Shudrick Inquiry personal observations

It has been an interesting week. I have spent several hours each day at the offices of South Somerset District Council, attending the proceedings currently underway in relation to the Shudrick Lane planning inquiry. 

Observing the key players as they take 'centre stage' to give their evidence has been fascinating.

On the one hand, we have local residents putting forward passionate pleas for the continued protection of their environment. These are in the main just ordinary people who have either lived in Ilminster all of their lives, or those who have moved to the area to take advantage of a relatively tranquil spot, and feel that the way of life they have come to enjoy is being threatened. When anyone opposes a planning development there are always cries of NIMBYism, but why shouldn't they fight? In considering this in a wider context, if it were the very nature of our society as a whole that was at threat would we not all fight to protect it?

On the other hand, I have witnessed the ‘experts’, hired, often at some great expense, to prove a case, one way or another, for highways, heritage, the environment; every aspect that might cover the implications of such a development.

And bang slap in the middle, we have the very expensive legal bods whose job it is to chew over the evidence, reducing it to pulp where they can. The experience, as a mere onlooker, has been riveting.

Their cross-examination techniques have been remarkable. Some are slick, clearly having done their homework, and approach their victims with a level of confidence bordering on arrogance at times. As a result, when challenged I have seen ‘Joe Public’ squirm, go red in the face and begin to stutter when under fire. By agreeing to put their heads above the parapet, I am left wondering how many would have done so had they realised the relentless level of vocal fire they would be subjected to. Brave individuals indeed.

By contrast, it is much more interesting, and satisfying, to see some of the ‘experts’ be put through the mill. One in particular, at the beginning of their cross-examination, treated initial questions in a disdainful almost contemptuous manner. This attitude soon changed once they were on the back foot, even pleading a two-week Christmas holiday and fear of their spouse’s wrath as an excuse for the lapse in evidence.  

The inspector, thankfully, appears to be a sane individual, if at times just a little frustrated at the posturing taking place in some quarters.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this, but I for one was taken by the phrase used by one speaker, 'God created Shudrick Valley'. Is it up to us mere humans to interfere?