British visitors to France often admire the grand vistas and lightning-fast TGV. Back at home, however, they are quick to oppose any grand projet imposed on them by central planning. They are backed by a system that currently allows Davids to hurl stone after stone at Goliaths, even on projects of national importance.

The Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry took seven years and almost proved terminal. The Thames Array, an offshore wind development that could meet 1 per cent of the nation's energy needs, was held up for two years by an array of groups opposed not to the development itself but to its substation on the shore. Such delays impose enormous costs on business, and on the nation. Most of these projects do eventually get built, but at an absurdly inflated price.

For major infrastructure projects, Britain's planning process desperately needs speeding up. That is the intention of the Government's Planning Bill, currently going through the Commons (see page 15). The Bill's proposal to streamline eight different consent regimes into one will cut out a good deal of waste and confusion. Its proposed national policy statements on Britain's transport, energy, water and waste needs should give greater clarity to developers, and help to circumvent activists who have delighted in delaying inquiries with lengthy debates about the principles of policy, such as nuclear power, before tackling the specifics of the site.

The Bill also proposes to create a new infrastructure planning commission (IPC) to scrutinise individual applications. This body will take the final decisions on developments, after checking applications against the national policy statements. The commission is supposed to be “independent” of government but it is unlikely to be independent of special interests, which are already vying for seats at the table.

The idea is to depoliticise big planning decisions, by outsourcing them. But while too much democracy has been a problem in the planning system, so would too little. It is not right to give an unelected superquango the power to approve significant projects that will inevitably be controversial. That power must remain with ministers who are accountable to Parliament. The planning system needs to be more efficient. But its job is to balance competing interests in a way that builds public confidence. An amendment to be debated tomorrow in Parliament demands that the Secretary of State takes the final decisions, with the IPC acting in an advisory capacity. This is rightly attracting significant support from Labour MPs.

The Bill is laced with commitments to consultation, but these are too vague. The small print makes clear that the commission may ignore certain representations. Officials expect that the Bill will apply to only 50 projects a year, but there is no guarantee. The list of projects covered by this legislation ranges from roads through railways to power plants, with few limits.

The planning process need not remain snail-like, but politicians must be able to put the brakes on projects in the public interest. Ironically, outsourcing controversial decisions to a quango is likely to provoke legal challenges. That would create even more headaches for developers and put grands projets even farther out of reach: a good result for no one.