Planning Bill

These Government amendments, new clauses and new schedules cover a wide range of areas that we believe will be necessary to ensure that the single consents regime provides real benefits to promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects and to the wider public. In particular, the amendments deal with how a development consent order could be modified at a later date, where changes prove necessary. Given the size and complexity of nationally significant infrastructure projects, it is almost inevitable that changes to the design of the project may need to be made as construction progresses. The single consents regime would be of little help to promoters, if it were not nimble or flexible enough to allow some changes to be made without forcing the whole project to start all over again from square one. The amendments set out two mechanisms for how this might be done in a manner that is both proportionate to the complexity of the changes and suitable for the task in hand. The first mechanism relates to the correction of a decision where there is a non-significant error, such as a typo in a decision document—these things happen. The mechanism is intended solely for the correction of clerical errors in the documents. Under the procedure, the appropriate authority may make corrections where it finds that the decision documents do not properly reflect the decision that it reached. The procedures set out are intended to be speedy, while ensuring that all interested parties are notified of corrections the authority intends to make. There are consequential amendments that follow from the procedure, particularly amendment No. 113, which outlines that challenges to a decision to correct an error should be made through judicial review, as is the case with regard to all the other decisions made by the appropriate authority. Amendment No. 166 gives a defence against an offence under clause 134, where the offence was caused by an error that had been corrected. The second mechanism relates to how development consent orders could be subsequently modified or revoked, when the original decision documents accurately reflected the decision that was made. The categories of person who may apply for a revocation or modification of a development consent order are thus: the applicant or his successor in title, or otherwise the beneficiary of the development consent order; the relevant local planning authority, where the development contained in the order has been abandoned and has resulted in a reduced amenity of surrounding land; the appropriate authority, if it believes that the development consent order contains a significant error within it; and the Secretary of State, if he or she believes that if development were carried out in accordance with the order, it would contravene Community or human rights law. Where the IPC or Secretary of State applies for a revocation or modification, they may be liable to pay compensation to those who incurred loss because of the changes. New schedule 4 includes a power allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe further detail on the procedures by which applications for modification or revocation should be handled. We intend that the procedures for modification or revocation of an order will be more onerous, obviously, than for the correction of errors and may, depending on the complexity of the changes applied for, involve a full scale examination along the lines set out elsewhere in the Bill. Where the effects of a proposed modification could be significant, we believe that it is right that a detailed and thorough examination should be undertaken by the IPC, just as it would do for a new application for infrastructure.