Draft Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Exeter) (Lab)
† Colvile, Oliver (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
† Dakin, Nic (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
† Doyle-Price, Jackie (Thurrock) (Con)
† Fitzpatrick, Jim (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Glass, Pat (North West Durham) (Lab)
† Hammond, Stephen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)
McDonnell, John (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
† Morgan, Nicky (Loughborough) (Con)
† Newton, Sarah (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
† Paice, Sir James (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)
Sheerman, Mr Barry (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
† Smith, Henry (Crawley) (Con)
† Stuart, Ms Gisela (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
† Stunell, Sir Andrew (Hazel Grove) (LD)
† Sturdy, Julian (York Outer) (Con)
† Thornton, Mike (Eastleigh) (LD)
Dougie Wands, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
First Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 24 June 2013
[Hywel Williams in the Chair]
Draft Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Draft Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013.
It is good to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Williams. I thank colleagues of all parties for being here.
The order will substitute a new section 22 in the Planning Act 2008, and amend section 25 of the Act, with respect to the criteria for highway and rail schemes to be considered nationally significant infrastructure projects. In addition, it will introduce thresholds for the construction or alteration of highways on the strategic road network and rail schemes in England only.
The new section 22, which deals with highway schemes, sets out thresholds based on the area taken up by the scheme. For schemes on motorways, the threshold would be 15 hectares; for schemes on highways other than motorways with a speed limit of 50 mph or more, it would be 12.5 hectares; and for schemes on all other highways, it would be 7.5 hectares. Those thresholds would include land on which the construction or alteration would take place, and any adjoining land to be used in connection with the scheme.
The new section 22 will also remove any alteration or construction of a highway from the development consent order regime where the Secretary of State for Transport is not the highway authority.
Certain highway schemes on the strategic road network that consist of the alteration of a highway will also be removed—where alteration is necessary either as a result of a scheme that has already received planning permission or because of works by the local highway authority for which an order has already been made. In both cases the Secretary of State must be requested to carry out the works.
Finally, the new section will remove highway schemes where an earlier order has been made that require a further order within seven years of the first one.
The order will also amend section 25, to introduce thresholds so that any construction or alteration of a railway will come within the ambit of the 2008 Act only where the construction or alteration of the railway track is not on operational land or land acquired for the purpose of constructing or altering a railway, and it exceeds a continuous length of 2 km.
The order also includes transitional arrangements for existing development consent orders and applications for such orders submitted for determination before it comes into force.
The amendments to the Planning Act 2008 are intended to ensure that only infrastructure projects of genuine national significance fall within the development consent regime.
At present the 2008 Act does not set any thresholds for nationally significant infrastructure, highway or rail schemes, which means that any scheme, regardless of whether it is genuinely nationally significant, must comply with the development consent order regime set out in the Act. The development consent order regime is designed to speed up and improve the planning process for large or complex schemes of national significance.
The process has already been used to good effect in carrying out schemes that, because of their scale or complexity, could have become bogged down in the alternative planning system. In those cases the development consent order is the most appropriate regime. However, some schemes, such as a 500-metre sidings extension, the widening of a slip road or a small safety improvement scheme, which are of only local importance and cannot be considered nationally significant, are required to use the development consent order regime.
The necessary level of pre-application work and the requirement for an examination under the development consent order regime, which is right for nationally significant projects, would be disproportionate and, in some cases, unnecessary, for smaller, less complex, or more discrete schemes.
We have also identified delay to small schemes that are not of national significance; some are even not taken forward. That is because the cost, and the time involved in promoting a development consent order, which is in the order of 18 months, are a disincentive to those who want to deliver a scheme as part of an in-year based programme. Consequently, we sometimes have little choice but to adopt solutions that do not yield the maximum benefit to road users but are far more readily deliverable.
During the recent national and local pinch point fund rounds, several schemes that would have benefited from using that funding to support growth were not considered, because they would have been required to follow the development consent order regime, and the time taken to gain an order would have put them outside the time scale for the fund. The proposed thresholds will allow the most proportionate regime to be used. That will increase certainty that the most optimal schemes are being delivered. That will have a greater benefit for growth.
The Act, as currently worded, has led to confusion about whether certain local schemes, because they have a purpose connected to the strategic road network, should be within the development consent order regime. That has led to serious delays and added costs for developers while the wording of the Act is clarified. In a few cases, the planning process has had to be restarted, leading to abortive work and cost. Setting out in clear terms that only those highway schemes for which the Secretary of State for Transport is, or will be, the highway authority will remove the confusion and potential avenues for delay to much-needed growth.
Currently, schemes to provide a development with access to the strategic road network and to otherwise mitigate the impacts of the development are also required to use the development consent order regime, even where those schemes already benefit from a planning permission as part of the overall development consent. Under the development consent order regime, promoters must submit full consultation and assessment documentation and undergo an examination, even where schemes are uncontested. The whole process can take up to 18 months and can be undertaken only after the full development site application has been granted.
Under Highways Act 1980 provisions for uncontested schemes that are part of the planning process for a site, the required side road orders can be made without a hearing and without charge, therefore making this regime quicker and less expensive. Such mitigation works are needed to deliver new developments, so any delay or costs will affect the ability to deliver.
Local major schemes and schemes that are developer funded would usually have undergone public scrutiny via the examination in public of the local plan or a full planning application process. Under the development consent order regime, they would have to undergo those processes again, adding further costs and delay.
The proposed amendment would remove all local major schemes from the development consent order regime and give developers the certainty of proceeding through one regime, under the 1980 Act. There is still the option of using the development consent order regime for a scheme that would now fall outside that regime, but which is none the less considered to be of national significance. That would happen by means of the Secretary of State, on application, making a direction that the scheme is of national significance. That would bring the scheme into the development consent order regime.
The position for railway developments under section 25 of the 2008 Act has similarly resulted in schemes that would not ordinarily be considered nationally significant being required to obtain a development consent order pursuant to the 2008 Act, and with similar consequences. Currently, there is no threshold, so any scheme for the construction or alteration of a railway that cannot progress using permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime becomes a nationally significant infrastructure project and requires a development consent order, regardless of the scale or size of the scheme.
The proposed amendments to section 25 of the 2008 Act mean that railway construction or alteration schemes will require a development consent order only if they include the laying of a stretch of railway track, whether single or multiple track, for more than two continuous kilometres on land that is not existing railway operational land—for these purposes, non-operational land would include any land acquired for the purposes of the scheme itself.
Railways are, by their nature, generally long and linear, so a distance-based threshold, as already applied to gas pipelines, seems appropriate. Bearing in mind the scale and likely impacts of the development, and mindful of the schemes that typically come forward, a 2 km threshold appears appropriate to ensure that only those schemes that have a wider impact require authorisation through the development consent order regime. Smaller
railway schemes and those on existing railway operational land can proceed using the alternative planning procedures, which will reduce costs and enable schemes to be delivered more quickly and with greater certainty.The proposed amendment to section 25 will ensure that only developments that are justifiably regarded as nationally significant will be required to proceed under the 2008 Act regime. The changes have of course been subject to public consultation, and they were strongly supported by respondents.
4.40 pm
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab): It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our business this afternoon, Mr Williams.
I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks. We do not see the order as controversial, so I hope not to detain the Committee for too long. I also thank him for instructing one of his officials to contact us about whether we had any issues or wanted a briefing. It is always a very smart Minister who tries to smoke out the Opposition before we reach the Committee. [ Laughter. ] I beg your pardon, Mr Williams. I should have said that it is always a very considerate Minister who offers the Opposition a briefing before we reach the Committee, and we were grateful for that opportunity.
I want to raise a few issues. The Minister focused on the efficiency and tidiness of the order, which we fully accept. However, issues have been raised by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Campaign for Better Transport in their submission, for which we are grateful.
The Minister referred to the fact that the 34 respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the new arrangements. That consultation was carried out over Christmas in a shorter period than is the norm. I first want to ask for the Minister’s observation on that shorter than normal time scale. Twelve weeks is the norm, but consultations can sometimes be done more quickly. Was that a good example of one that, demonstrably, was done fairly easily, but got a reasonable number of responses?
On the substantive questions raised by the CPRE, question 4 is basically about speed limits:
“An unintended consequence of having the threshold limit set in relation to the speed limit of the affected highway areas is that this could create a perverse incentive to increase speed limits in relation to roads next to a proposed site”.
I seek the Minister’s assurance that that will not be the case.
The Minister referred to examination in public. Question 8 from the CPRE and the Campaign for Better Transport asks whether local enterprise partnerships may create some difficulty or confusion about the new arrangements being applicable. The Government response states that there will be no conflict, so it would be helpful if the Minister reassured us along those lines.
Under question 5 in their response, the Government mention two respondents who were concerned that the thresholds did not take into account the environmental impacts in designated areas, such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am sure that that point is covered in the Government’s response, but I cannot see where it is. Will the Minister reassure us that the thresholds will take such environmental impacts into account?
My last observation is from the CPRE’s question 10— it is a minor point, but significant in its language—in which it states:
“While the proposals are likely to lead to greater certainty, we are concerned that the focus in the consultation is on ‘growth’ rather than ‘sustainable economic growth’ as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework”.
Its observation is for purposes of consistency. The Government obviously want sustainable growth, as do the Opposition. Referring to it in the same terms as the national planning framework would give consistency to the message the Government are trying to communicate. These are points of reassurance and clarification—we have no dispute with what the Minister is trying to achieve. We are happy if he wishes to defer his response and provide a written one in due course, but some reassurance would be extremely helpful.
4.46 pm
Stephen Hammond: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and questions. I hope to reassure him with a few words. He is right about the consultation; we had 34 responses from a wide variety of groups, including local authorities, developer consultants and the two organisations he mentioned. The consultation ran for five weeks, including the Christmas period. However, the proposed changes to the Act included in the consultation document had already been discussed with several industry participants, and as they dealt with process rather than policy, we felt that the five-week period was sufficient. We had also given clarification to organisations responding that, should they need further time outside the five weeks, we would give potential respondents more time. The 12-week consultation period had been the norm—the hon. Gentleman is right—but we hope to reduce that to a possible eight weeks on many occasions. None the less, the five-week period that ran over Christmas, because it was process rather than policy and because we had undertaken discussion beforehand, was adequate. I do not believe that we received any responses outside the five weeks.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned speed limits. Looking at the threshold, we are pretty clear about the speed limits within those thresholds. Frankly, we are looking at the types of road that have a different design or design of junction required and, in actual fact, those roads already have specified limits on them. For example, an all-purpose road with a speed limit of less than 50 mph will typically be found in an urban area. There is nothing in the Act to suggest that we are hoping to see people speed. Far from it. We continue to lay down what is there already. Last October, as he knows, we gave guidelines to local authorities allowing them to reduce speed limits should they wish to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked about areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Act changes nothing; the status of surrounding land does not affect the national significance of a road or rail scheme. When orders under the Highways Act 1980 or the Transport and Works Act 1992 are required, it would not be possible to secure them if consultation or environmental assessment were inadequate. Consequently, even though there might be potential consultees who are not statutory consultees under those Acts, it is clear that they would still need to be consulted and that full consideration would be given to their responses.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned LEPs. I am not entirely sure where exactly he was coming from, but they are already consultees in the process. I am not therefore anticipating any issue with them; far from it, I expect to see that the LEPs appreciate the opportunity to recognise that the measures will promote growth and speed up the number of processes. The LEPs are, however, already statutory consultees.
On the definition of growth, the Government have consistently said that growth should be sustainable, although we have not specified that every time. Clearly, we are hoping to speed up the process and to ensure that the opportunities for growth will be realised more quickly.
With those words, I hope I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman.