By Angus Walker
Today's entry reports on a review of guidance on the Planning
Act regime.
On Friday the government launched the awaited minor review of
the Planning Act regime - a major one will take place in early
2014. This so-called 'light touch review' is in fact only a
review of guidance - the lightest of touches. The guidance
has been rewritten in the light of experience and prompted by the
change from the Infrastructure Planning Commission to the Planning
Inspectorate.
The existing set of seven guidance documents has been condensed
to six, redrafted and issued for comment. I was wondering if
there would be any proposed changes to secondary legislation, but
apparently not, but there are one or two useful nuggets in the new
draft guidance. The six new drafts with links are as
follows:
The main consultation document can be found here. Responses to
the consultation should be received by 6 July and sent to the email
address mip-lighttouchreview@communities.gsi.gov.uk.
Guidance on pre-application consultation
The main changes are to the first of these documents and reflect
that this is the area where there is the most practice to call
upon.
Perhaps reflecting the 'bonfire of the quangos', the guidance now
includes what to do when statutory consultees cease to exist (para
20). There is more on offshore developments (44-48) and on
how much consultation is enough (54). The latter says
that a full re-consultation does not always need to be undertaken
and that a more limited consultation is possible. How to keep
consultees informed after the end of the consultation is covered
(61-64). On adequacy of consultation it (still) doesn't say
how local authorities will know that an application has been made -
e.g. whether the Planning Inspectorate will always let them know
(65).
The document says that applicants will be unlikely to be able to
share draft ESs with consultees (71), and that the preliminary
environmental information is not a draft ES (72). There is
new text on a matter of concern to promoters, namely how to
accommodate unknown future technology or occupiers' requirements
(77-78). Finally, there is a new paragraph on including
alternatives within applications (79), reflecting advice given to
National Grid and reported here last week.
Guidance on Associated Development
This says that development that is only there to pay for the
main nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) should
not be associated development (AD) (page 2 footnote 1), and that AD
will be accepted even if it has a higher specification than the
NSIP needs (to accommodate other developments for which
applications are expected within 5 years) (6(iv)). Retail or
business space can be included as AD if it is of a typical amount
for that sort of NSIP (9). On dwellings, the Innovia
case is mentioned to clarify that temporary accommodation can be
included (10). It is up to the promoter to include development as
AD or apply for it separately (11). For the purposes of
Environmental Impact Assessment, AD should be included in screening
or scoping opinion requests (16). The annex with examples of
AD is expanded.
Other guidance
The other four guidance notes have changed less. In the
examination procedure guidance, there is a lot on additional people
other than those who originally made representations. The
note still recommends that the PM is held no more than six weeks
after the end of the representation period, although in practice
this target has yet to be achieved for any live project. The
Bob Neill letter about changing a DCO post-submission is echoed in
the guidance, with a reference to Wheatcroft principles
(107-108). The examination of individual projects may
need to deal with this rather than a general procedure
being introduced.
In the compulsory purchase procedure guidance, even less has
changed. There are small differences in dealing with
certificate applications under the Planning Act (16).
The already short fees guidance is even shorter than it was
before, given that the 'worked examples' have been removed.
Apparently they will be reinstated when there is more actual
practice to rely upon
The application form guidance is even more similar to the
previous version, with some removals: the applicant is no longer
encouraged to complete the form electronically, or to say why the
DCO differs from the model provisions.
Questions
The consultation questions are mainly 'is the guidance clear'
and 'does it cover everything it should'. The only questions
not of that form are Q1: is it appropriate to merge the LA guidance
with the pre-application guidance, Q10: do you agree that the
worked examples of likely fees should be removed from the Fees
Guidance until more evidence of actual costs becomes available, and
Q15: do you have any other comments.
Twelve weeks will no doubt be ample for NIPA and others to
scrutinise the new drafts in more detail and make suggestions for
further topics to be covered.
17 April 2012
Angus Walker
Previous post
Planning Act 2008 Blog Home
Next post