Cambridge Energy Forum 22 nd July 2010

Barton Willmore Originally established as an architectural practice over 70 years ago, Barton Willmore has grown organically to become one of the UK’s largest, independent multi-disciplinary Practices, offering a unique, integrated selection of professional development services. Our Practice comprises in excess of 280 qualified town planners, architects, designers, environmental consultants, projects managers and technical support, operating from ten offices nationwide. Barton Willmore is Quality Assured to EN. ISO 9001.

Phil Grant Brief overview of the current legislation position; Proposed changes to following new government; Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the IPC process Steven Kosky Town planning and non IPC level energy proposals: Working with the new localism agenda

Where are we now ?

Current Legislative Position for Planning Planning Act 2008 National Policy Statements (relating to Energy) Overarching Energy Policy Renewables Fossil Fuels Electricity Networks Oil and Gas Nuclear Abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategy Where are we now ?

Pending Changes from new Government Abolition of Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Formation of Major Infrastructure Planning Unit (April 2012) National Policy Framework Open Source Planning Green paper: Decentralisation and Localism Bill

Aims of the IPC A simpler process ? Faster decisions ? –Written representations –Inquisitorial hearings A Fairer Approach ?

The Role of the IPC Support the pre-application process –Consultation –Environmental Impact Assessment –Advice Examining the application –Written representations –Inquistorial hearings Recommending to the relevant Secretary of State * (unless NPS has been designated)

What is involved for the Applicant? Emphasis is on the pre-application process –Single stage and multi-stage processes

Pre-application Front loading consultation issues ? Consultation with the relevant local authorities –Statement of Community Consultation –Local Impact Report Effective Community Consultation –Determining ‘vicinity’ of the local community –Demonstrating understanding of ‘community’ Developer Land Owners and Neighbours Statutory consultees Government Departments & NPSs Other organisations Local Authorities Potential interested parties Local Community

Timescales PRE APPLICATION …how long is a piece of string !!!As long as it takes… + ACCEPTANCE28 days for IPC to decide whether to accept or not 1 month PRE EXAMINATION IPC Chair appoints Panel or Single Commissioner Initial assessment of principle issues and Preliminary Meeting. Procedural decision on how application is to be examined. + EXAMINATIONUp to 6 months to carry out examination, principally through written representations. Hearings led by commissioner on specific issues, and open-floor hearings. 6 months + DECISIONIPC has 3 months to make recommendation. Secretary of State has 3 months to make final decision. 3 months + 3 months POST DECISION6 week window for legal challenge = 13 months (post submission)

Conclusions The IPC (and subsequent MIPU) appears to a be favourable option with the current local/regional policy void. The NPSs provide a positive policy position towards presumption in favour development. However… Be realistic in your timescales Don’t under estimate the consultation requirements Examination process down to particular commissioner And we are still waiting for the ‘IPC’ Joan of Arc !!

Town planning and non IPC level energy proposals: Working with the new localism agenda Steven Kosky

Non IPC Planning Policy Context The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) The Planning Act 2008 (IPC and NPS) Relevant National Policy Statements PPS 22 Renewable Energy (excluding EfW) PPS 10 Waste Management (relevant to EfW) Conservative Green Papers on Energy and Open Source Planning Ministerial Statements

Non IPC Planning Policy Context Adopted County Waste plans Adopted District and Borough Local Plans Emerging Local Development Frameworks Unitary Authority ‘saved’ policies

What is ‘Localism’ and how will this affect non IPC energy proposals Decentralisation and Localism Bill due in July 2011 The Community will have the right to influence the decision Energy developers will have a responsibility to engage The ‘need’ for an energy proposal per se will not be the primary issue Specific locational need may be a material factor

Localism and the Consideration of Alternative Sites Land may be developed in any way which is acceptable for planning purposes. The fact that other sites exist which may be more suitable does not justify the refusal of planning permission. However, where there are clear objections to a development upon a particular site it may well be relevant and indeed necessary to consider alternatives, particularly where the major argument advanced is that need outweighs the planning disadvantages of the site.

Alternative Sites Analysis with Localism as a Relevant Criterion Energy proposals of any scale or significance are increasingly being required to provide EIA i.e. such as temporary oil exploration Trends Alternative Sites Analysis are increasingly being required in response to more organised opposition to energy proposals (internet effect)

Alternative Sites Analysis with Localism as a Relevant Criterion Agree with the LPA at scoping stage the catchment area of the Assessment Strategy Identify a first stage tranche of sites for desk top analysis – Exact number of sites considered will depend on the scale of catchment area and characteristics of application Highly specialised development which can only be accommodated on very few sites is likely to have a larger ASA catchment area and vice versa

Conclusions Obvious synergy between pre-election Conservative thinking on energy and the Draft NPS’s. The principles embodied such as energy need are equally material to non IPC level projects Need agreement will therefore be expressed primarily in relation to the need to locate the development in that location ASA is likely to become increasingly relevant as a tool to facilitate the localism agenda. Such an evaluation exercise without prior alternative site assessment will simply result in Nimbyism – A meaningful exercise is therefore required

Localism can therefore be seen as an additional assessment criterion to value or ‘score’ sites. The difference is that this new criterion is not an absolute, such as proximity to a sensitive receptor, etc…, and localism criterion may be subject to change depending on the nature of any Voluntary Agreements that may be agreed with the local community

Thank you and any questions? Contact details: Telephone: