NewsBlog readers may find value in some takes and comments on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (PIB) and amendments, from LinkedIn (a LinkedIn account is needed to access some links).
Michael Humphries KC, Barrister at Francis Taylor Building, wrote on LinkedIn:
This really is important! In a Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) this morning the Government has announced a significant amendment to the PIB.
Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook MP, has this morning announced that ‘the government will amend the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to remove the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications’. The amendment to the NSIP regime will also remove the requirement to prepare and consult on Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI).
Currently the Planning Act 2008 requires promoters to carry out statutory consultation with various local planning authorities, prescribed persons (i.e. statutory bodies etc) and landowners under s.42 and also with local communities under s.47. The requirement to consult on PEI is currently contained in Regulations.
This is an important proposed amendment to the Planning Act regime that is clearly intended to simplify and speed up a pre-application process that has often become burdensome to promoters and consultees alike.
The WMS makes clear, however, that Government still expects ‘high quality early, meaningful and constructive engagement to take place with those affected’. The WMS also, rightly, anticipates that the government will need ‘to publish statutory guidance setting out [its] strong expectation that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application’.
Clearly the intention is that by removing that statutory requirement for consultation this will allow more appropriate and proportionate engagement with stakeholders, including local communities, and speed up the process. Surely this is to be welcomed.
The amendment would bring the Planning Act 2008 regime into line with the TCPA and other consenting regimes where there is no requirement for pre-application consultation.
It is to be hoped that the amendment will also reduce the perceived risk of legal challenge related to consultation that leads to so many consultation exercises being repeated and, indeed, gold plated.
Surely the objective for good pre-application consultation should be, not to create an obstacle course for a promoter, but to allow schemes to come forward that take account of, and where appropriate reflect, material local issues. Those that then wish to object to an application, will still be able to do so through the examination process.
This WMS does reinforce the view that Government is laser focussed on making the Planning Act regime work more efficiently and delivering on its promise of 150 DCOs this Parliament.
Select comments on LinkedIn include:
- Looks like another pitiful example of replacing certainty with wishful thinking. It will lead to longer, more confrontational and more expensive examinations. Not a good look.
- So, if I am understanding correctly, there is no requirement to consult with eg Natural England, on potential sensitive receptors such as SSSIs, potentially important species and assemblages pre-application?
- Michael Humphries KC writes: My understanding is that there would be no statutory requirement to do so, but clearly a developer is likely to want to consult NE and, indeed, other bodies to avoid objections to its application. That is how I understand the new system would work, as it does in other regimes.
- Am sure most sensible and responsible developers may well keep to the status quo with reasonable consultations. But there are always those who seek to take a short cut, perhaps thinking they’ve saved some money and got ahead of the curve. Only to then find that there is a SSSI or other important receptor, say cultural heritage assets. And if most keep more or less to the status quo, what’s the point of diluting the obligations as it doesn’t meaningfully change timeframes?
- Michael Humphries KC writes: My understanding is that there would be no statutory requirement to do so, but clearly a developer is likely to want to consult NE and, indeed, other bodies to avoid objections to its application. That is how I understand the new system would work, as it does in other regimes.
- I’m concerned about this proposal. Yes the current consultation requirements might be seen as onerous, but the whole point of PA08 was to identify and address issues pre-app to reduce the examination period so we didn’t have lengthy inquiries. If you remove all pre-app consultation requirements, remove the need for a PEIR how are issues possibly to be identified and addressed and the scheme finessed to respond? The government also said today that pre-app consultation should be ‘meaningful’, and that consultation requirements ‘disincentivised’ scheme changes to address community comments because of the need to reconsult. Surely it’s easier to make scheme changes at pre-app stage rather than during an examination. And how is consultation to be ‘meaningful’ if scheme changes in response to consultation are practically discouraged. This needs far greater thought.
See the original post
See more background and context:
- The full WMS
- The MHCLG Press Release
- See also a counter-take
- You can find more and explore relevant posts on the IHBC’s NewsBlogs
