Lord Adonis
Main Page: Lord Adonis (Labour - Life peer)Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Lord Adonis Excerpts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am afraid that this is a somewhat technical amendment, but I will do my best to explain what is intended in concise and accessible language. Clause 20 is about enabling projects that were authorised under the various major infrastructure consent regimes that preceded the Planning Act 2008 to go ahead without also requiring authorisation under the Planning Act in the form of a development consent order. It deals with cases where a developer’s plans for a project have changed and they need to have the original consent varied or replaced to take account of that change. We want to make it absolutely clear that in such a case, the variation or replacement of the original consent—for example, planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—is all that is needed. The developer will not need to start again from scratch and apply for a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 if they already have a validly varied or replaced consent under the relevant pre-Planning Act regime.
The reason for making the amendment is that new Section 237A, which Clause 20 would insert into the Planning Act, would still potentially leave projects authorised under pre-Planning Act legislation having to apply in some cases for a development consent order under the Planning Act. For example, the new section would not remove the need for a development consent order in a situation where a project had been built and it was necessary to make changes to the conditions of its original planning permission relating to operational matters. This seems wrong. As an additional benefit, the amendment also simplifies the drafting of new Section 237A of the Planning Act. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the Minister’s explanation of the amendment was entirely persuasive, and we are content.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I begin by echoing the tribute made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to Sir Michael Pitt, who is doing an excellent job of public service as chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate—and did so in his previous work at the Infrastructure Planning Commission. However, in the present economic downturn where businesses are under so much pressure, the Planning Inspectorate, like other parts of the public service, should seek to keep its costs and charges down to an absolute minimum. That is the first important issue raised in the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
The key issue in the first amendment in this group is to do with the basis on which PINS calculates fees for the processing of development consent order applications. The fees are set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010, which provides that PINS may charge for each day on which the examining authority examines the application in the period beginning with the start date and ending with the completion date of the examination. This provision has given rise to uncertainty as to whether PINS is entitled to charge a fee only for the actual days worked on the development consent order by the examining authority or for each day of the examination period, irrespective of the days on which the examining authority may have worked on the application.
PINS has adopted the second of these interpretations, which is hardly surprising because that gives it a larger income and of course it is under great pressure from the Government to maximise its private income so that it is less dependent on the department. However, it seems that any reasonable interpretation of the fees that should be paid by promoters would lead one to conclude that they should pay only for the actual days worked on the development consent order by the examining authority. This is not a minor matter. I talked about the issue with the National Infrastructure Planning Association, which told me that for larger projects fees run into hundreds of thousands of pounds and that even for smaller projects, were the interpretation that fees would be payable only for actual days worked by the examining authority rather than the entire examining authority period, savings to developers of £20,000 or £30,000 might not be uncommon.
My understanding is that the Government are sympathetic to the case that has been made in respect of fees. When the Bill was before the Commons, the Planning Minister said:
“Although I would not want to fetter the Planning Inspectorate’s already constrained ability to charge fees for the valuable work that it does, I nevertheless take on board the concern about how such fees are charged. I have already had conversations with the Planning Inspectorate about how exactly it measures time and whether that time measurement relates to work done rather than just the clock ticking, and I will be sure to keep on the case.”—[Official Report, Commons, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 4/12/12; col. 437.]
How far has the planning Minister been on the case since the matter was raised in the Commons? Can the Minister here today give any further comfort to developers that the fees charged to them by the Planning Inspectorate will be done on what appears to be a defensible basis, namely the days actually spent by planning inspectors in working on the DCO applications rather than, as I say, the entire period that they are before the examining authority?
The second issue raised by my noble friend is about consents that cannot be disapplied by a development consent order without the consent of the relevant body. My noble friend cited Sir Michael Pitt who said recently that 40% of the required consents were outside the development consent order regime, even though—as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said—the Planning Act regime was intended to be a unified authorisation process and therefore a one-stop shop for the construction of major infrastructure. The issue here is whether to do as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, wish—that is, remove the requirement to obtain the consent of bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England in respect of their permissions and replace that simply with a right for them to be consulted—would lose essential safeguards for essential interests. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that issue because it seems to be the fundamental point at stake. My understanding is that a new consent service is being set up by the Planning Inspectorate which should help in this respect and that recently reissued guidance to promoters about development consent orders sets out a stronger onus on consenting bodies to consider including consents in the development consent order regime. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he thinks that is likely to be effective in meeting the concerns raised by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
The third key issue raised by these amendments relates to the pre-application programme management system and the oversight by PINS. The proposition is that the PINS examining inspectors should perform a programme management or case oversight role, probably holding public hearings with the key parties to check on progress made and the next steps.
I know that PINS already does good work at the pre-application stage to help promoters. However, I simply report to the House that the CBI, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the National Infrastructure Planning Association all report that the support given by PINS is not sufficient at the pre-application stage. They cite a whole string of cases, with which I will not take the time of the House now, which appear to substantiate that point. Providing a greater degree of oversight by PINS could help to ensure greater success for the DCO regime.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the concerns raised by the CBI and others in this respect because, if this is a blockage, it is completely within the control of the Government, since, of course, the Planning Inspectorate is a government agency.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for tabling these amendments. In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, apologised for the amount of detail as regards these amendments. I join him in that apology: I apologise in advance for the length of my response. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who had the benefit of riding tandem, while I have benefited greatly from riding tandem on this Bill with the noble Baroness, on this occasion I seek the Committee’s indulgence because my response to these amendments is very much a solo cycle. I also join my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in paying tribute to the work of Sir Michael Pitt in this respect.
As has been said, the amendments address a number of important issues in relation to reform of the major infrastructure planning regime. The importance of this was well expressed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. For the purposes of the Committee, I will address each amendment in turn. I recognise the intentions behind Amendment 72, which addresses the “one stop” element for major infrastructures. This amendment would mean that the Planning Inspectorate was likely to be required to deal with a much wider range of issues than it current deals with—issues which require detailed technical or specialist knowledge or relate to sensitive issues such as nuclear safety.
At present this expertise is held by a small number of departments and government agencies. It perhaps would be wasteful to replicate this wide range of expertise within the Planning Inspectorate, particularly on issues as sensitive and highly technical as, for example, nuclear safety. In addition, many of these consents require ongoing compliance activities and periodic review based on the results of the compliance work, and it would be undesirable to separate the permitting and compliance activities into different organisations.
That said, the Government certainly are sensitive to concerns about the challenge for developers, as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of effectively co-ordinating various application processes for a range of consents across a range of departments and government agencies, and are taking forward a range of actions to address this concern. Clause 21 and parts of Clause 22 remove the need for the five separate certificates or consents currently required and allow them to be dealt with under the single development consent order, a change which has been widely and strongly welcomed.
I am pleased to report that we have also recently consulted on proposals to establish new arrangements to improve co-ordination and communication between the Planning Inspectorate, applicants and consenting bodies. The proposals are intended to make the consents process more efficient, while retaining the technical and legal expertise in consenting bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England.
We think that this approach provides developers with the additional support and service that they are looking for without, most importantly, watering down the protections which currently exist. While we recognise the appetite from some developers for the Government to let all consents be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate alone, other bodies have highlighted the important role that bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England play in ensuring that adequate environmental protections are delivered.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin also highlighted the recently updated guidance on pre-application. I welcome his positive comments in this regard, which, of course, make it clear that non-planning consents can be included within the development consent and that the bodies normally responsible for granting these consents should make every effort to facilitate this. They should only object to the inclusion of such a non-planning consent with good reason and after careful consideration of reasonable alternatives.
I turn to Amendment 75ZAA, which addresses four distinct and important issues in relation to the operation of the nationally significant infrastructure regime. I will seek to address each of the four issues raised in turn and hope that my comments will provide noble Lords with some reassurance.
I turn first to the issue of fees—this was raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—addressed by proposed new subsection (1) of Amendment 75ZAA. This amendment would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to set appropriate fees for applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The Planning Inspectorate’s fees are currently set out in regulations, which include provision for day-rate charges that depend on the make-up of the examining authority. There is a smaller charge for cases where a single inspector is the examining authority and larger charges for panels of inspectors. These fees are intended to cover the work of the Planning Inspectorate, which supports the examination, including staff working in case management, case administration, environmental services, legal services and other relevant costs of the inspectorate, including those incurred during the recommendation stage, for which no separate fee is charged. This amendment would narrow the ability of the Secretary of State to set appropriate fees to reflect the costs of the application. This would, in effect, mean that the taxpayer would have to further subsidise the service that the Planning Inspectorate provides for nationally significant infrastructure projects. I strongly support the “user pays” principle in relation to major infrastructure fees and see it as entirely appropriate that developers of nationally significant infrastructure pay a reasonable fee for their planning applications. I would not want to curtail the ability to charge reasonable fees.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed to the comments of my honourable friend the Planning Minister in the other place—specifically on the issue of fees. The Government recognise that some developers are questioning the current wording of the infrastructure fees regulations. The noble Lord asked whether the Planning Minister was on the case; knowing the Planning Minister as I do, I know that he is definitely on the case, has opened the case, and has investigated it fully. I can therefore update the noble Lord with the news that the Government intend to bring forward a statutory instrument later in the spring to make this position absolutely clear and remove any possible doubt.
Lord Adonis
It is not entirely clear to me what “this position” meant in what the noble Lord just said. What does it mean? Is it that the charges will now only be in respect of actual days devoted to the examination of the cases?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I mentioned earlier, we have already said that there are specific fees which are charged for specific projects, so if a single inspectorate is being asked to look at that, that will be clear in the fee structure. Similarly, if there is a bigger application where a range of inspectors are involved, that will also be transparent. I also highlighted the issue of the day rate, which I mentioned earlier in my speech. In effect, all we are doing is highlighting the issue of transparency, which was mentioned earlier. The statutory instrument will address that point: it will outline the Government’s policy clearly. Again, I refer the noble Lord to what I said earlier about day rates also being charged as part of this policy.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the marathon that he has run with such fortitude. I hope that I may return to the fees charged by PINS. Having reflected on what the noble Lord said, I think that he made a dramatic statement which did not contain a great policy shift. I understood the Minister to say that the order which will be prepared later this year will be transparent about the number of inspectors—I stress, the number of inspectors—who are engaged in examining a DCO application. I understand that there is not much difficulty in finding this out and that developers are well aware of the number of inspectors in respect of their application. The issue is not the number of inspectors, it is the number of days on which they are engaged on the application, which they are able to charge for. That is a distinctly different point. If the order simply requires transparency on the number of inspectors, there will be no effective change from the status quo. The essential issue is whether developers and applicants are being charged excessively for the work being undertaken by the inspectorate.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord again for his question. The content of the statutory instrument is currently being looked at, and I do not want to pre-empt the detail of it. I refer the noble Lord back to my earlier point: Planning Inspectorate fees are currently set out in regulations which include provision for day-rate charges which depend on the make up of the examining authority—that was the point I was making—but there is something within them specific to day rates. Current practice and policy are not expected to change. There have been concerns about clarity and transparency, and they will be addressed by the statutory instrument.
Lord Adonis
The longer the noble Lord speaks, the more opaque it becomes as to what the actual change will be, if, indeed there will be any change whatever in the statutory instrument he refers to. If it simply re-expresses the status quo, what is the purpose of producing it in the first place? Will there be a change of practice on the part of the Planning Inspectorate? The noble Lord’s briefing may not enable him to answer that question now, but perhaps he could write to noble Lords after Committee.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I can assure the noble Lord that there is a statutory instrument due in this respect. I take his point about greater clarity, but my understanding is that the current policy position is not expected to change. The current fees regulations include day-rate charges.
Lord Adonis
Will the noble Lord write to us, between Committee and Report, so that noble Lords properly understand what is being proposed and have the opportunity to work out whether we need to return to this matter on Report? Given the feeling in the Committee, we may well return to this matter unless there is some movement.