Reforms to Infrastructure Planning: Faster, Greener, Fairer…

Levelling Up was meant to kick start the UK economy and bring much needed infrastructure investment into every corner of the UK. However, it is well documented that this seems to be stalling, David Harvey and Alex Payne take a closer look…….

 

Earlier this year the Office for National Statistics released its “Infrastructure in the UK” analysis. This showed that investment in UK infrastructure in 2021 declined by 2.8% compared with 2020.  This issue of underinvestment was raised by Sir John Armitt, head of the UK's National Infrastructure Commission as part of his Review in March of this year, citing that “the government is off track to meet its targets and ambitions”.

 

Many of these major infrastructure projects take years to make their way through the planning system, over which time there is often a lack of ambition and stable policy from Government. The larger scale projects are “assessed” via the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) route where if deemed acceptable are granted a Development Consent Order. This route intends to provide a structured and timely assessment to approval. Since its inception in 2008, there have been 119 DCOs granted of which DHA have secured three, and we are currently working on our fourth.

 

Being at the forefront of NSIPs, it is clear there needs to be improvements to and investment in the system and as part of this the Government has sought to ensure the Nationally Significant Infrastructure system can support the future infrastructure needs of the country by making the system better, faster, greener, fairer, and more resilient. This now forms part of a “formal consultation” looking to reform the Planning Act 2008 consenting process for NSIPs.

 

The purpose is to make the process more effective for applicants, local authorities and communities with three broad areas of reform:

 

1. Operational reform to support a faster consenting process;
2. Recognising the role of local communities and strengthening engagement; and
3. System capability - building a more diverse and resilient resourcing model.

 

One of the key proposals relates to the pre-application service provided by the Planning Inspectorate. The NSIP consenting process is a front-loaded regime and this proposal seeks to ensure that further work is undertaken ahead of submission to iron-out as many issues as possible before examination. The proposals provide a more structured approach to pre-application engagement by providing three levels of service: basic, standard and enhanced. Clearly some NSIPs are inherently more complex and complicated than others and a more tailored pre-application service is welcomed.

 

The basic service is obviously limited with Planning Inspectorate providing procedural advice, engagement with government bodies but no comments on the draft documents or merits of the application. The standard service includes greater support and assistance to ensure documents are suitable for submission, advice on the merits of the application and multi-forum meetings. The enhanced service allows for topic-based meetings, a draft document review service, greater engagement from the Planning Inspectorate and specialist/inspector resources and multi-party forums.

 

The other major change is the introduction of a fast-track process which overall would save three months in the examination period, meaning an NSIP application could be determined in approximately 12 months rather than 15 months from the point of submission. There are a number of requirements needed to be eligible for the fast-track process which includes undertaking the enhanced pre-application service and ensuring that any disagreements between parties are clearly defined at the end of the pre-application and therefore limited in scope. This implies that those NSIPs which are less controversial, less complex with fewer impacts are likely to be suitable for the fast-track process. Applicants are also required to sign up to a Fast Track Programme Document, before any statutory consultation, which requires them to meet additional obligations prior to submission covering matters that are likely to be raised during the examination process and how they intend to deal with them.

 

There are many more minor amendments and tweaks to the consenting process. Some of the more relevant amendments include a new adequacy of proposed consultation which assess whether the proposed consultation is sufficient before rather than after as it is now. There is also a review of the post consenting process for amendments to DCOs and a need to improve engagement with local authorities and communities.

 

The list of statutory consultees is to be updated which is welcomed given some of the bodies listed do not existing anymore or have merged with other bodies. Further to this, eight statutory consultees can charge for their engagement across the consenting process including discharging conditions and the existing fee structure for an NSIP application is to be reviewed. The Planning Inspectorate is also seeking comments on how it can be more efficient, digitised and properly resourced to meet the needs of applicants.