We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
This is entry number 256, published on 30 June 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 further government changes to the
Planning Act via the Localism Bill.
The Localism Bill is wending its way through Parliament, today
being the fourth day (of eight so far planned) of its House of
Lords Committee Stage. After three days the committee had
reached clause 42 (the start of the provisions on local
referendums) out of 215.
The government has now tabled three amendments that relate to
the Planning Act infrastructure planning and authorisation
regime. The full current list of amendments can be found here.
Before going onto those, the government amendments on local
referendums would make the holding of them discretionary in many
cases, and this could prevent interference with planning decisions
in particular.
Amendment 128E, likely to be considered today, would insert a
new clause that makes the holding of certain referendums at the
discretion (on a vote) of the local authority. These are
those that would (a) cost more than 5% of a year's council tax
receipts to hold, (b) similar to ones held in the previous four
years or (c) (most importantly) where there is an existing
consultation, appeal or review procedure for the matter in
question.
The last provision could take planning decisions out of the
scope of referendums, but on the other hand could act as a kind of
'third party right of appeal' of planning approval, since
there is currently no appeal from that, albeit referendums are not
binding.
Now, the infrastructure planning amendments. The first is
a Wales-specific amendment that applies to the new ability of the
government to fold further consents into the regime. Devolved
consents are removed from this power.
The second amendment relaxes the sections of the Planning Act
where the IPC decides whether to accept an application for
examination. Instead of having to comply strictly with the
requirements for the form and content of an application,
applications need only be of a standard the the government
considers satisfactory.
This will come as a great relief to project promoters, who are
becoming increasingly paranoid that applications might be thrown
out because a few is were undotted or ts uncrossed. It is of
course the government that will consider applications (or part of
the Planning Inspectorate on its behalf) once the IPC has been
abolished on the likely date of 1 April 2012, which is why it is
given the role to consider whether applications are
satisfactory.
The third amendment, which I can claim some credit for, shortens
the time that applications take if any part of their consideration
finishes early. At the moment, there is a six-month examination
period, a three-month recommendation period and a three-month
decision period.
If, say, the examination only takes four months, the current
wording of the Planning Act would effectively extend the
recommendation period to five months, rather than keeping it at
three months. This amendment would start the recommendation
period and the decision-making period when the previous stage
actually finishes, if it finishes early.
Although these amendments are welcome, like Oliver Twist, I and
others have been asking for more. Lord Jenkin will be arguing
on the relevant committee day (likely to be 7 July) that the
following further amendments should be made:
the Planning Act need not introduce a statutory process for
judicially reviewing National Policy Statements
the Localism Bill should state on its face that when the IPC is
abolished, 'live' applications will continue
uninterrupted
there should be an explicit statement that development consent
orders can be modified by the successor to the iPC
'requirements' should be treated like planning
conditions for the purposes of appeals etc.
applicants should be able to apply to waive compliance with
procedures which are unnecessary, impossible or impractical when
applied to their applications
the government should be able to amend the list of offences
that can be included in development consent orders
separate consent processes for special types of land should be
able to be included in a development consent order, and
there should be no need to have to go to other bodies to ask to
include various consents in a development consent order
We will see how these amendments get on next week. There
are further opportunities to attempt amendments at the Report
Stage, and, unlike in the Commons, at Third Reading, so more bites
at the cherry are possible.
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 Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (the Bill) (formerly known as the Great Repeal Bill) was introduced to the House of Commons and given its First Reading (a formal stage, without debate)...
With the third round of exit negotiations under way, this post looks at where the negotiations currently stand, examines the impact of DExEU's latest position papers and a looks ahead...
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).
Article 50 - What Next? (Video)
