive and redundant!"

[Sheilbh]

That is another mad thing in the UK. State owned companies that don't get any special advantages for being state owned.

Well that is broadly a core principle of the rule of law and generally a good thing.

[Josquius]

That is another mad thing in the UK. State owned companies that don't get any special advantages for being state owned.

Well that is broadly a core principle of the rule of law and generally a good thing.

Disagree massively.
If the state is building projects it shouldn't have to go through the routine of companies. It should have people directly on staff.
And this organisation should then have a hot line to their bosses, the ones asking for this project -   and with the power to make it happen.

[Sheilbh]

I've heard of the lower thames crossing a lot before but I imagine many haven't.
It's fascinating hs2 gets so much hate and fuss but this one is largely just left to get on with its far more environmentally destructive and substantially less useful ballooning budget

I don't think that's right. It's taken 15 years and it's still at the planning stage. Within 15 years of HS2 being proposed it had started construction.

[HVC]

Yeah

Also £300 million and 15 years before construction even starts

I also feel like "many of these are duplicates or revisions of the original submission" isn't the defence National Highways maybe feels it is on the 2,500+ plus documents they've had to file (obviously I get that as they're going through this process they can't criticise it in public but still). "Don't worry - much of this work is both expensive and redundant!"

Wonder how much of that money went into lining the pockets of family and friends.

[Sheilbh]

Disagree massively.
If the state is building projects it shouldn't have to go through the routine of companies. It should have people directly on staff.
And this organisation should then have a hot line to their bosses, the ones asking for this project -    and with the power to make it happen.

Yeah that's not a system with the rule of law if you can make a phone call to your boss in the executive and make it happen

I'm very much on the side of a skinny definition of the rule of law but the principle that it applies equally to the state as private actors is pretty core.

I think we've definitely gone too far the other way and have too much process. I think of the rule that in procurement decisions, generally speaking, government cannot take into consideration a supplier's past performance - and the stories from ministers of the civil service refusing to provide that information as it would bias the process and make it unlawful/susceptible to review. But the basic point that state actors are also subject to the law is pretty core

Wonder how much of that money went into lining the pockets of family and friends.

I don't think it did really (although - define friends v clients/suppliers). I think it went on lawyers and to consultants who can do biodiversity net gain assessments etc.

I suspect (just based on what I've seen and heard with procurement) that there's a bit of a revolving door with the personnel in those consultancy, law firms, decision makers etc. But to an extent isn't that just how an industry works - if you're an expert from working on, say, big TfL projects then when you move you'll either go to another big infrastructure project, or maybe to a government quango that makes decisions or consults on those infrastructure projects. That's your expertise.

[HVC]

Do these law firms have connections to the lawyers? If so I'd classify that as friends

I may be clouded by the NA experience, but when costs and timelines expanded like this it's usually corruption and organized crime. Sending in the same paperwork multiple times but charging for each occurrence is a red flag here.


*edit* are any of the law firms called Big Tony's Law 'n Such?

[Sheilbh]

Do these law firms have connections to the lawyers? If so I'd classify that as friends

Yeah as I say this is something I often wondered about working in a law firm is what's the boundary between business and corruption. You train people up, they work with clients and very often if they decide to go in house they'll go and work for one of their clients and then instruct their old firm etc. Is that corrupt?

Civil service have very stringent rules on this stuff and any form of hospitality - basically all the stuff that's normal in a client relationship with literally anyone else

I may be clouded by the NA experience, but when costs and timelines expanded like this it's usually corruption and organized crime. Sending in the same paperwork multiple times but charging for each occurrence is a red flag here.

Yeah that's not my assumption here (though I think there is corruption in construction and development and local government). My assumption to be honest was you need to re-file x but now it's appended to the second Environmental Impact Assessment, which takes into account the second public consultation following the comments from the initial public consultation and statutory consultees etc etc.

I could be very wrong on that and Gups would know.

[Gups]

I'm not aware of any corruption and I'd be surprised if there was any. It's very hard for public organisations to be corrupt on this kind of thing, procurement rules are so strict.

National Highways are just a typical wasteful public sector organisation full of lazy people who massively over engineer and gold plate everything to cover their arses. The only reason they get anything built at all is that their consultants do all the work. I've done several projects for the in the past and glad I no longer have to.

[Josquius]

Disagree massively.
If the state is building projects it shouldn't have to go through the routine of companies. It should have people directly on staff.
And this organisation should then have a hot line to their bosses, the ones asking for this project -    and with the power to make it happen.

Yeah that's not a system with the rule of law if you can make a phone call to your boss in the executive and make it happen

Oh I don't mean any sort of threats. More perfectly legal stuff that if the government wants things built they should pass laws to make it possible to build things smoothly.
If something is proving a problem for even their own builders let alone the private sector... They really need to get on this