The Government has published a consultation paper -  Major Infrastructure Projects: delivering a fundamental change - to accompany the Planning Green Paper. In the consultation paper the Government sets out its view that the present planning system...
Countryside Agency Archive

Breadcrumbs

Procedures for major infrastructure projects (AP02/05)

Principal Manager Responsible: Terry Robinson Lead Board Member: Tony Hams

FOR DECISION

  • To respond to the Government's consultation paper Major infrastructure projects: delivering a fundamental change in the following terms:
  • To support the broad thrust of the Government's proposals, subject to the reassurances given in the paper about consultation on national policy and community involvement in individual cases;
  • To accept the proposal that Parliament should decide on the need for major infrastructure projects provided that the location could still be examined at the public inquiry and subsequently decided by the Secretary of State. 

Relevance to Strategy and Corporate Plan:

  • The Strategy and Corporate Plan stress the need for the Agency to influence the way the planning system works so that it reflects the Agency's objectives 

Staff and financial implications:

  • The Agency might find it more difficult to decline an invitation to give evidence to a Parliamentary committee than to a public inquiry; so the proposals may result in some extra costs to the Agency. 

Main issues to concern the Board:

  • do the proposals provide sufficient opportunity for Agency involvement in influencing major infrastructure development in the countryside ?
  • do the proposals provide appropriate opportunities for community involvement ?
  • will the proposals assist in meeting the Agency's objectives for high quality sustainable development ?  

Background

1. The Government has published a consultation paper - Major Infrastructure Projects: delivering a fundamental change - to accompany the Planning Green Paper. In the consultation paper the Government sets out its view that the present planning system takes too long to process major infrastructure projects (Heathrow Terminal 5 being a prime example) and is unwieldy and expensive for all concerned. The paper outlines proposed new parliamentary procedures for processing major infrastructure projects (such as power stations, airports, rail schemes, trunk roads and reservoirs) with the stated aim of speeding up planning decisions on such schemes.

2. The procedures are part of a package of measures announced by the Government in July 2001 to "streamline the procedures and reduce unnecessary delays whilst safeguarding public consultation and involvement". Other elements of the package comprise:

  • up to date statements of Government policy before major infrastructure projects are considered in the planning system;
  • revised arrangements for Regional Planning Guidance to assist consideration of individual projects;
  • improved inquiry procedures for major infrastructure projects;
  • improved arrangements for compulsory purchase and compensation;  

Consultation Paper Proposals

3. In brief, the proposed Parliamentary procedures provide for:

  • Parliament to approve a project of national significance in principle before detailed examination at a subsequent public inquiry [19]; 
  • the Secretary of State to decide (without consultation) that a major infrastructure project is one for which Parliamentary approval would be appropriate [28];
  • the opportunity for objections and representations about the project to be made direct to the Secretary of State [28] ;
  • a subsequent public inquiry to focus on detailed issues of implementation but not to debate the principle of, the need for, or location of the development [21];
  • the decision to approve a project to rest with the Secretary of State, in the light of the Inspector's report and recommendations, notwithstanding Parliament's approval of the principle. It is anticipated that the Secretary of State would only reject an proposal in exceptional circumstances. [22].  

4. The Government envisages that the Secretary of State will be sparing in his use of the new power and would focus on schemes judged to be of national significance. Judgements would be on a case-by-case basis with the new procedures applying to the variety of statutory regimes under which major new infrastructure projects currently fall. It is proposed that the Secretary of State would either have a broad and unfettered power to designate projects as he considers appropriate or would use his discretion to designate projects falling within a list [11].

5. The public would have the opportunity to input into the process at three key stages:

  • consultation on the development of national policy statements (which will precede the Parliamentary stage);
  • a 42 day period for representations direct to the Secretary of State before Parliament debates the issues;
  • at the public inquiry where detailed issues will be debated.

    The Agency's Response

    6. The Agency does not often get involved in major infrastructure projects although we will continue to do so where they have a major impact on our interests, such as at Dibden Bay. Whilst we have not developed specific approaches to major infrastructure proposals, our aspirations for high quality, integrated sustainable development set out in Planning Tomorrow's Countryside clearly apply to such proposals.

    7. Our overall response to the proposals is one of support. It is, however, essential that the commitments in the paper to consultation, both nationally on policy and locally on detail, are followed through.

    8. The revised system could give the Agency more effective opportunities to advise Government on the implications of major infrastructure projects than is currently the case. We will need to get involved early in the process and be properly resourced in order to have a significant influence on the outcomes. We will also need to influence the scope of projects that fall under the new system - for instance it is not clear whether proposals such as the extension of the Otterburn ranges would be included.

    9. In the interests of transparency, we support the alternative of a statutory list of 'major infrastructure projects' on which the Secretary of State would base his decisions to activate the new procedures.

    10. Our significant area of disagreement is over the location of major infrastructure. Parliament is an appropriate place to debate need - for example, the importance to the nation of the provision of airport capacity or nuclear generating capacity. However Parliamentary procedures are not well suited to dealing with the detail which it is necessary to investigate in deciding whether location x or location y is best for a particular development. While a preferred location will no doubt form part of a developer's proposals before Parliament, the subsequent public inquiry must be empowered to consider the arguments and recommend.

    11. In addition to a general interest in this issue, the Agency has a statutory responsibility to uphold the 'Silkin Test'. This test, incorporated into Planning Policy Guidance, specifies that major development should only be allowed in designated areas (national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty) if it is in the public interest and there are no alternative sites. Parliament is an appropriate place to judge "in the public interest" but not to judge that there are "no alternative sites".

    12. To summarise our response:

  • we welcome in principle measures to speed up the decision making process as it affects major development proposals;
  • it is essential that sufficient opportunities are afforded to interested parties and the general public to have a say in the process and we would be opposed to any measures to dilute the proposed safeguards; 
  • we support the proposed national policy statements and consider it essential that there is widespread public consultation on them;
  • we consider that the Secretary of State's discretionary power should only apply to designated projects falling within an agreed list;
  • we do not consider it appropriate for Parliament to determine the specific location of a project and believe site specific issues, including consideration of alternative locations, should be debated at the Public Inquiry.