Further examples of non-transparency:

Space oddity

Isle of Man space “created a net liability to the exchequer of £538,000” according to the Department of Economic Development’s own papers. This was revealed by Leonard Singer, the chair of Tynwald’s Economic Policy Review Committee. When asked to divulge further details of ManSat’s exclusive rights to administer the orbital filing system and the charges involved Tim Craine, director of DED, declared “MansSat do not disclose or publicise the fee” and added that anyone dealing with them had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. It seems DED can do little to influence the terms of the contract.

Copy and paste planning?

It appears that others also find the planning consultation lacking in substance. A letter in the Examiner contains a list of several points in which the consultation falls short of government guidelines on consultations. The writer points out that the document lists no questions to respond to and goes on to query several other issues and also mentions the lack of evidence given for certain statements and states:

Moreover not one statistic with regard to population, employment or economic activity is provided to back the need for this PPS

I’m no expert on consultations but the current planning consultation seems extremely vague  and gives the impression of giving carte blanche to certain individuals.  Remember that this appears to be yet another copy and paste job based on UK proposals: 

The Isle of Man PPS is a loosely worded document and provides little real useful information. Smoke and mirrors? This will affect us all and the justification for relaxation of planning procedures is simply not evident. Do we really need a Whitehall proposal to interfere with our planning system?


2 comments on “KEEP IT DARK?

  1. The Planning Policy Statement (PPS) is one of the worst documents I’ve seen from any IOM government department.

    The DOI haven’t even followed government’s Code of Practice on Consultations!

    Prior to consultation, Minister Cretney created confusion when, in Tynwald (February 2012), referring to the PPS, he stated:

    “I expect applicants, members of the public, Government Departments, planning officers, the Planning Committee and planning appeal inspectors to take account of the contents of the draft planning policy statement and this speech with immediate effect when determining planning applications and appeals.”

    This quite clearly gives the message that the PPS is already operational. It was an irresponsible utterance as it indicates that the PPS will be adopted irrespective of the comments received from the public in the consultation (which closed yesterday 3rd April 2012).

    • Incompetence in the drafting stage of the consultation unlikely then? So that would mean that the non-transparency was intentional? They wouldn’t do that would they?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s