Attempting to Explain the Higher Costs of Infrastructure in the Anglosphere

Some (not all) stuff from the conclusion:

    * The permissioning authorities have restricted capacity in terms of the information inputs they can

handle. * This means that their decisions are made in a judicial/adversarial form, delivering a yes/no deci ڤ sion on a completed draft planning consent * Partly for reasons of capacity, and partly for reasons of legal propriety and the need to avoid ڤ the appearance of prejudgement, they are not set up to enter into detailed conversations in the interim or to comment on hypotheticals. * Their main sources of information are pre-processed reports, which are assembled by the devel ڤ opers from commissioned works of professional services firms.

    * Decisions are subject to judicial review, which reviews questions of whether process was followed

and whether decisions were reached for cogent reasons rather addressing the merits of the decision. * This means that a paper trail has to be created to demonstrate the chain of reasoning ڤ * It also means that no objection can be ignored, even in cases where objections are being raised ڤ on strategic grounds or in bad faith. * It is hard to predict ex ante from outside whether an objection might be the basis of successful ڤ judicial review.

The link leads to a page titled:

“The Problem Factory”- Preemptive risk aversion in infrastructure planning and the role of professional services

Why was the title completely redone editorially?

PDF copy of the report:

* https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Th...