UK: Planning Act Blog 220: Localism Bill Infrastructure Planning Amendments Considered

Last Updated: 14 March 2011
Article by Angus Walker

This is entry number 220, published on 7 March 2011, of a blog on the Planning Act 2008 infrastructure planning and authorisation regime. 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 MPs' consideration of Localism Bill amendments relating to infrastructure planning.

On 1 March, the committee of MPs considering the Localism Bill reached the clauses that amend the Planning Act regime. They only took an hour to be considered, but some probing amendments that we had developed in discussion with others and that were tabled by the opposition obtained some useful clarifications and concessions from the government. I am grateful to Jack Dromey MP for arguing the amendments and to Greg Clark, the relevant Minister, for responding to them.

A link to the report of the debate is here (start at column 727 on page 13), but here is a summary.

Keeping the IPC

Before I get to the technical amendments, the Labour MPs on the committee argued bravely for the retention of the IPC, saying that infrastructure would be further deterred, or at least delayed, if decisions were returned to ministers. Ian Mearns used the analogy of the Monetary Policy Committee, the appointed group of 'wise men and women' that sets interest rates, saying that no-one suggested that this power should be returned to the government, and that infrastructure decisions were another area where it was good to avoid 'politicisation'.

Greg Clark made several reassuring statements in response, but at least one of them was a bit misleading. Any claim that giving the government three months to decide applications would not lengthen the process becomes untrue the moment that the first National Policy Statement (NPS) is finalised. That is because the IPC would have to (indeed still might) make a decision no more than nine months after it starts examining an application, whereas the proposed set-up will take up to twelve months.

Greg Clark said 'We will increase [the regime's] dependability and, if we can, increase the speed of decision making, and I can certainly, hand on heart, give [Jack Dromey] the assurance that he asks for on that.' OK, I'm with him so far. Then he said 'the ultimate decision will be taken within the same time frame or sooner by the relevant Secretary of State, rather than by someone unelected. We are absolutely clear about that.' Sorry, no it won't, unless you are just talking about the three month decision period, rather than the whole examination-and-decision period. Finally, Nic Dakin asked 'Is he giving a commitment that the new processes will be as speedy as the processes in the IPC are intended to be? If they are not as speedy and as effective, can he give us a commitment that the Government will review them?', and Greg Clark said 'I can give that commitment'. Well, he'd better get reviewing on the day the first NPS is finalised!

Greg Clark also advanced a new argument for replacing decision-making by the IPC with decision-making by the government: the latter would stand up better to legal challenges. I have heard that before in relation to Parliamentary approval of NPSs, but not in respect of decisions on applications. Jack Dromey thought that Greg Clark's argument was 'optimistic'.

Nick Raynsford said that he had asked government departments if a Secretary of State had ever taken a decision on an application such as this in three months or less to which the answer had been no. He also said that the democratic accountability in the system lay in the development of NPSs - policy-setting would have remained in the realm of democratic accountability.

Incidentally Greg Clark said that applications would be examined by 'a dedicated unit', which suggests that interchangeability between IPC-equivalent examiners and planning inspectors is unlikely.

Other amendments

A pair of amendments sought to change the thresholds for highway and railway projects to become nationally significant from wordy and complex to numerical length-based thresholds, in line with all the other types of project. In reply Greg Clark said that national significance could not be determined by length - a crucial but short road or rail project could still have a national impact on the road or rail network. To which I would reply, that may be so, but the current thresholds are not phrased according to how crucial they are to the national network either. The untangling of railway lines and the addition of new platforms at Reading Station would not have been a nationally significant project and nor would the stalled Thames Gateway Bridge, but a 1.2km diversion of a railway line around a quarry in Derbyshire is.

Another amendment sought to relax the requirement for strict adherence to the rules for applications, by inserting the word 'substantially'. Greg Clark said he would consult the IPC and others on the point but thought that adding 'substantially' would open up a can of legal worms.

Two more amendments would have changed the calculation of deadlines by which stages of the process must be reached.  Currently, if the examination period takes five months instead of six, that merely lengthens the recommendation period from three to four months - no time is saved. The amendment would have started the three-month recommendation deadline at the end of the five months that the examination actually took instead. Greg Clark acknowledged the point but noted that if an examination overran, then the amendment would have the opposite effect. Good point - so I hope to see an amendment to the effect that the next stage starts running when the previous stage did finish or should have finished, whichever is the earlier.

In response to an attempt to reinstate notification of all interested parties if a deadline was extended, Greg Clark said that doing so would mean lots of letters when they could be emailed. The amendment didn't say anything about how the notification was carried out so I'm not sure if that addresses the point.

In response to an amendment that would allow flexibility in the offences that could be included in development consent orders rather than the fixed list that has been provided, Greg Clark said that this amounted to a 'Henry VIII clause', a phrase normally reserved for legislation that is able to amend other legislation without recourse to Parliament. I see what he means, although it does not really go that far.

Another amendment sought to clarify that development consent orders can be modified by the decision-maker - they did not have to be accepted or rejected wholesale. Greg Clark said that the government thought that the amendment was unnecessary and that orders could indeed be amended but undertook to consider the issue further.

Another amendment sought to make it clear that 'requirements' (i.e. conditions) would normally be discharged by local authorities and could be appealed against like conditions can be. Again, Greg Clark said that the government thought the amendment unnecessary but that he would consider it further. The government's 'model' requirements are all currently phrased so that the IPC discharges conditions and not the local authority, so it doesn't look unnecessary at the moment.

The last technical amendment sought to introduce a flexible ability to waive parts of the procedure for smaller applications, as is already the case under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Greg Clark undertook to reflect on the amendment.

Finally, an amendment sought to make the transition from IPC to its replacement more conspicuously seamless by saying now that steps done before the IPC abolition would not have to be repeated, and if a Commissioner or panel had been appointed to consider an application, he, she or it would continue. At the moment the Bill leaves it to a later decision on a case-by-case basis, so promoters or would-be promoters will not know what will happen to their project for a year or so.

Greg Clark did at least declare that no step would need to be repeated, so that is something that is in the bag. On continuing Commissioners, he worried about employment issues, although the Bill does already list continuing Commissioners as one possible option.

In summary, Greg Clark made positive noises about the amendments that were designed to streamline the process and vowed to look at them again, potentially bringing in government-drafted ones once the Bill reached its committee stage in the Lords, so a worthwhile exercise.

(Possibly) unintended joke of the day: according to Jack Dromey, when asked why their infrastructure projects took so much less time to be authorised, Greg Clark's counterpart in France had said 'if you drain the marsh, do you consult the frogs?'. Greg Clark said that in the UK, we did wish to consult the frogs (but perhaps he meant les rosbifs).

Previous entry 219: analysis of lack of applications on IPC anniversary
Next entry 221: IPC seeks incineration expert as first Local Impact Reports published

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Angus Walker
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.