Localism Bill
Memorandum submitted by EDF Energy (L 154)
1
Relevant clause: Schedule 13, Part 1, Section 69, of the Localism Bill.
1.1
The Planning Act 2008, Section 115(2)(b), as it stands, does not provide a definition of ‘dwellings’ when excluding the consent of "the construction or extension of one or more dwellings" within a DCO.
1.2
Where developers are providing temporary accommodation for construction workers it is assumed that it is reasonable to apply as part of the DCO. Such accommodation was provided under the section 36 consents granted by the Secretary of State for Sizewell B and the previous Hinkley Point C application - removing the ability to do so under a DCO would contradict the unified planning regime that the 2008 Act was meant to herald.
1.3
We suggest that section 235 (Interpretation) of the Planning Act 2008 is amended by the insertion of a new line in Schedule 13, Part 1, Section 69, of the Localism Bill as follows: …and insert the definition"dwellings" shall mean the same as "dwellinghouses" under the Use Classes Order 1987 for the purposes of section 115 (2)(b) of the Planning Act 2008.
1.4
An alternative approach would be to include a specific definition for a ‘dwelling’ that would exclude temporary accommodation built solely for the purposes of facilitating the development of the nationally significant infrastructure project.
2
Relevant clause: Schedule 13, Part 1, of the Localism Bill.
2.1
Section 120 sets out "What may be included in order granting development consent", listing the various matters that development consent orders may make provision for. Subsection (9) appears out of place in this context, since it relates to what may not be included in other orders, granted under different statutory powers, including the Harbours Act 1964, the Gas Act 1965 and the Transport and Works Act 1992.
2.2
Section 33(2) of the Planning Act 2008 already makes clear what the effect of the requirement for development consent orders is for other consenting regimes, including the above Acts. However, Section 33(2) does not prevent the grant of a separate order in respect of infrastructure (such as a jetty) which is not a nationally significant infrastructure project in its own right (due to its size).
2.3
The intent of Section 120(9) is therefore unclear in the legislation and it is important that section 120(9) is also repealed or amended in order to avoid ambiguity within the legislation over the content of development consent orders.
2.4
We suggest that Schedule 13, Part 1, of the Localism Bill has an additional clause 60(4) added stating: "*(4) Omit subsection 120(9)."
3
Relevant clause: Schedule 13 of the Localism Bill.
3.1
Section 47 covers the duty to consult the local community and the preparation of a statement of community consultation. However, there is no specific provision to allow the applicant to revise and republish such a statement, should additional consultation requirements be identified as a result of new information, design changes or feedback from initial consultation. This omission should be corrected via the Localism Bill by including an amendment to section 47 of the Planning Act, making it clear that a statement of community consultation can be updated or re-issued where the applicant has reason to carry out additional consultation not envisaged in the original statement of community consultation.
3.2
This would be achieved by inserting an additional clause into Schedule 13 of the Localism Bill:
Duty to consult local community
Amend subsection 47(2) to add:
(8) The applicant may prepare and publicise a revised statement, in accordance with subsections (2) to (6), if additional consultation requirements are identified prior to application, in order to satisfy subsection (1).
March 2011
|
