Farming Politics
Government Posters Humour
Technology Religion
Nature Me Links
|
New Parliamentary procedures for processing major infrastructure projects contents Annex A: The Secretary of State’s announcement on 20 July 2001 1. On 20 July this year the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced a package of measures to speed up planning decisions on major projects in order to minimise delay and uncertainty for everyone involved, whilst increasing opportunities for public involvement in the process. A copy of the announcement is at annex A. The package included a proposal that there should be new procedures to enable Parliament to approve a project in principle before detailed examination at a subsequent public inquiry. 2. The announcement indicated that new procedures would be developed to give people the right to object before Parliament debated the issues. The purpose of this consultation paper is to seek views on proposals for these new procedures. The proposals apply to England only. 3. Comments on the
proposals outlined in this paper, should be sent no later than 22 March 2002
to: 4. The present planning system takes too long to process major infrastructure projects, such as new trunk roads, airports and runways, through to a decision. The process is lengthy, unwieldy and expensive for all concerned. Although these projects are relatively infrequent they are essential to our economic future and bring benefits through better services. We need a modern and fair process for making decisions about them. 5. Delay costs money and perpetuates uncertainty. Lengthy inquiries make it difficult and costly for people to be properly involved. The Secretary of State therefore announced on 20 July 2001 a package of measures to streamline the procedures and reduce unnecessary delays, whilst safeguarding public consultation and involvement. The full announcement is set out at annex A. 6. In summary, the package comprised:
7. We believe it is right to give Parliament the opportunity to debate proposals for major infrastructure projects and to approve them (or otherwise) in principle. This will not reduce people’s involvement in the process. Our package of measures on major projects gives people opportunities to make an input at three key stages of the process:
These opportunities for people to be involved would be over and above the consultations between developers and local people on proposed projects before a formal application for planning consent is submitted. Parliament’s endorsement of the principle of, and need for, a clearly defined individual project of major importance, within the framework of published national policy, would add weight and accountability to the overall decision-making process and would underpin and facilitate discussion of the detail of the project at the subsequent public inquiry. 8. This consultation paper sets out proposals for procedures for informing Parliament of certain major infrastructure projects, and obtaining Parliamentary approval for them, and outlines the circumstances in which the procedures might be used. Parliamentary procedures are ultimately for Parliament to determine and the Government would like to have Parliament’s views on what procedures might be appropriate for scrutiny of major infrastructure projects. Introducing the new arrangements would require primary legislation, which will be brought forward when Parliamentary time allows. 9. There are existing procedures for Parliament’s involvement in the approval of major schemes under section 9 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA). The proposed new procedures are improved and strengthened and apply to a broader range of developments. The TWA is limited in scope (to eg rail, trams and inland waterways). We would expect the proposed new procedures to be the primary route for any Parliamentary consideration of such projects although it is not envisaged that they would be used frequently. Their advantage would be that they offered the opportunity for extensive public involvement and Parliamentary consideration within a carefully defined timeframe. Other Parliamentary mechanisms, such as Hybrid Bills and Special Development Orders (SDOs), would continue to be available for use when necessary. Scope 10. We propose that the Secretary of State should have a discretionary power to decide that a major infrastructure project was one to which the new Parliamentary procedures applied. Designating such projects would be on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the specific nature and circumstances of the project concerned. 11. One approach would be to give the Secretary of State a broad and unfettered power to designate projects as he considered appropriate. This is the current position in relation to designation of projects of national significance under section 9 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (see annex B). This would give maximum flexibility. Another approach would be to empower the Secretary of State to use his discretion to designate projects falling within a list. This could be set out in the legislation (with a power to add or change entries by Order) or the legislation could provide for the list of project types to which the power applied to be prescribed by Order, with any subsequent changes also made by Order. 12. Examples of major infrastructure projects to which the new procedures could apply include new airports and runways, ports, trunk roads, rail schemes, power stations, radioactive waste disposal, and other forms of infrastructure, such as new reservoirs. A fuller illustrative list of project types (which might form the basis of any statutory list) is at annex C. In addition, the Secretary of State might wish to designate Crown development projects (such as major defence projects), which are not currently subject to statutory procedures. 13. Major infrastructure projects currently fall under a variety of statutory regimes. Indeed, a complex new project might involve a range of approvals under several regimes. It is therefore proposed that the new procedures would apply to projects initiated under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA), the Highways Act 1980, the Harbours Act 1964 and the Electricity Act 1989. 14. As regards the TWA, there is (as noted above) already a Parliamentary process for approving projects of national significance under section 9 of the Act.This is set out more fully in annex B, to which is appended examples of motions for each House to approve projects. The proposals in this paper go wider: they cover a range of infrastructure types and, although focused on projects of national significance, are not expressly confined to them. Moreover, the section 9 process does not involve the sort of public involvement proposed in this paper. Thus, for projects falling within the scope of the TWA (eg rail, trams, inland waterways), it would seem to make sense to repeal section 9 and to subsume the process under the proposed new Parliamentary procedures.The normal (non-Parliamentary) TWA procedures would continue to apply to the generality of projects falling within the scope of the Act.A separate review of procedures under the TWA has been initiated and is due to conclude in February 2002. 15. Outlined in paragraph 12 of annex B are some of the different statutory regimes under which different approvals may be sought, in addition to specific or deemed planning permissions, under Town and Country Planning legislation. Thus, exactly what consents were being applied for, and what the Secretary of State would be giving at the end of the process, ie after Parliamentary stage and inquiry, would need to be spelled out in any proposal put before Parliament. 16. As suggested above, it is likely that the Secretary of State would be sparing in his use of the proposed power to designate a major infrastructure project as one to which the new Parliamentary procedures applied. As a general guide, he could be expected to focus on schemes he judged to be of national significance. Judgements would be on a case-by-case basis. 17. A formal process of applying to the Secretary of State for designation could add another layer to the process and delay matters. We do not therefore propose a process of applying to the Secretary of State for designation. It would be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to designate a project which he considered would benefit from the procedures. The Secretary of State would generally be aware of projects in prospect, either because he is promoting the development or because developers have to apply to him for consent or because he has exercised his powers to call in a planning application for his own determination. If a project had not already been called in, designation under the procedures would automatically include calling in the project. 18. It is not envisaged that the Secretary of State would consult on whether to exercise his powers. Consistent with the streamlining objective of these proposals, the Secretary of State would make a decision to designate, and thereby trigger the procedures as rapidly as possible. He would give an indication of the likely timescale of such a decision in each case. 19. Parliament would consider the principle of, the need for and location of a project. The precise terms on which Parliament’s approval was sought would be determined by the Secretary of State case-by-case on the basis of the specific proposals concerned. The terms of the approval sought would be included in a draft affirmative Order that would be debated in both Houses. 20. Parliament’s approval in principle would not itself confer planning permission (or give any other consents needed). That would be for the Secretary of State following a public inquiry (see paragraph 22 below). In other words the terms of Parliamentary approval in principle would reflect the fact that the final decision rested with the Secretary of State following consideration of the detail at inquiry. 21. Given the overall objective of the new procedures, it is essential that the subsequent inquiry, and the Inspector conducting it, takes as read the principle of, need for, and location of, the project and focuses on detailed issues of its implementation on the ground. These issues would include, for example, the precise alignment and layout of the proposal, landtake, mitigation measures, conditions and legal agreements. It follows that there would need to be provision to preclude the Inspector from recommending against the principle of the project, as set out by the terms of Parliament’s approval. This would need to be followed through to the precise terms of reference set by the Secretary of State for particular inquiries. It is proposed to give the Inspector powers to refuse to hear evidence on matters which he or she considers have been addressed by Parliament’s consideration of the issues and fall outside the terms of reference of the inquiry. 22. After the inquiry, the Secretary of State would consider the Inspector’s report and recommendations, in reaching a decision on the project. The Secretary of State would make his decision as quickly as possible. As noted above, designation would entail calling in a planning application if the Secretary of State had not already done so. The Government’s Planning Green Paper indicates that we shall consider whether to set statutory targets for decisions on call-ins and recovered appeals, subject to exception arrangements for the most difficult cases. Notwithstanding Parliament’s approval in principle, it is considered that the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to decide, in the light of the Inspector’s report and recommendations, whether or not a project should proceed. We envisage that the Secretary of State would only reject a proposal approved by Parliament in exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, despite the proposed tightness of the inquiry terms of reference, the decision-making process needs to cater for the possibility that problems may be identified that cannot simply be rectified through imposition of conditions, for example, and cast doubt on the wisdom of proceeding with the project as proposed. Parliament’s approval of the principle of a project would thus be sought on the basis that the Secretary of State had the final say in the light of the Inspector’s report. The Secretary of State will inform Parliament of his decisions and the reasons for them. New Parliamentary procedures 23. As noted above, Parliamentary procedures are, ultimately, a matter for Parliament. The Government would like to have Parliament’s views on what processes might be appropriate for Parliamentary scrutiny of major infrastructure projects. It is generally agreed that the decision-making process needs to be faster and that everyone involved needs greater certainty about the timetable. 24. It would not be appropriate to set out in statute the detailed arrangements that would apply once a project was before Parliament. Those are for each House to determine. However, legislation can prescribe an overall timetable for actions by the Secretary of State, within which Parliamentary consideration would take place. Such a framework is provided by the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, for example. 25. The new proposals are, to some extent, based on the Regulatory Reform Act procedures, which are themselves based on those in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It is for Parliament to decide how best to scrutinise the Orders proposed, and copies of this consultation paper have been laid before each House of Parliament. However, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act procedures proved a success in that they allowed each House to set up a specialist committee to scrutinise the proposals in detail, and to report to the House to inform debate. It may be that Parliament will suggest a similar process for these orders. 26. There are, however, some key differences between orders which would be made under these proposals and those under the Regulatory Reform Act, which makes it inappropriate to follow the Regulatory Reform process too closely:
27. There is a need to balance two imperatives. First, those affected by proposed major infrastructure projects need to be able to make their case to Parliament, and Parliament needs to be able to consider it properly. Second, it is in the national interest to have a modern infrastructure. This depends in part on the ability to make decisions on particular major projects in a reasonable time. Parliamentary procedures will themselves be followed by planning inquiries on matters of detail. They should provide Parliament with time for proper consideration, but not be unduly protracted. It is a matter of judgement as to where best the balance lies. 28. Against that background, the proposed procedure is as follows:
29. The 42 days consultation period would be absolute, but the overall period of 60 sitting days would be set by reference to Parliamentary adjournments (as in the Regulatory Reform Act). In effect, the clock would stop whenever Parliament adjourned for a period of four days or more. Any committee could begin work immediately the project had been designated, since it would have the detailed description of the project, and the national policy statements, which would themselves normally have been subject to consultation, to consider from the outset. It would also be able to comment on any draft Order laid after the conclusion of the period of Parliamentary consideration, as under current regulatory reform procedure, provided it did so before any debate. 30. The precise way in which Parliament scrutinised proposals would be for each House to decide. The view might be that the information supplied would be sufficient for individuals to come to their own conclusions; alternatively, a committee-based system might be used. There would be a range of ways in which a committee might proceed, from reviewing the documents to a longer process of inviting further representations, either written or in person. No legislation would be needed for any of the committee powers or procedures; these could be determined by Orders of each House, as would the committees’ precise terms of reference and timetable although any committees would need to report in time to inform the debates on approval of the project. 31. If a committee system were desired, the type of committee used, and the way in which it operated, would clearly have timetable implications, which Parliament will doubtless bear in mind. In considering the form of scrutiny, Parliament will also be aware that matters of detail would be for the subsequent public inquiry to examine, if Parliament approved the project in principle. 32. As noted above, if Parliament approved the project in principle it would go forward for detailed consideration at a public inquiry. This would be held as soon as practicable following consultation with the parties on the inquiry arrangements. New inquiry procedures for major infrastructure projects, due to be introduced early in 2002, will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe a timetable for the inquiry at the outset.The Inspector must adhere to this, unless the Secretary of State agrees to a variation (eg in the event of unforeseen circumstances). 33. The proposed new Parliamentary procedures will help to speed up the decision-making process on major infrastructure projects by saving inquiry time later. The procedures form an integral part of the wider package of measures announced in July 2001 (and summarised in paragraph 6 above) which will together streamline the overall handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system. 34. Views are invited on the proposals in this consultation paper and on the Interim Regulatory Impact Assessment. All comments should be sent to the address shown in paragraph 3 above by no later than 22 March 2002.The Department will wish to make responses available to Parliament and open to public inspection in the Department’s library. Unless you specify that your response is confidential, it will be assumed that you have no objection to it being treated in this way. Confidential responses will, nevertheless, be included in any numerical analysis of responses published. New measures will speed up major planning decisions and safeguard public debate Text of Secretary of State’s announcement 20 July 2001 New measures to modernise the planning system will speed up decisions on major infrastructure projects like new airport and rail links – whilst increasing the opportunities for public involvement in decision-making, Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Stephen Byers announced today. At present, slow and cumbersome decision-making processes can mean delay and uncertainty for everyone concerned. Much-needed infrastructure improvements can be unnecessarily delayed – affecting people’s lives on an every day basis. Announcing the package, which has been the subject of extensive consultation, Stephen Byers said: ‘We need a modern and fair process for making decisions about big infrastructure projects such as new airports, runways and roads. These big projects are essential for our economic future but they are also controversial because they often affect the lives of people living near the planned project. ‘The proposals I am announcing today streamline the procedures and reduce unnecessary delays whilst safeguarding and increasing public consultation and involvement.’ ‘We need a modern and fair process for making decisions about big infrastructure projects such as new airports, runways and roads. These projects are essential for our economic future but they are also controversial because they often affect the lives of people who live near. ‘The proposals I am announcing today streamline the procedures and reduce unnecessary delays whilst safeguarding and increasing public consultation and involvement’. The number of big projects is comparatively small. There have been only a few projects in the last 15 years where inquiries have lasted more than three months. But the longest planning inquiries have lasted years and have been expensive for all involved. Examples of projects include Stansted Airport, Heathrow Terminal 5, Manchester Airport Second Runway and the East London River Crossing. The measures announced today include:
The Government is also looking at ways of speeding up the delivery of major transport infrastructure projects through the streamlining the pre-construction phase and better procurement techniques. It is estimated that these measures could cut 3 to 5 years off the 10 years it now takes to start works on a road scheme. Mr Byers’ full Parliamentary answer is attached. Notes for editors The package of measures announced today implement the Government’s recent Manifesto commitments and builds on the proposals in the 1999 consultation paper ‘Streamlining the processing of major projects through the planning system’ in the light of responses to it. Press Enquiries: 020 7944 3049 Out of Hours: 020 7944 5925 E-mail: press@dtlr.gov.uk Public Enquiries: 020 7944 3000 DTLR website: http://www.dtlr.gov.uk Question To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, what plans he has to speed up the processing of major infrastructure projects in the planning system. Answer 1. We need a modern and fair process for making decisions about major infrastructure projects, such as new airports, runways, rail links and roads. These projects are essential for our economic future and bring benefits through better services but they are also controversial because they can affect the lives of people living near them. 2. I am therefore announcing today a package of measures to streamline the procedures and reduce unnecessary delays whilst safeguarding public consultation and involvement. Delay is costly and perpetuates uncertainty. Lengthy inquiries make it difficult and costly for people to be properly involved. 3. The package comprises national policy statements and an improved regional framework for considering individual projects, new Parliamentary procedures for approving projects, improved public inquiry procedures and reform of the arrangements for compulsory purchase and compensation. 4. We propose that up-to-date statements of Government policy should be in place before major projects are considered in the planning system. This will help to reduce unnecessary debate at inquiry and has the potential to save a significant amount of inquiry time. The nature and approach of policy statements may vary from case to case. There would normally be prior public consultation on them so that people have the chance to comment and make an input to the policy proposed. 5. Last year, we put in place revised arrangements for preparing Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), incorporating regional transport strategies. The process of reviewing RPG has been completed in two regions and is well advanced in another five. RPG will help to provide greater certainty as regards the broad location of new development and the need for infrastructure improvements at the regional level. 6. These arrangements will be complemented and enhanced by the findings of the multi-modal studies of transport corridors currently underway. These will feed in to reviews of the transport elements of RPG during 2002/03. Under our new arrangements for RPG preparation we have enhanced the openness and inclusiveness of the process, including improved consultation and the chance for people to have their say, with a public examination before an independent panel. 7. Approval in principle for major infrastructure projects should be a matter for Parliament. Procedures will be developed which allow that. These will give people the right to object before Parliament debates the issues. Detailed aspects will be examined at a subsequent public inquiry if Parliament approves the project. We want the overall process for deciding projects to be shorter and more focused whilst ensuring that people affected have a full right to make their views known. 8. We shall introduce legislation to achieve this when a suitable opportunity arises. We shall consult beforehand on proposals for the details of the new procedures. In the meantime, we are initiating a fundamental review of the TWA, the effectiveness of whose procedures is essential to delivering rail, tram and other forms of infrastructure falling within its scope. 9. Public inquiries are and will remain an important feature of the planning process. They are a tried and tested way of exploring the issues in public and giving people the chance to make an input to decisions. We shall improve the procedures for dealing with major projects at inquiry by way of further changes over and above the streamlining measures we introduced for planning inquiries generally last August. These will include stricter time-tabling and more clearly focused terms of reference, supplemented by a range of measures to tackle issues more flexibly and manage the inquiry process better. 10. In the light of responses to our 1999 consultation paper on streamlining the processing of major projects through the planning system, we also propose to add to Inspectors’ powers to deal with matters pre-inquiry. We do not intend to proceed with proposals to abolish the right of parties to cross-examine others. We shall bring forward new rules to implement the changes as soon as practicable. Similar changes will also be made where necessary for projects proceeding under other statutory regimes, such as the Highways Act. 11. The implementation of major infrastructure projects sometimes depends on the compulsory acquisition of land. We propose to improve the operation of the compulsory purchase and compensation system so that it is more efficient, effective and fair. We are examining the compensation arrangements for people affected by proposed developments. The report of a fundamental review of the laws and procedures was published last year. The Law Commission have begun to look at how the legislation can be consolidated, codified and updated. We intend to make a policy statement on the way forward in the Autumn. We shall also be publishing a new advice manual and good practice guide for everyone involved in the operation of the procedures. 12. A modern infrastructure system is essential to promote enterprise and competitiveness and underpin our economy. The measures I have announced today will help to get projects in place more quickly by streamlining the procedures and cutting unnecessary delay whilst ensuring that the process remains open and fair and democratically accountable. Current Parliamentary procedures 1. There are several statutory procedures available according to the nature of the project. The most commonly used procedure for major proposals of national interest is the planning inquiry, ie the public local inquiry. Other options are: Hybrid Bills; Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Special Development Order. Certain classes of project are approved under specific legislation – eg Orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 for guided transport and other projects, Orders under the Harbours Act for port projects, and projects under the Electricity Act – and consent under planning legislation is then deemed to be given; but the principles and procedures – including public inquiry scrutiny – are essentially the same and in effect mirror planning legislation. Major trunk road proposals are examined under the Highways Act’s arrangements whereby a public inquiry is held according to a set of Rules prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. These Rules are similar to the Rules governing inquiries under the Town and Country Planning legislation – described in the next paragraph. Following the inquiry a report is made to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State’s decision on the proposal together with the report are then made public. The public local inquiry, which features as part of several of the procedures outlined below, is a tried and tested mechanism which is generally regarded as being fair and impartial, open and thorough, although it can be intimidating for some participants. 2. Under the planning inquiry, the Secretary of State calls in a planning application or recovers a planning appeal for his own determination and appoints an Inspector who examines evidence in public for and against the proposal. The Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2000 prescribe the procedures for the submission and presentation of evidence, and the cross-examination of witnesses etc. These Rules are made under section 9 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Council on Tribunals. Guidance on planning inquiry procedures is set out in DETR Circular 05/2000. 3. The Inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, is responsible for holding pre-inquiry meetings to make the necessary administrative and procedural arrangements, including discussing, for example, the order in which issues are taken and witnesses appear. The Inspector is responsible for the conduct of the inquiry, including the calling of evidence and the cross-examination of those giving evidence, whether it involves a planning application that has been called in by the Secretary of State or an appeal. After the inquiry the Inspector is responsible for preparing a report with conclusions and recommendations for the Secretary of State. In the light of the Inspector’s report, and any post-inquiry representations, the Secretary of State decides whether or not to grant planning permission for the project unconditionally or subject to conditions. 4. The principal disadvantage of the planning inquiry approach for major project cases is that it can take a considerable time to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and produce a report. The benefits of major projects are deferred and ultimately may be more difficult to finance. There is also a financial penalty for the public – either in increased expenses for objectors, or through blight caused by the extended uncertainty. These periods of uncertainty can also result in disbenefits for the environment. 5. The Hybrid Bill mechanism, which was used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) and the Dartford and Severn Crossings, for example, is subject to fairly complex, Parliamentary procedures, but these can nevertheless take less time overall than the planning inquiry route if the project is major. A Hybrid Bill defines the maximum extent of the works and is accompanied by a full Environmental Impact Assessment. The principle of the project is established at Second Reading in the Commons, and special Select Committees in each House consider the detail in that they hear petitioners’ requests for amendments to the works – which can relate to matters of the detail of works and construction – or mitigation of the impact. Amendments are made, binding legal agreements reached and undertakings given (which for the CTRL are enforced by the Government through the project contract) which establish the standard of mitigation and certain environmental minimum requirements to be observed in the later detailed design process. The Act grants the equivalent of outline permission only, with the subsequent approval of details of the works and construction activity being delegated to the local planning authorities. In the CTRL and Channel Tunnel Acts tailormade planning schedules define the reserved matters and the grounds on which local planning authorities can require changes, taking account of the normal planning practice. 6. Hybrid Bills may be particularly useful for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects because of the certainty of the process. They can also be a tidy solution where the Government has a leading interest, including where there are public policy aspects to the project requiring primary legislation (as in the case of the Channel Tunnel). The scarcity of Parliamentary time is a key consideration. Room would have to be made in the Government’s legislative programme and Parliament needs to be convinced that the use of its time is justified by the special importance and urgency of the project. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act took approximately 2 years to pass through Parliament. The CTRL and Channel Tunnel Bills were unusual in that they set up a separate planning regime in which decisions on detailed planning matters were left to local planning authorities. The CTRL route was split into large sections for detailed design and as each one was completed, application was made to the local planning authority for the approval of reserved matters. This integrated design and approval process for detailed matters took 2.5 years overall and appeals could be made to the Secretary of State in a similar way to normal planning appeals. 7. Authorisation of railway, tramway and inland waterway schemes, and works across rivers or in the sea which interfere with navigation rights, is achieved today through a Ministerial ordermaking procedure under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA). Before enactment of the TWA, infrastructure projects in this category were authorised by Parliament under private Bill procedure. In contrast, other infrastructure projects, such as highways and harbours, could be authorised by the Secretary of State under delegated powers and airports were approved by means of planning permission. The TWA was introduced as a result of concerns that the increasing volume of private bills was taking up a disproportionate amount of Parliamentary time. The aim was to free Parliament from the need to spend a considerable amount of time considering detailed matters which could more appropriately be determined by a Minister following examination at a public inquiry. At the same time, it was decided that Parliament should retain a role in respect of the approval of schemes of national significance. 8. The wide range of matters which can be covered in a TWA Order means that the procedures are inevitably more complex than planning procedures, but there is similar provision for public local inquiries to consider objections to schemes. For schemes which the Secretary of State considers to be of ‘national significance’, a special procedure applies (section 9 of the TWA). For these, the application including the draft Order, the Environmental Impact Assessment, and other supporting documents are submitted to Parliament. Single debates are held in each House on a motion moved by a Minister inviting the House to approve the proposals. 9. If both Houses of Parliament pass the resolution, the application goes forward for more detailed consideration at a public inquiry which can concentrate on detailed matters such as alignments etc specific to that particular development proposal. The Secretary of State determines whether the Order should be made, after taking into account any objections which have not been withdrawn, and the inquiry Inspector’s recommendation. Two TWA Order applications have been referred to Parliament under section 9. 10. Parliament also plays an important role in the use of Special Development Orders. Under section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State has power to make a Special Development Order, which is subject to negative resolution procedure, granting outline or detailed planning permission for a specific development. The Order comes into effect within a specified period after it is laid. If there are any objections, a debate may be arranged and, if there is a majority against the Order, it is revoked by Order in Council. 11. The SDO procedure has been followed on only a few occasions, where the proposal had already been subject to the scrutiny of at least one inquiry. The procedure is not thought to have been used to authorise any major project that has not been subject to such prior scrutiny. The SDO procedure can include an inquiry, statutory or non-statutory, at any stage in its proceedings. Regulations to implement the provisions of the amended Environment Impact Assessment Directive for SDOs were put in place during 1999. 12. Under the proposals put forward for consultation, Parliament would, in most cases, be approving in principle a planning application served under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Some major infrastructure projects would be brought forward under different legislative regimes as detailed below: eg
13. In cases such as the above Parliament would be asked to consider making an order or granting consent in principle under the relevant legislation, before the details are considered at a public inquiry. Examples of motions under TWA section 9 24 June 1997 Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order 1997 Baroness Hayman: Moved, That this House, pursuant to Section 9(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the Act") as applied by Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, approves the following proposals, contained in an application for an Order submitted under Section 6 of the Act by Eurostar (UK) Limited on 23rd January 1997 and entitled The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order, for
24 July 1996 Central Railway Order The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I beg to move, that this House, pursuant to section 9(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992, approves the following proposals, contained in an application for an Order submitted under section 6 of that Act by Central Railway plc on 20th May 1996 and entitled The Central Railway Order, for the construction and operation of a railway between Leicester and the Channel Tunnel via Rugby on a dismantled railway alignment to link with the existing Chiltern line through Buckinghamshire to near Olympia in London, from where a new railway would be constructed in a tunnel under the Thames to Streatham, where it would run beside the existing Brighton line to south of Coulsdon, then under the North Downs close to the M23 and then beside the existing railway to Tonbridge, Ashford and Folkestone; and for the construction and use of freight terminal sites at the M1/M6 junction and next to the M25 and M40 in Buckinghamshire. Definition of Major Infrastructure Projects ‘major infrastructure project’ means the carrying out of development to provide any of the following:
New Parliamentary procedures for processing major infrastructure projects Interim regulatory impact assessment Purpose and intended effect of the proposals 1. These proposals form part of the package of measures announced by the Secretary of State in July 2001 to streamline the handling of planning decisions on major infrastructure projects. This announcement followed an earlier consultation exercise in 1999.The present arrangements are unsatisfactory, unwieldy, and expensive, causing unnecessary delays and uncertainty. 2. The package of measures proposed is designed to streamline the procedures and reduce unnecessary delay and expense for all involved whilst safeguarding public consultation and involvement. 3. The Parliamentary component of the package is designed to give Parliament the opportunity to express a view on the principle of a major project proposal – including giving people the right to object before Parliament debates the issues – before detailed issues are considered at a public inquiry. This will contribute to streamlining the overall decision-making process by focusing the inquiry on detailed issues and not spending unnecessary time discussing the principle of or need for the project. 4. The current arrangements for handling major national infrastructure projects through public inquiries can impose significant costs on developers, voluntary groups and members of the local community as well as on central and local government, including the Planning Inspectorate. The costs involved include the costs of delay and deferral of the benefits of proposed investment (including the perpetuation of uncertainty and property blight for local people) and the costs of preparation for and participation in the inquiry itself (such as provision of accommodation for the inquiry, the Inspector and the secretariat, reproduction of documents, participants’ travelling and overnight costs, loss of earnings, preparation of cases (including professional advice) and legal representation). The proposals 5. This consultation exercise is to seek views on proposals for detailed procedures to implement this component of the package announced in July. Introducing the procedures would require primary legislation. 6. In essence, the proposition is to enable the Secretary of State to designate a major infrastructure project as one to which the procedures would apply. This would be publicised and an opportunity given for objections and representations to the Secretary of State within 42 days. At the same time, Parliament would be given as much information as possible (including copies of the planning application, Environmental Impact Assessment, and the draft text of any Order that Parliament was later asked to approve). No later than 21 days from the designation the developer would have to provide a statement of economic and other public benefits of the project; the Secretary of State would give copies to Parliament. The Secretary of State would give Parliament copies of individual objections and representations as soon as practicable after he had received them. He would also supply a summary at the earliest opportunity and no later than 14 days after the 42 day deadline. The Secretary of State would not be able to lay a draft Order proper until 60 days after the project was designated (the clock stopping whenever Parliament adjourned for 4 days or more). 7. If the project was approved it would go forward to a public inquiry to consider the detailed aspects. The Secretary of State would make his decision in the light of the Inspector’s report and recommendations. 8. Because Parliamentary procedures are ultimately for Parliament itself to determine, the proposals focus on a framework and timetable for action by the Secretary of State. It would not be appropriate to set out in statute the detailed arrangements or timetable for handling a project once it was before Parliament. It is thus open to Parliament to decide, within the overall scheme of the proposals, whether (for example) to set up a Committee to consider a project and how such a Committee might conduct its business. Options 9. The consultation paper puts forward for comment a proposed procedural framework with a suggested timetable.Views are invited on the times proposed for the various stages. If there were no change – ie no new Parliamentary procedures were introduced – the benefits in terms of added public and Parliamentary involvement would be lost and would not flow through to a tighter, more focused inquiry. The overall decision-making process would therefore be longer and more expensive. Benefits 10. The proposals should benefit everyone involved in the planning process by:
11. It is not possible at this stage to quantify the savings. These will vary according to the extent to which they are used and the nature of the projects involved. Business and other parties are nevertheless invited to comment on the potential benefits and savings. Compliance costs 12. These will to some extent depend upon how Parliament wished to handle a particular scheme (eg whether it set up a Committee and whether that Committee took evidence). In general, however, the arrangements would impose additional costs on central Government through conducting the process of inviting objections and representations, summarising them, copying documents for Parliament and through the involvement of the Secretary of State in the remainder of the process. Costs will also be incurred by those responding to proposals, lobbying Members of Parliament, etc. Scheme sponsors will also need to prepare a statement of economic and wider public benefits. 13. Business and other parties are invited to estimate any additional costs which they might incur. Impact on business 14. We expect these proposals to result in significant net benefits to business by streamlining the decision-making process and delivering investment and its benefits more quickly. 15. We are conducting a Small Firms Litmus Test in consultation with representatives of small businesses in parallel with this consultation exercise. The results will be reflected in the final version of this Regulatory Impact Assessment. Result of consultations 16. As noted above, giving Parliament the opportunity of expressing a view about major infrastructure projects flowed from a previous consultation exercise on ways of streamlining the processing of such projects in the planning system. The Secretary of State announced the outcome in July 2001.The proposals in this consultation paper take that forward. Monitoring and review 17. The operation of the new arrangements will be monitored on a case-by-case basis and the overall position reviewed within two to three years of first use of the procedures, depending on the number of projects subject to them. Contact point:
|
|
Farming Politics
Government Posters Humour
Technology Religion
Nature Me Links
|