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
Today's entry reports on the recently published 2012-13
annual report of the Planning Inspectorate from a national
infrastructure perspective.
Last week, the 2012-13 annual report of the Planning
Inspectorate (PINS) was published and it can be found here.
Although of course it covers all of PINS' work, the
'National Infrastructure' parts of it can be compared with
the last report of the Infrastructure Planning Commission,
published a year ago and the subject of
this blog entry.
As Sir Michael Pitt says in his introduction, the year started
with the merger of the Planning Inspectorate and the Infrastructure
Planning Commission, which was indeed seamless, but be aware that
'the revolution continues' towards achieving
'an outstanding national planning and appeals service which
enjoys the confidence and respect of Ministers, the public and all
stakeholders'.
Sir Michael highlights the following forthcoming changes:
this month - extending the right of appeal where an applicant
contests the amount of information required by the local planning
authority
second half of 2013 - extending the Planning Act 2008 regime to
business and commercial projects
October 2013 - initial designation of poor performing local
authorities, i.e. the 'special measures' provision
October 2013 - introducing a Commercial Appeals Service,
extending the Household Appeals Service to another category of
applications
(later in document) April 2014 - PINS to reissue its best
practice advice in the light of the Taylor Review of guidance
Financials
The report reveals that PINS spent £5,768,000 on National
Infrastructure and received £3,172,000 from it, i.e. in fees
- the disagreement over fee calcuations is mentioned in the
'governance' section. The expenditure figure is about
12% of the total for PINS, but the income is about 27% of the
total. More Planning Act applications would clearly be good
for PINS' accounts!
A footnote says that 'this is a relatively new area of
work for which cost recovery is not expected until
2014/15'. I take that to mean that they are
intending to break even in two years' time, which is
interesting. The expenditure total is about £0.5m lower
than last year, despite the increasing caseload.
Governance
A scheme of delegation was set up in July 2012 to allow Planning
Act matters to be delegated from the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government to Sir Michael.
Delegations were also obtained from the Department for Transport
and the Department for Energy and Climate Change in respect of
'section 127 applications' (i.e. for taking statutory
undertakers' land) but the Department of Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs has decided not to do this and consider each
application separately. Not ideal - I was present when this
happened on one application towards the end of a hearing. The
need for these applications is being phased out, however, so
it's not a major issue.
Digital
Referring to the government's 'Digital by Default'
policy, the report says 'The streamlined NSIP process made
significant use of electronic exchanges, including the ability to
submit applications and associated documentation over the
internet.' I'm not sure that PINS have accepted or
even can accept applications over the Internet alone, though.
They say they have over 740 followers on twitter, but I'm
not sure what account that is referring to - PINS don't seem to
have a general one. It might be the total of all the separate
Planning Act application accounts.
Workload
On application stats, PINS say that during the year they made
nine recommendations, received applications for 16 projects
(careful wording - they received 18 applications, in fact), and
received notification of 19 forthcoming projects. That
suggests to me that the 'steady state' of new applications
arriving at the same speed as existing ones are dealt with has yet
to be reached.
PINS also issued 30 Environmental Impact Assessment scoping
opinions and two screening opinions. That is a doubling
of 15 last year, but there were 25 issued in 2010-11.
Targets
The report says that PINS met all the examination and
recommendation targets for Planning Act applications. I have
a small quibble with that, which is that the recommendation for the
Kentish Flats windfarm extension was issued 3 months and 9 days
after the end of the examination, the period having been extended
by 14 days (the Kentish Flats windfarm extension extension, if you
will). Having said that, this extension was made under the
fees regulations rather than under the main Planning Act.
Some stats such as Freedom of Information requests have been
subsumed within the PINS whole, so it is difficult to compare with
the previous year, but all in all the figures are looking pretty
good and pointing in the right direction.
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.
In Dawnus Construction Holdings Ltd v Marsh Life Ltd [2017] EWHC 1066 (TCC), the Claimant (Contractor) brought enforcement proceedings against the Employer (Defendant), in relation to an adjudication...
A recent Court of Session decision has rejected a contractor's claim for damages against a third party, where that third party had affected progress of the works.
A recent decision on restrictive covenants surprisingly saw the court award in favour of a developer who had already built a social housing development in breach of a restrictive covenant
The NEC3 form had the (widely publicised) aim of encouraging cooperation, collaborative working and a fair allocation of risk between the parties to the contract
It is well established that a landlord can oppose renewal of a business lease if he demonstrates settled intention to demolish, reconstruct or carry out substantial construction works to the premises or a substantial part ...
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).
Planning TV: Designing Liveable Cities (Video)
