Government policy halted due to inadequate consultation

This is from today's Guardian about the government's wish to build nuclear power stations. This was challenged at judicial review by Greenpeace.

"The Chair of the All Party group said there was a predisposition within government to accept new nuclear and that any review would have only one outcome. ..... There [was] a widespread perception that the government had made its mind up. ..... There was increasing disquiet once the consultation process opened. ..... The all-party chairman of one committee said, "If doors have been closed on objections ... the government should say so, then we could have an honest debate and not one which is merely about modifying public opinion." ... Individuals and groups were forced to use the Freedom of Information Act to extract materials from the government about its real intentions. ... The government put nothing in the public domain that could be challenged. ... As a consultation it was manifestly inadequate. There was no consultation. Therefore it was procedurally unfair."

Mr Justic Sulllivan said that the consultation exercise was "seriously flawed" and the process "manifestly inadequate and unfair". He said something had gone "clearly and radically wrong" with the report the government produced. "The 2006 consultation document contained no information of any substance or any of the issues identified as being of crucial importance. It gave every appearance of being simply an "issues" paper. it contained no actual proposals and, even if it had, the information given to consultees was "wholly insufficient for them to make an intelligent response". The judge said the document lacked information of any substnce on the two crucially important issues - the financial cost of the new build and the disposal of radioactive waste. The information given on waste was "not merely inadequate but also misleading. There could be no proper consultation, let alone the fullest consultation, if the substance of these two issues was not consulted on before a decision was made".

Now, substitute the words EDDC for government and the Liatris proposal for the nuclear indsutry. For the two crucially important issues, take your pick: building on the flood plain, raising it with a million tons of infill, not consulting us about the Visitor Centre, not giving us adequate infrastructure or community facilities, the amount of affordable housing or purchase of 250 acres of wetland with our Section 106 money.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.