Earlier this week, planning minister Matthew Pennycook announced the government will amend the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to remove the statutory requirement to consult on nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) applications at the pre-application stage because they “drive perverse outcomes”. This includes removing the requirement for developers to prepare and consult on preliminary environmental information
To quote the minister on the changes, “…statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk aversion and gold-plating. The result is consultation fatigue and confusion for communities; longer, more technical and less accessible documentation; and an arrangement that actively disincentivises improvements to applications – even if these are in a local communities’ interest – because applicants worry this will require a further repeat consultation.”.
Of course, there is no legal requirement to carry out pre-application consultation in Acts other than the Planning Act 2008. It is just best practice. This government claims that this change could reduce the typical time spent in pre-application by up to 12 months. And when you look at some of the recent trends, it seems justified. For example, NSIP approval time has almost doubled from two and a half years to about four years and pre-application consultation takes at least two years (for Sizewell C this was seven years!). Not least, the rate of judicial review is up.
That said, the government made clear that removing these statutory requirements does not signify that pre-submission consultation and high-quality engagement is no longer important – such engagement and consultation will remain vital to delivering successful major infrastructure projects.
But not everybody is happy. The RSPB say the changes “amount to freezing voices out of the process right from the start, on projects which have the biggest impact for nature of all”.
To support this change, the government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submission of an application. The guidance itself subject to wider consultation but is likely to emphasise that without adequate engagement and consultation, applications are unlikely to be able to proceed to examination.
A confusing message perhaps – and a change which might shift the emphasis towards more consultative local impact reports which can be submitted by local authorities to the planning inspectorate. Without doubt the forthcoming guidance will be key – but will it help or hinder acceptability?
The emphasis on a ‘high quality’ approach signifies a more continuous, embedded and iterative approach. For now we’re going to argue that it’s all about proportionality and impact. In that respect, why have a blunt instrument when you could implement thresholds? After all, when something is ‘nationally significant’ it’s probably worth investing the time to take the community along a journey.
Our final though on the matter is the role of technology. It’s clear to us that different perspectives (such as the voice of nature) can to some extent be anticipated using AI and bringing together fragmented dialogues from other similar schemes. For certain, speed will require rapid adoption of advanced technologies in the capture and analysis of real-time feedback.