125: ten good things about the Planning Act 2008 regime

This is entry number 125, first published on 20 April 2010, of a blog on the implementation of the Planning Act 2008. Click here for a link to the whole blog. If you would like to be notified when the blog is updated, with links sent by email, click here.

Today's entry considers some of the benefits of the Planning Act.

All the main parties except for the Labour Party have pledged to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission - even Plaid Cymru - but let's hope that if there is a change in government, the baby is not thrown out with the bath water.  Here are ten suggested benefits of the new regime, which I hope would be preserved in whatever form it continues.

1. It provides more certainty

No-one wants the IPC to be a rubber-stamping body.  However, the ideal application process is surely one where the criteria for deciding applications are so clear that you should more or less know when you make the application whether it will be granted or not - the concept of certainty.  The new system does not provide complete certainty, but having NPSs in place gives a lot more certainty than there was before.

2. It reduces duplication

One of the main jobs of NPSs is to set out need - whether and how much infrastructure of a particular type is needed.  The main advantage of this is that there can be one debate on need, when government policy on it is established.  Then, when applications are made, the IPC may disregard written or oral representations that question need - or anything else in an NPS.  It is only a 'may', not a 'must', but this will reduce a lot of time taken at hearings.  The Heathrow Terminal 5 inspector estimated that 23% of the inquiry was taken up debating need.

3. It front-loads the process

There is a huge emphasis on pre-application consultation.  Identifying and, where possible, sorting out potential objections before an application is made is cheaper and faster than doing so later.  Thus although it is slightly cheating to require a lot of work before the clock starts running and then to claim that it is a faster process, as Sir Mike Pitt says it should be faster than before even when this pre-application time is counted.  Applications should be in better shape as a result of this.

4. It sets time limits

There are no time limits placed on application examiners and decision-makers under previous regimes.  The only time limits are occasionally on promoters (e.g. for the production of evidence) and objectors (e.g. for making objections).  Although they can be extended, the new regime places time limits upon the IPC for the completion of almost every stage of the process.  These provide a much-needed focus to the time that an application is taking.

5. It should allow for greater equality of arms

One complaint of public inquiries under previous regimes is that a well-resourced promoter will have the time, money and expertise to push through its case that many objectors cannot match, putting them at a disadvantage.  The emphasis on a more inquisitorial process rather than an adversarial one goes some way towards addressing this.  The proof of this particular pudding will be in the eating, though, in terms of the IPC fulfilling this role and leading the investigation into an application.

6. It is more of a one-stop shop

The new regime allows a much greater percentage of the whole project to be authorised in a single process and in a single instrument (the development consent order).  This is both in terms of the physical (much more 'associated development' can be included) and legal (many additional consents can be included).  There are still things that must be applied for separately, but it is a great step forward.

7. It is flexible

The system allows for change.  Projects that are below the size thresholds in the Act or of a different type (while still energy, transport, water or waste projects) can be brought within it.  The government can suspend an application while an NPS is updated, or take on the decision-making for itself.

8. It covers a wide range of projects

For the first time, major infrastructure projects across a wide range will be authorised using the same system.  A nuclear power station, an airport runway, a windfarm, a motorway, a container port and a reservoir will all have to go through an identical process.  Once the new process has settled down, it will become familiar and there will be no need to learn a different process each time a different project comes up.  This may be of greatest benefit to statutory consultees.

9. It attempts to balance benefits and impacts

There is an age-old problem with assessing applications for large infrastructure projects.  This is that the benefits are generally felt nationally, but the impacts are felt locally.  Thus if a local body such as a local authority decides an application, it is more likely to focus on the local impacts, and if a national body such as the government decides an application, it is more likely to focus on the benefit to UK plc.  How can this be balanced?  The solution proposed by the Planning Act is that neither the government nor the local authority examines or, more controversially, decides the application.  The government expresses the national benefit in its National Policy Statement, and the local authorities express the impact in the Local Impact Report.  The IPC then weighs these up with the other evidence it receives.  Is this the right solution?  I cannot say, but it is at least an attempt at one.

10. It should be cheaper

While the application fees are quite hefty, the time savings and one stop shop benefits are expected to outweigh these and save applicants money in general.  Objectors are also likely to spend less money dealing with short hearings than an inquiry lasting months or years.  The government estimates that up to £300m per year could be saved by the new regime, although I'm not quite sure how it calculates this figure.