Planning powers
I agree with Les Reid (Letters, 25 February) that “it is normal practice in any democratic organisation to have a referendum… when a change of constitution is being proposed”.
But is there any organisation in the land which goes ahead with a major change of constitution on a narrow majority of only 3.8 per cent?
Normally a clear majority of 60:40 or 55:45 is required (Muirfield Golf Club comes to mind).
Was David Cameron’s government so complacent that they did not envisage a close result and therefore made no provision to cover this situation? Their failure to do so has resulted in discontent, to put it mildly, between the Brexiteers who so narrowly won and the Remainers who so narrowly lost.
For this reason I believe that whatever settlement Theresa May manages to negotiate must be put to the people for a final decision.
D R SHAW Craigerne Drive, Peebles I don’t understand what Clare Symonds (Letters, 22 February) means by saying a shift is needed from planning for the special pleading of public limited companies to planning in the public interest.
Companies, like other parties, must endure a complex bureaucratic process and there is no reason to assume that there is a bias in their favour. They are expected to pay for roads, utilities, schools and “affordable” housing. These costs must be passed on to buyers even where such do not benefit from the new services.
Just what powers does Ms Symonds think need to be strengthened to ensure that “high quality” homes are built as part of “sustainable” places? What criteria does she use to decide what is “high quality” and “sustainable”?
What she means by “democracy” is unclear. People have many chances to provide their ideas when plans are being made, when applications are lodged and at the appeals stage. Only a small minority use these. I doubt that more than 10 per cent have ever commented on an application. For most, the subject is of no interest.
By contrast, the public has few formal opportunities to opine on matters which have far more impact on their lives. The terms for Brexit, foreign and defence policy are examples. We were not asked whether we think building two aircraft carriers, supplying weapons to dictatorial regimes, or inviting Donald