Memorandum submitted by Copeland Borough Council (NPS 67)

Executive Summary

Energy related industries and in particular nuclear power is key to the future development and wealth generation of the Borough of Copeland and West Cumbria. Through the sub-regional regeneration plan 'Britain's Energy Coast' local partners have identified a range of proposals which build on the areas history and expertise in the energy sector to rejuvenate economic activity and enhance the sector's supply chain.

The Nuclear industry is embarking on a worldwide renaissance creating massive business opportunities for the NW Region. The region as a whole provides the UK's concentration of nuclear expertise and capacity with more than 25,000 skilled professionals being employed in the sector in more than 300 enterprises across the region with a combined turnover in excess of 3bn per annum.

Proposals within the Energy National Policy Statements provide an opportunity for West Cumbria to build on existing expertise and establish a Centre of Excellence for Nuclear Power in UK amongst a suite of other energy related activities.

This will support the creation of new job opportunities directly and via supply chain activities and partly offset the decline in energy related jobs in the locality following the decommissioning of current nuclear power generation facilities locally

Proposals to establish 3 new nuclear power plants in Copeland could result in 3.5 billion investment in each facility. This would create 5000 construction jobs per power station and between 300 and 500 permanent jobs during the 60 year lifetime of the power stations. The investment in new reactor sites will drive a general upturn in the sector as a whole as increased requirements are generated in related areas including fuel manufacture, processing and packaging and recycling and disposal.

Demand from international and national inward investors to locate in the area to supply the business needs of the utility providers will increase.

The National Policy Statements will indirectly support the continuing development of the university research innovation and skills agenda across West Cumbria and the provision of career development opportunities for local school leavers and undergraduates boosting local colleges and universities to deliver the skills that the industry and its supply chain require.

The NPS documents provide the basis of a 'coherent and practical framework within which the IPC can assess future planning applications'. However there are matters which should be considered to enhance the practical application of the framework form a local planning authority perspective

The Borough Council are generally satisfied with the IPC process so long as additional resources are made available to enable local authorities to fully and actively participate

However, we have some concerns about how the cumulative impacts of major infrastructure proposals will be considered e.g 3 nuclear new build sites over a timescale which could be 20 years or more, particularly in relation to planning gain and the potential unfair burden on the first utility to come forward.  It should be emphasized that the relationship between Copeland and the Nuclear Industry is unique based on both history and future proposals. We want this mutually beneficial relationship to continue but the process has to be transparent with a collective recognition of the community leadership role undertaken by local authorities.

In addition, the framework underplays the role of the local authority in terms of pre-planning application discussions with applicants, assessing the impact of proposals, identifying supporting infrastructure requirements and local community leadership and stakeholder engagement/consultation, all of which have resource implications.

Infrastructure provided as part of the investment in energy will support wider economic development. However, further work will be required to identify the full extent of infrastructure requirements and those elements of infrastructure which require early implementation. The inadequacy of local transport infrastructure in West Cumbria has been highlighted again in the recent flooding emergency.

Private sector funding arising from the nuclear industry expansion may fund part of the necessary grid infrastructure improvements which will in turn create the capacity on the grid to allow the development of the renewable energy sector in the North West in parallel with new nuclear power.

The Local Planning response must be effective and requires proper resourcing. This is especially in the case in Copeland where significant investment is proposed for 3 new nuclear power generation sites with corresponding investment in grid, highways and other infrastructure.

The assessment of the impact of energy infrastructure investments through the local response to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) requirements will require significant resource to ensure economic gain balances with environmental matters

Partnership arrangements, consultation/communication, and clear recognition of roles will be important in ensuring a successful process and the benefits to national energy targets are maximised.


Introduction/Background - Why the energy sector is important for Copeland and West Cumbria

1. West Cumbria has been host to the nuclear industry for 60 years, although much has changed in recent years, with growing private sector management and investment, and increasing "reachback" into world-class international engineering skills, technology, and research and development.

2. The nuclear sector provides 40% of West Cumbria's gross value added, and around 12,000 direct jobs (25% of the total UK nuclear industry). Approximately half of all jobs in Copeland are in the Nuclear Industry. Copeland has 60-70% of the UK's nuclear facilities, the main ones being:

Sellafield - the biggest nuclear complex in Europe, with site operations covering decommissioning, nuclear reactor spent fuel reprocessing, nuclear waste management and mixed oxide fuel manufacturing. The site is owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and is now managed by a world class international consortium, Nuclear Management Partners Ltd, comprising URS Washington Group (US), Areva (France) and AMEC (UK). It has the largest concentration of nuclear skills and expertise in Europe. The Sellafield operation also supports significant numbers of high level staff in their facilities at Warrington and Cheshire;

Low Level Waste Repository near Drigg - the UK's national low level radioactive waste disposal facility, now managed for the NDA by another world-class consortium, UK Nuclear Waste Management Ltd, comprising URS Washington Group and Areva, together with Serco (UK) AND Studsvik (Sweden);

National Nuclear Laboratory - located at Sellafield, and the UK's principal establishment for nuclear technology research and development. Government owned, and now operated by a UK/US consortium comprising Battelle (US), the University of Manchester, and Serco;

Dalton Nuclear Institute - another brand new facility, owned and operated by Manchester University, with state of the art equipment for research in radiation sciences and decommissioning engineering (e.g. the study of radiation damage of materials). It will also facilitate access for academics into the NNL;

UCLAN (University of Central Lancashire)/Westlakes Research Institute - specialist epidemiology research and development; foundation degrees in health, nuclear-related technology management, and National Technology Education Consortium (NTEC) modules;

The NDA - located on Westlakes Science Park and responsible for managing the UK's 20 sites, 3 billion a year "nuclear legacy" decommissioning, clean-up and waste management programme, including also Capenhurst and Springfields in the North West;

The Westlakes Science and Technology Park a geographical focus for nuclear related companies and expertise.

Energus training facility at Lillyhall providing vocational training skills alongside Lakes College

Energy Policy Statements - a clear and practical framework for the IPC?

3. Copeland Borough Council recognises that there needs to be significant investment in the UK energy infrastructure over the next 15 years to create new energy capacity, to replace old and inefficient facilities and processes and to protect energy security, and in this respect the NPSs for Energy are to be welcomed. Copeland is in a unique position to deliver a significant proportion of the Governments objectives for energy generation from nuclear sources having 3 of the 10 proposed sites for new build.

4. We consider that the draft National Policy Statements provide the basis of a framework for:

(a) Potential development proposal applicants;

(b) The IPC;

(c) Local authorities; and

(d) Other interested parties, including local communities.

5. We believe that they set out clearly:

(a) Government policy on energy and climate change;

(b) The Government's views on the need for early new energy infrastructure;

(c) The information the IPC needs to take decisions, and the principles on which it should base its assessments; and

(d) The impacts that new energy infrastructure could have (e.g. on the environment, ecology, biodiversity, landscapes, and historic sites), and possible options for mitigating such impacts.

6. Moreover, we note that the NPS's include Appraisals of Sustainability and Habitats Regulations assessment reports.

7. Three nuclear power station sites in Copeland have been selected by Government as potentially capable of deployment by 2025. Some of the biggest UK offshore wind farm developments are planned off our coastline. And, if economically viable and environmentally sensitive, we could also have up to three significant tidal energy schemes.

Planning for investment in energy - potential enhancements to the framework

8. Plans for investment from the private sector in the provision of up to three new nuclear power stations will necessitate a range of responses to ensure that the region maximises the potential benefits.

9. Investment in infrastructure specifically in the national grid, road and rail links will be essential. Significant components of such new infrastructure will need to be in place before construction starts to allow for the movement of construction vehicles and materials, whilst other components will need to be provided before the power stations become operational e.g. new/upgraded rail provision. However it is recognised that considerable further work is required to identify the infrastructure required to facilitate the developments and ensure the balance with environmental considerations is maintained. Elements of infrastructure essential for the development will need to be delivered by way of planning gain from the applicant but this will of course provide wider benefits to the region. However the infrastructure provisions are so considerable, and some longstanding, that it would be unreasonable to expect them to all be achieved through planning gain against new development applications. Likewise where 3 potential sites in close proximity are being considered and coming on stream at differing timescales it would be unreasonable to insist on the first site to be developed picking up the full costs of the supporting and required infrastructure provision. It is important that the right impact studies and Local Development Framework are in place to inform decisions by the new Infrastructure Planning Commission on what will be necessary but discussions around planning gain are unlikely to be meaningful until the IPC is engaged in the process. There is a case therefore for Government and Government agencies to work with local West Cumbrian partners to identify early infrastructure requirements and arrangements for funding, including appropriate contributions form the private sector applicants.

10. Copeland Borough Council is currently preparing its Local Development Framework. The current timescale predicts the Core Spatial Strategy Development Plan Document will be adopted in June 2011. The LDF will provide the spatial policy framework for growth and change within the Borough and will enable the power station developments and associated spin-off impact for residential/infrastructure/education/business/health developments and will be fundamental to the delivery of new build in West Cumbria. Further work and resources will be required to ensure that current good progress is maintained and that the LDF adequately reflects the aspirations for power station developments within the Borough. It may be the case that some of the documents currently identified for production in later years require acceleration and that more regular review of the Core Strategy is required given the uncertainty around some of the sites.

11. New power stations will have significant planning impacts on Copeland Borough within which all three are situated. The grid connection will also pass though Copeland meaning that the Local Planning Authority could be actively involved in four IPC applications in the coming years. The local planning authorities will need to be properly resourced as early as possible in the process to ensure that all of these impacts are fully understood and subsequently managed in order to achieve successful local development and respond appropriately to the pre-planning application processes and expectations of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). We are concerned that no such financial provision has been made. This creates a risk of local detailed considerations not been fully taken into account potentially unnecessarily discrediting the process and the developments and making it more susceptible to challenge. There is concern about the current proposal to utilise Planning Performance Agreements, and the risk of challenge to this approach, but equally that as there is no formal requirement for Developers to enter into such agreements, in particular where the perception may be that such agreements are to fund statutory processes, that this source of funding may not necessarily be available to the authority. Similarly Local Authorities will need to be resourced to deal with a potentially large number of 'associated' Planning applications and the subsequent discharge of conditions. This is particularly critical where the cumulative effects of three sites in one area need to be managed. (A copy of a letter to Rt Hon John Healey, Minister for Housing and Planning is attached as Annex 1)

12. The proposed development of three power station sites within the local area will create a focus of attention from a variety of interest groups and stakeholders both at local, regional, national and international levels. The Councils and the development sponsor have clear roles in relation to public engagement and consultation under the Planning Act in the new formal planning process. However, the national and local interest in such development will mean that significant resource will be required to effectively manage public and stakeholder involvement. Joined up consultation at the local level will be essential to ensure that the local community receives a clear and consistent message and is provided with the opportunity to respond. Such a strategy should be prepared and agreed by national Government Departments, regional bodies, local authorities and utility developers. In this way communication and consultation can be delivered effectively and efficiently and will help to ensure that the process and therefore the proposals are not discredited.

13. As indicated earlier there is still much work to be done to assess the infrastructure required to accommodate the proposed new development of three power stations sites. Local strategic stakeholders including the Borough and County Councils are already working to develop a response to this issue in relation to housing, schools, healthcare, roads, rail links, and ports. The key requirement will be for a timely new electricity transmission network to connect the new nuclear power stations to the existing national grid system, to the north near Carlisle and to the south at Heysham in Lancashire. This so-called "Cumbria ring" is already being discussed with National Grid and local planners. Grid connectivity is identified as being crucial to the successful and efficient implementation of Government Energy policy. Decisions on grid investment and environmental proposals such as the Morecambe Bay Special Marine Conservation Area need to be considered as part of the overall strategy and not in isolation.

14. The National Policy Statement for Nuclear New Build sets out the arguments for the development of the three sites in Copeland. All are close to the existing Sellafield operation and have access to a qualified workforce and appropriate technical support - albeit additional capacity will be required during construction and possibly operation. All three will benefit from close proximity to the largest concentration of nuclear facilities in the UK and the growing support from the research, innovation, education and skills providers. New nuclear build is the initial focal point of our sub-regional regeneration plan - "Britain's Energy Coast", and there is strong support for it and the economic benefits it could provide for the local community. The Council supports in principle the development of new nuclear reactor sites in the Borough. However, it important to be sure that development takes place on appropriate sites in an appropriate way. Without detailed local impact assessments looking at a broad range of local considerations, at this time the Council does not feel enabled to determine the suitability or the priority that should be given to each of the individual sites. Such impact assessments will need to consider the full range of health matters including noise and air quality that might be generated both through the construction process and through the operation of the sites. It is further recognised that the consideration of such issues both as part of the impact analysis and post-development from a monitoring perspective will place additional pressure on local authority resources.

15. The economic benefits will need to weighed-up against environmental considerations specifically where the infrastructure requirements may impact on the landscape in and around the Lake District National Park. All three sites lie outside of the National Park boundary. Within the context of the Energy Coast Masterplan which supports West Cumbria as a location for energy generation and related facilities, the Council has a preference for the concentration of facilities rather than dispersal. Concentration of energy generation in nuclear reactors sites will have great benefits in relation to the protection of our sensitive environments. For example, a new nuclear power station site with two reactors each producing 1600 megawatts each would be environmentally preferable to 3200 x 1 megawatts wind turbine units spread around the area adjoining the Lake District National Park. Infrastructure designed to support new investments must also be designed to deliver our sustainability objectives.

16. In summary whilst the NPS documents provide a substantial basis for the framework from which the IPC will be able to consider applications for major infrastructure proposals they underplay the role of the local authority in terms of;

(i) The expectations for local planning authorities to lead pre-application discussions with applicants prior to submission to the IPC

(ii) The role of local authorities in determining the potential impact of large scale infrastructure schemes and contributing to the identification of workable and locally acceptable solutions and outcomes

(iii) Local authorities statutory responsibilities and community leadership functions including consultation with the local community and stakeholders as well as national/international interest groups

This all serves to emphasise that local authorities have an important role to play in delivering the national agenda for energy

January 2010












































Annex 1


The Rt Hon John Healey MP

Minister for Housing and Planning

Department for Communities and Local Government

Eland House

Bressenden Place

London SW1E 5DU

05 January 2010

Dear Mr Healey

Burden on Local Authorities from the Planning Act 2008

I am writing further to the invitation you gave at the Infrastructure Planning Commission launch event on 22 October in London, where you said that you would be willing to hear arguments that the Planning Act 2008 places a new burden on local authorities, which should therefore be compensated by virtue of the 'new burdens doctrine'. In fact, the new burden does not arise purely from the Planning Act (although that does introduce several new responsibilities) but also from government policy - recently embodied in the first draft National Policy Statements - on the urgent need for new infrastructure.

Local authorities are sympathetic to the new regime in general, and want to contribute to its success. Lack of resources may mean that they are unable to fulfil the roles allotted to them and as a result slow down the application process, be unable to give meaningful support or at worst, stand outside the process altogether. This will reduce community engagement and increase the potential for opposition, through the inadequate knowledge about the project and lack of assessment and mitigation of impacts. Where the National Policy Statements set out the benefits of a project, it is for local authorities to provide an objective assessment the adverse impacts and how they could be mitigated, the other side of the key test faced by the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

New burden

I quote the new burdens doctrine in full, as given on the CLG website:

"A new burden is defined as any new policy or initiative which increases the cost of providing local authority services. The new burden need not necessarily arise as a

result of a proposed statutory duty. For example, guidance to act can result in additional costs falling on local authorities, putting pressure on council tax. 

Government as a whole are committed to ensuring new burdens falling on local authorities are fully funded. This commitment is called the New Burdens Doctrine"

The argument that local authorities have a considerable new burden placed on them is fourfold:

(a) local authorities have several new responsibilities in the Planning Act 2008;

(b) responsibilities for a particular project extend to a wider group of local authorities;

(c) local authorities will lose funding, and

(d) the responsibilities caused by government policy on infrastructure do not apply uniformly, with low-density rural authorities more likely to have to deal with one or more applications, which are much larger than average.

Each of these issues is dealt with in turn.

New responsibilities under the Planning Act

Local authorities have responsibilities at four stages: at the stage of setting policy, the pre-application stage, during the consideration of applications and after applications have been granted. The first two of these are new, and the other two are increased.

National Policy Statements

All local authorities are consulted on the contents of each National Policy Statement when it is issued in draft, as seven were on 9 November[1]. Although local authorities are presently free to respond to policy consultations in general, they have not hitherto been named as statutory consultees on energy, transport, water, waste water or waste policy.

Additionally, the government must consult local authorities on how to publicise a draft National Policy Statement that identifies locations as suitable or potentially suitable for nationally significant infrastructure projects.[2] This places the responsibility squarely on local authorities of ensuring that local people are able to participate in the development of NPSs, one of the much-touted three opportunities that people will have to participate in the new process. One of the NPSs that were published on 9 November does indeed identify ten locations and so this responsibility has been engaged.

Before applications are made

The Planning Act introduces a statutory pre-application consultation regime for the first time. Local authorities are central to this. This is reflected in CLG guidance to applicants, which states 'To achieve [effective consultation], it is essential that promoters understand the local communities who will be affected by their planned application. Promoters should therefore work closely with the relevant local authority to gain this understanding, as the local authority will have a detailed knowledge of the community, including consulting local people on planning matters[3]'

Local authorities at or near the site of an application are consulted directly as part of this pre-application consultation[4].

As with NPSs, local authorities also have role in proposing how the local community should be consulted, through being consulted on the applicant's draft 'statement of community consultation'[5]. The guidance emphasises the importance of the local authority's view: 'Where they have not followed the local authority's advice, promoters will need to present their reasons to the IPC[6]'

Local authorities have a third role in the pre-application process in that they are entitled to submit a report on the adequacy of the applicant's pre-application consultation to the IPC, which the IPC must take into account when deciding to accept an application, the only third-party document with this status.[7]

None of the steps set out above can be characterised as 'formalising current best practice', which is the current DCLG line rebutting the suggestion of a new burden. Applicants do not need to carry out any pre-application consultation at present, and so often the first that the local authority knows about an application at present is when it is made, either to them or to the Secretary of State.

After applications are made and before they are decided

The principal role given to local authorities during the consideration of an application is that of preparing a 'Local Impact Report'[8]. This will be the opportunity for the local authority to present an analysis of the impact of the application on its area to the IPC and in particular its consistency with local and regional planning policies. The disproportionate amount of work that this will require is considered further below under 'disproportionate application of Planning Act regime'.

Local authorities also have minor roles when their own land is to be acquired by a public authority applicant[9] or Green Belt land is to be acquired[10], and can enter into planning obligations (s106 agreements) as they can with conventional planning applications[11].

After applications have been decided

Finally, local authorities have a role in policing the implementation of development consent orders (DCOs) and development in the absence of a DCO. There are rights to enter land[12], require information from landowners[13], serve notices of unauthorised development[14], carry out restoration works not carried out by the developer[15], and apply for injunctions[16]. Local authorities have not had to enforce the equivalent of conditions of a DCO before.

Greater number of local authorities involved

Where previously a planning application would normally be dealt with solely by the district-level or unitary authorities whose areas contained the land in question, the Planning Act places the more significant of the above duties on neighbouring and higher-tier local authorities as well.

These additional local authorities are much greater in number than might be at first realised, when one considers that both district and county level authorities are involved and each of their immediate neighbours at district or county level.

For example, Sellafield, one of the ten nominated nuclear sites, is in the areas of Copeland Borough and Cumbria County Councils. These have as neighbours the councils of Allerdale, Carlisle, Barrow-in-Furness, County Durham, Craven, Dumfries and Galloway, Eden, Lancashire, Lancaster, North Yorkshire, Northumberland, Richmondshire, Scottish Borders and South Lakeland.

All sixteen of these councils, rather than just the single local planning authority, will have responsibilities to advise on local publicity for the NPS, respond to consultation on the application before it is made, make 'adequacy of consultation representations', and submit local impact reports. It is difficult to see how an increased number of responsibilities, applied to sixteen times as many local authorities can be characterised as a neutral effect of the new regime.

Loss of funding

On the negative side of the balance sheet, the Planning Act removes the need for planning permission for nationally significant infrastructure projects[17], and thereby deprives the local planning authority of the application fee. Almost all of the 16 types of nationally significant infrastructure project that the Planning Act is concerned with would currently require a planning application to be made to the local planning authority.

The amount lost in this way will be a very small proportion of the financial burden on local authorities loss for larger projects, but nevertheless it adds weight to the new burden argument.

Disproportionate application of the Planning Act regime

Government policy on the urgent need for new infrastructure will hasten the development of large projects that will fall under the new Planning Act regime, particularly energy projects. The current estimate of the IPC is that it will receive 45-50 applications in its first year of operation. This compares with about 350 local planning authorities in England and Wales, and so at most only 15% of local authorities will be affected directly, although many more will have responsibilities as neighbouring authorities, as outlined above.

Some authorities will have to deal with multiple applications - linked projects such as power stations and their grid connections, or port development and associated road and rail links, or have simply been identified as suitable for several projects, such as Copeland with its three nominated nuclear sites. The Act will therefore apply disproportionately and infrequently to a relatively small number of local authorities.

By their nature, too, major infrastructure projects tend to be sited away from large centres of population because of their impacts. The impact of the Act will therefore tend to be felt by smaller rural authorities that have lower staffing levels and less exposure to major applications than average.

Those authorities that find themselves dealing with a nationally significant infrastructure project will have an unusually large workload to deal with compared with other planning applications. In order to assess the impacts of the project and the steps needed to mitigate them for the purposes of the Local Impact Report, a variety of specialist commissions, by their nature costly, will be needed over a sustained period starting well before an application is made.

Mitigation will take the form of changes to the project, the addition of requirements (conditions) to the development consent order, and through the development of s.106 agreements. The absence of properly developed proposals for mitigation (from a party other than the promoter of the project) could prove critical in the approval or rejection of the application.

These major projects will also have a knock-on effect on the remainder of the host authority's area. There will be shifts in population and changes to the need for housing, transport, education, health and other infrastructure. This will necessitate changes to the policies in the authority's local development framework that would not have been required otherwise.


The counter-argument is that the Planning Act merely formalises existing best practice, and that any financial burden can be met by seeking a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) or other funding from a developer by using section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003. This is an insufficient response.

For a start, applicants are less likely to pay a body that is not the decision-maker to ensure that the application is dealt with according to an agreed timetable. Indeed, negotiating a timetable after the pre-application stage is unnecessary, as there are statutory time limits in the Planning Act. Much of the work that local authorities will need to carry out will take place well before an application is made and before a PPA is likely to be able to be negotiated.

There is therefore no guarantee that PPAs will be able to be negotiated with local authorities at all or if they are, that they will cover the full financial burden. In any event a PPA would only be likely to be negotiated with the authority in which the development lay, and not any of the neighbouring authorities.


There is also the perception that being funded by a voluntary payment from an applicant may be seen to reduce the objectivity of local authorities, however unjustified.

Finally, the Planning Act needs to be seen in the context of government policy on energy, transport, water, waste water and waste. An urgent need for infrastructure is identified, particularly for the first of these, and the burdens on local authorities should be seen as deriving from a combination of the Planning Act and policies on need, rather than the Act alone.


The Planning Act 2008 places a new burden on local authorities by increasing both the number of responsibilities and the number of authorities affected, while removing the fees available to them. Government policy on the need for infrastructure will accelerate the visitation of some of the largest applications for development in the country on a low number of smaller than average authorities.

The government should recognise that there is a new burden on those local authorities where NSIPs are situated, as well as their neighbours, and fund such authorities appropriately to enable the new Planning Act regime to work as it was designed.

A proper assessment should be undertaken of the actual cost of carrying out all the responsibilities outlined above, taking into account the number of authorities involved. The cost could then be made up by developers (compulsorily rather than voluntarily to eliminate suggestions of bias), the IPC, the government or a combination of all three. It is likely that the overall increase will only amount to a small proportion of the estimated 300m annual saving as a result of the introduction of the new regime, and a small proportion of the cost of a project, but it will make a significant difference to the authorities involved and the success of the new regime.

I trust that you will reflect on the arguments above and reconsider your position.

January 2010





[1] Regulation 3(3)(e), Infrastructure Planning (National Policy Statement Consultation) Regulations 2009

[2] Section 8(1), Planning Act 2008

[3] Paragraph 17, Planning Act guidance on pre-application consultation

[4] Section 42(b) , Planning Act 2008

[5] Section 47(2) , Planning Act 2008

[6] Paragraph 45, Planning Act guidance on pre-application consultation

[7] Section 55(4)(b) , Planning Act 2008

[8] Section 60(2)(a) , Planning Act 2008

[9] Section 128, Planning Act 2008

[10] Section 147(2) , Planning Act 2008

[11] Section 174(2)(c) , Planning Act 2008

[12] Sections 163 and 164, Planning Act 2008

[13] Section 167, Planning Act 2008

[14] Section 169, Planning Act 2008

[15] Section 170, Planning Act 2008

[16] Section 171, Planning Act 2008

[17] Section 33(1)((a) , Planning Act 2008