Jeremy Driver wrote <a href="https://normielisation.substack.com/p/cheems-mindset" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this highly relatable essay</a> in which cheems (pronounced ‘keems’), a small Shiba inu dog signifies someone who scrambles around for reasons why something cannot be done. There are instances where raising reasons why something cannot be done is important but the mindset does this almost reflexively and, as Jeremy says, is ‘a deadly cause of sclerosis if it is the reflexive reaction to any new idea or policy proposal’; the mindset takes raising challenges not just as necessary (which it is), but as the defining characteristic to a policy response, with 'it’s too complicated' being the knee-jerk reaction.

Jeremy gives many examples in a non-planning context, but I’m struck by how often some commentators adopt the same mindset. For example, the Spanish and Germans are streamlining EIA in exchange for slightly more onerous environmental protections along the lines of the Special Compute Zones recently suggested by <a href="https://inferencemagazine.substack.com/p/getting-ai-datacentres-in-the-uk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jack Wiseman</a> and <a href="https://institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/revitalising-nuclear-the-uk-can-power-ai-and-lead-the-clean-energy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Tony Blair Institute</a>. Those ideas are loosely based on infrastructure planning zones, explained <a href="https://www.bdbpitmans.com/news-and-insights/967-could-infrastructure-investment-zones-help-keep-the-lights-on/." target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. The natural reaction of someone with Cheems mindset is to simply to say that there are international agreements that would prevent this (without specifying what, or considering that the overall system of environmental protection would be the same, if not better; without considering what the specific enforcement mechanisms are and whether that is likely, or if withdrawal is a feasible or necessary option).

Or take judicial review, some explicitly said that the idea of reducing the number of bites of the cherry was not possible, that changing standing rules was not possible or that, even if it was as Lord Banner KC’s review contradicts, it wouldn’t be that significant. We’ve long been advocates of reforming JR, and we welcome and endorse the recommendations from his Lordship. Gradualism (i.e., slow change) is a form of trial and error that shouldn’t be shunned, and cheems mindset hampers or derides even those small movements, but we shouldn’t stop pushing for more. I’ve made the point before: but if you are seriously using the idea that international agreements are a block to any further thought, do you want us to remove the long-established Wednesbury unreasonable test which <a href="https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-and-cases/15-the-status-of-decisions-of-the-aarhus-compliance-committee-in-english-law-respect" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Aarhus Compliance Committee is 'concerned' about</a>?

The lesson here is be creatively ambitious, even as you seek to overcome the hurdles: it’s going to be hard, for example, to do a robust SEA for the zones mentioned, and an actual assessment of what European countries charge in the JR costs is necessary before we can make grand claims about violating international agreements, but the mindset dismisses even considering what an assessment would look like or what EU countries are actually doing in their court systems nor the enforcement mechanisms, or what taking that view consistently would mean for the wider system.