131: what the coalition means for the Planning Act regime

This is entry number 131, first published on 13 May 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 reports on the future of the Planning Act regime in the light of the Conservative Lib Dem coalition.

After five days of uncertainty, the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is now emerging, which will command a majority of 73 in the House of Commons (not counting the five Sinn Fein MPs, who will not take up their seats).

What will this mean for the new regime for infrastructure planning set out in the Planning Act 2008?  The situation is by no means clear, and is currently informed by the manifestos of the two parties (Lib Dem here and Conservative here), together with the preliminary coalition agreement (which can be found here).  There is also the earlier Conservative 'green paper' on planning.  More may become clear at the Queen's Speech on 25 May or in the final coalition agreement, if it is published.

National Policy Statements (NPSs), the government statements of need and impacts to be used by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in making decisions, are not mentioned in such terms, although a 'national planning statement' is mentioned in relation to nuclear power.  This may mean the same thing.  The previous Conservative line was to keep them but have a vote in Parliament on them.   The Lib Dems did not mention them.

What to do about nuclear power was obviously the subject of considerable negotiation given (a) that the Conservatives and Lib Dems are diametrically opposed on the issue and (b) the terms of the deal set out in the coalition document:

The government will complete the drafting of a national planning statement (the word 'complete' suggesting that they do mean the NPS, already in draft); a Liberal Democrat spokesman is allowed to speak against it; Lib Dem MPs will abstain on it; this is not a confidence issue.

How this will work now that they have appointed Chris Huhne, a Lib Dem MP, as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and therefore in charge of the NPS and the nuclear programme, is unclear.

[Update: Chris Huhne has announced that there may be new nuclear power stations, as long as they are privately funded]

On other energy projects, the four demonstration carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects for coal-fired power stations will continue, and new coal-fired stations will have to meet emissions performance standards on top.  There will be 'measures to encourage marine energy' and the target for energy from renewables may increase.

On transport, a high speed rail 'network' will be established.  Plans for a third runway at Heathrow will be cancelled, as will additional runways at Gatwick at Stansted.  No mention of anywhere else.

There is not much on water and waste, but there is to be a 'huge increase' in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.

The IPC is not mentioned either explicitly or implicitly, but the coalition document states that the Conservatives are committed to replacing existing nuclear power stations 'provided they are subject to the normal planning process'.  Does the 'normal' planning process mean the pre-IPC process or the post-IPC process?  It may mean the former. Also, does stating the Conservative position mean that it is the position of the coalition?  Not necessarily.

The Conservative manifesto says that they will abolish the IPC 'and replace it with an efficient and democratically-accountable system that provides a fast-track process for major infrastructure projects, [using] private or hybrid Bills to promote major projects, such as our plans for a national high speed rail network; [ensuring] that all other major infrastructure projects are considered at planning inquiries which have binding timetables and which focus on planning issues – with final permission given by a Minister; and, [providing] transitional arrangements for projects already before the IPC to ensure that these projects are not disrupted or delayed.'

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is not mentioned in the coalition agreement or either manifesto, but the Conservative planning 'green paper' says that they will replace CIL with a local tariff - how that will differ from CIL remains to be seen.

The relevant cabinet members are: Eric Pickles (Con) as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ultimately in charge of the Planning Act, Chris Huhne (LD) as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in charge of the energy NPSs, Philip Hammond (Con) as Secretary of State for Transport in charge of the transport NPSs and Caroline Spelman (Con) as Secretary of State for the Environment in charge of the water and waste NPSs.  The junior ministers will be announced over the next couple of days.