This paper reviews the system of public inquiries and questions whether they achieve their objectives and whether the processes are democratic. Do the promoters of schemes and their objectors feel that they have had a fair hearing and do inspectors consider they have heard a balanced presentation of the facts? The system should ensure that schemes are properly researched and developed before submission and that promoters have adopted designs which reduce objection to a minimum. It is not always obvious that this is so. On the other hand, 'professional objectors' and pressure groups who are more concerned with national and political issues contribute little to the democratic process. Finally, the merits or otherwise of an alternative method of critically examining schemes in public are discussed and a recommendation made by the author in the light of his experience in giving technical evidence at a number of public inquiries.(a) for the covering abstract of the proceedings see IRRD 274491.
Samenvatting