Speedier planning for major projects pledged » Central Government » 24dash.com

The planning process for major infrastructure proposals, like ports and power stations, could be halved under a shake-up unveiled tonight by ministers.

Communities and Local Government Secretary Hazel Blears said the average time for consent was currently two years.

"If we can get that down to a year then I think we'll be doing a service to all our constituents."

Green groups and some MPs fear the creation of an Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) will enable the Government to force through plans against local opposition.

The Tories have tabled an amendment opposing the Planning Bill's second reading tonight saying that while the planning process needs speeding up, the IPC is "fundamentally undemocratic and unaccountable".

But Ms Blears insisted people would have more opportunities to object to plans under the new system than the old.

The Government expects about 45 major infrastructure projects concerning aviation, roads and energy to come under the ambit of the legislation.

"Planning should help us meet and master the unprecedented challenges of the 21st century ... but the current system struggles to do that," Ms Blears said.

"Nationally significant infrastructure projects such as transport links or renewable energy, which are vital to our competitiveness and quality of life, face unacceptable delays.

"It took six years to get approval for a vital upgrade to the North Yorkshire power line and three and a half years to turn down the proposed container port at Dibden Bay.

"No one benefits from these delays - not business or local people, the economy, or wider society."

As well as establishing the IPC, the Bill will also simplify the planning system for minor home improvements.

Faced with cross-party concerns about the rights of local people to object to a major plan, Ms Blears said people would have three opportunities to have a say, compared to just one now.

"Under this Bill, they'll have an opportunity when the national policy statement is being drawn up; they'll have a second opportunity because the developer has to consult the community when he or she comes forward with a proposal.

"And they'll have a third opportunity when we get to the inquiry itself.
So far from reducing the public's voice, this will provide a stronger voice for the public to have a say."

Labour former minister Frank Field (Birkenhead) said some would like to see a bit more of the "Napoleonic approach" to planning, adding: "Not everyone is critical of the Government's aim to speed up the planning process."

But Labour former deputy leader of the House Paddy Tipping said there were concerns that the IPC would be "removed from democratic control".

Ms Blears said the current system was very complex. Heathrow Terminal Five required 37 different applications under seven pieces of legislation.

The Bill would introduce a single system for handling big infrastructure projects, with the Government setting out the case for the infrastructure the nation needed in the national policy statements.

These statements would be subject to debate "across the country" and in Parliament.

The Bill will also introduce a new levy to fund infrastructure to support local developments.

Ms Blears said: "The levy has the potential to raise hundreds of millions of pounds of additional investment on top of current Government funding."

She said it would be up to local authorities to decide what the money was spent on but suggested it could fund "transport, new schools, parks and health centres".

The Bill also aims to free up the planning system by allowing many minor schemes, such as home extensions or conservatories, to proceed without requiring planning permission.

"At the moment 80,000 applications go through without any objection. We want to free up the planning system to concentrate on the things that do cause a problem rather than the 80,000 that don't," Ms Blears said.

Householders will also be allowed to carry out small-scale eco-friendly projects such as installing wind turbines or solar panels without planning permission where it is clear neighbours will not be affected.

Ms Blears said the Bill would improve efficiency and lead to savings of
GBP5 billion by 2030.

Shadow communities and local government secretary Eric Pickles said the IPC was an unaccountable quango.

He said Ms Blears "must know in her heart that this Bill is not the answer" to problems in the planning system.

The IPC, he said, will "effectively be unsackable and unaccountable".

He continued: "Its functions will include the ability to compulsorily purchase land and powers to amend, apply or disapply local and public legislation governing infrastructure.

"To give such wide-ranging powers without making them accountable is dangerous."

Keith Hill (Streatham), Labour former planning minister, said the balance of judgment about major planning issues should be exercised by those accountable to the public.

"It has been our way to have democratically-elected politicians in the form of ministers make the final decision on the biggest and most contentious planning issues.

"I just wonder how we have got to the independent IPC."

Mr Hill said it was "absolutely essential" that Parliament form judgments on the national policy statements.

"It would be quite unacceptable for the IPC unilaterally to make such critical decisions. Government and Parliament have to shoulder this responsibility."

For the Liberal Democrats, Tom Brake said the IPC was "not suitably accountable and not suitably legitimate."

He suggested there was a question mark over whether the IPC would be able to reject applications. "That will be a key determinant of whether this body is worth the money that the Government are going to invest in it.

"Will it be able to say no to anything?". Mr Brake said there were "sincerely held concerns" about the body.

He said of the proposed National Policy Statements: "The whole issue of how the parliamentary scrutiny for this will work is one that I would hope the minister can clarify further."

The Bill had "failed" in securing support among all MPs and he insisted there were "a very large number of questions" about the main proposals.

He added: "We will fight this Government's centralising tendencies and we will fight for the right of local communities' views to be heard and we will be voting against second reading of this Bill today."

Labour former local government minister Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and
Woolwich) said planning was often a "highly controversial issue" in which those involved had to reconcile "conflicting interests ... and where they try to find appropriate and sustainable solutions."

Some people condemned planners "at every opportunity as slow, cumbersome and expensive" but good planning "has played a vital role in enhancing the quality of our cities and their economic success as well as protecting our environment, including the countryside, from inappropriate and damaging development."

But there were areas where the system had not "been working as well as it should".

Conservative MP John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal) attacked the Bill as a "declaration of failure".

A former Environment Secretary in John Major's government, Mr Gummer said the Bill had borrowed heavily on previous legislation and derided the way it had been presented.

Mr Gummer said the Bill did not leave enough room for local planning decisions to be questioned by the public which would result in them becoming disenchanted by the new legislation.

He said the Bill was full of gaps, claiming that it was impossible for Parliament to debate it properly as MPs did not know what would be filling those gaps.

"This is the most autocratic government that we have had since Cromwell, there is no doubt about that, it is centralising, it is autocratic, it likes to do by secondary legislation what it doesn't dare debate on the floor of the House for primary legislation.

"And this Bill is a very good example of that, we can't debate it properly because the details upon which those debates should take place are not here."

He added: "It's a typical Bill of a government that has done more to reduce the rights and freedoms of the individual than any previous government since Oliver Cromwell"

Labour's Paul Truswell (Pudsey) said he would have difficulty in supporting the Bill in its entirety as it stood at the moment.

"I can't help but feel the IPC cuts fiercely against the grain of what a democratically accountable and responsive planning process should be,"
he said.

"I believe that anybody wielding the immense powers that are to be allocated to the IPC ... must be democratically accountable and allow for proper public engagement through robust testing of evidence.

"The Bill doesn't appear to make any real provision for this."

Tory former environment minister David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) said he was concerned that the IPC was being set an "impossible task" with rather "blurred lines of accountability".

Don't miss the 24dash.com audio bulletins for the latest news and information - http://www.24dash.com/podcasts