National Infrastructure Commission’s Post

The recent discussion on BBC Radio 4’s The Briefing Room, featuring Sir John Armitt, was highly informative. The central question was whether the national planning system helps or hinders the delivery of the new housing and infrastructure the UK needs. With 60% of major projects now facing judicial review, up from 10%, current delays hinder progress towards a low-carbon, resilient economy. At Turner & Townsend, we understand the critical importance of an efficient planning system. Transparent communication and proper compensation are essential in reducing local opposition and fostering collaboration. While the current planning system presents challenges, reforms such as updated policy statements and enhanced public discourse can transform it into a facilitator rather than a barrier, accelerating the delivery of vital infrastructure. At Turner & Townsend, we are committed to supporting these necessary changes to help build the UK’s future. Listen to the discussion in the below post!

An interesting podcast by David Aaronovitch on why our planning system has held us back, and what reforms might help. Catriona Riddell flags the adverse effect of the 2010 'localism' reforms which dismantled regional planning, and pushed the really difficult decisions back to local councils - "you're asking very small councils with councilors who live and breath their local community to make really difficult decisions in the interests of the greater good". And how the rise of social media has made it even harder for those local decisions to be made. I'm less convinced by the points made on infrastructure planning by Sir John Armitt: 1. The idea that an EIA for a 'similar' project "20 miles down the road" should be capable of being recycled so that the effort of all that data collection is avoided for the second project is pie-in-the-sky. Impacts can and do differ wildly over much shorter distances than this. It would make a nonsense of the EIA Regs (and lead to easy JR wins) if this were attempted. 2. Keeping National Policy Statements (NPSs) up to date will have limited effect on speed and decision outcomes. It isn't lack of clarity about the Gvt's position on the NEED for infrastructure that creates difficulties getting DCO applications through the system. It's that the NPSs and Planning Act require that need (however strong) to be weighed up against the nitty-gritty of local environmental impacts. That's why EIA is central. That's where the objections arise, what 90% of the process focuses on, and what leads the Planning Inspectorate to decide to recommend refusal. It's weighing apples and pears (national need v local impact), but this discretion is incapable of being eradicated from the system - even with the new helpful concept of 'critical national infrastructure'. Luckily, even where PINS recommends refusal based on local impacts, we're seeing the Secretary of State weigh things up in favour of development and grant in many cases. 3. I don't believe that fear of judicial reviews is driving longer applications (not main cause anyway). Instead it's PINS and statutory bodies asking for more and more information, and it's the EIA and other consultants who prepare the application documents using precedents that get longer each time as someone adds to them based on another project they worked on but never bothers to pare them back. 4. Bringing onshore wind above 100MW into the DCO regime? Firstly, from what I'm hearing many/most onshore wind sites in England are likely to be under 100MW, so will stay consented by local councils. Secondly, unless CPO powers are needed, is that such a bad thing? Given how onerous and costly the DCO regime is, many developers might prefer to get refused locally and get their consent after a public inquiry into their appeal. 5. Paying people to 'financially compensate them' for living near new infrastructure - don't get me started on the flaws in that... https://lnkd.in/eCB5M9vH

Good historical analysis and prognosis as to how national statements can help earmark locations for carbon capture and other low carbon infrastructure. Interesting that judicial reviews have increased to 60% of national infrastructure schemes. The consequent costs to apply, with information overload, could be countered by developing shared information, rather than reinventing the wheel in such a discretionary system we have. I am surprised we don't have this already to get growth and prosperity going for all. https://lnkd.in/eAdPkvnc

As the new Labour government takes shape, SEC Newgate UK’s new brochure – Britain’s new government – looks at what Labour means for business.    From energy, transport and infrastructure to property, housing and financial services, read our advocacy team’s analysis of the first steps Labour will be taking and what comes next.   To learn more, get in touch at advocacy@secnewgate.co.uk   #labour #business #publicaffairs #communications #energytransportandinfrastructure #property #housing #financialservices

This is a handy brochure - read analysis from our sector experts on what the Labour government means for business

While I agree with a stable pipeline of work, I think the decision to pause while the government assesses the scope & funding of each project is the correct one if this is done quickly - short term pain for long time gain. The real challenge is going to be getting bipartisan agreement on that pipeline of work.

One cannot really disagree with the analysis of the 'What' by Bernard and also Shamobeel. However, does observing and commenting upon the 'What' actually get us anywhere further up the road to success? If we fail to interrogate and understand the 'Why', then we will fall into the typically Kiwi situation of studying the problem to death, but not investing in solutions. I simply struggle to understand why it is we find ourselves in this boom and bust situation and have done so for several recent generations. I am involved in a sport in NZ that I fear cannot be saved from itself. One of the reasons for this is that solutions to some issues for the sport exist and are proudly displayed internationally. But members of this sport steadfastly refuse to understand them and implement them here. I don't know why that is. Is this the same with our political and infrastructure system? Other countries, Australia is mentioned here, Ireland is another I believe, are finding effective solutions and implementing them. Why is it that we simply refuse to do similarly here? If we understand the 'Why' then maybe, just maybe we can beat this destructive cycle.

Less but more professional councillors. Rumours abound that a complete overhaul is on its way for local government to create larger councils (with unitary authorities replacing two-tier district and county councils). Rachel Reeves has just increased speculation announcing in the budget a "move to simpler structures that make sense for their local areas". More details expected mid-November in an English Devolution Bill. Further details on its impact on planning and economic development likely around publication of the new NPPF (confirmed just now to still be planned for this year) and Planning and Infrastructure Bill likely next year.

It's only been a few weeks since the new UK Government was elected, and planning reform has already been pushed up high on Labour's agenda 🆙⏫ Last week's King's Speech set out forty bills, including at least five that will affect the planning system 🏡 So what do the next few years have in store for UK planning? Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP's Planning team have summarised the key points here – so you don't have to go searching for them ▶️ https://ow.ly/CiXH50SJQIy #KingsSpeech #GeneralElection2024 #GE2024 #UKPlanning #PlanningLaw #PlanningReform Jonathan Bower | Patrick Russell

How the next Government can start planning for growth.