Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010

My Lords, these regulations are of a technical nature and, while they are straightforward and uncontroversial, serve an important function. They ensure that decisions taken by the Infrastructure Planning Commission, the IPC, will be taken on the same basis that planning decisions are taken now. Perhaps I may provide some background: as noble Lords will be aware, the Planning Act puts in place a new single consent regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs. It creates a single integrated consents regime for NSIPs—including large power stations, ports, road and rail—replacing eight separate and often overlapping regimes. A new independent body, the IPC, will be responsible for examining applications for NSIPs and, where a national policy statement—an NPS—has been designated, taking decisions on applications. The IPC will able to accept applications for the energy and transport sectors from 1 March this year. The Act provides for the Government to produce NPSs to provide clarity on the national need for infrastructure and to set the policy framework for IPC decisions and ensures a greater focus on pre-application consultation to ensure that promoters address the specific issues raised by each NSIP proposal before submitting an application. In the past year, the Government have worked to develop the various packages of secondary legislation and guidance necessary to implement the new regime to ensure that everything that is needed is in place on 1 March, when the IPC begins to receive applications. The first two of these packages, which relate to consultation on NPSs and pre-application and application procedures, are already in force. The regulations under consideration belong to the third package, which relates to the examination of applications, although this is the only affirmative instrument in the package. Turning to the detail, as I said, the regulations ensure that important matters relevant to decision-making on planning applications under the present planning regimes continue to apply to decisions under the Planning Act. Under planning law, there is a range of matters to which decision-makers—whether that is the Secretary of State or the local planning authority—must currently have regard when taking decisions on applications. These cover a range of important issues, including protection for our national parks, helping to ensure the safe use of hazardous substances and ensuring that biodiversity is given proper consideration. They are just a few items in a much longer list. In most cases, these matters will automatically apply to decisions made under the Planning Act. However, two categories of matter will not. The first category is drafted in such a way that it will not automatically apply. In many instances, the requirements already apply to "any Minister of the Crown" and "any public body". One such example is Section 17A of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988. It requires any public body, which will include the IPC, to have regard to the purposes of the Broads where proposals might affect the Broads. Because the IPC counts as a public body for these purposes, the requirements drafted in this way will already apply to decisions made under the Planning Act, whether by Ministers or the IPC, and do not need to be specifically applied. However, in contrast, Section 40(2) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, requires a Minister of the Crown, a government department or the National Assembly for Wales, when carrying out their duty to conserve biodiversity, to have regard in particular to the 1992 United Nations Environment Programme’s Convention on Biological Diversity. Since this duty is binding on Ministers, who currently decide most applications that will now fall to the IPC, it is appropriate that this duty should also be binding on the IPC. However, because the duty applies only to the specified bodies, it needs to be specifically applied to the IPC through these regulations. The second category accounts for most of the matters specified in this order. As noble Lords will be aware, the Planning Act puts in place a single consent regime, which enables promoters to apply for one consent in respect of infrastructure development, where previously they may have needed to apply for several. The Act does this in two ways. It removes the requirement to obtain certain consents that were otherwise needed, which are set out in Section 33 of the Act, and in a few cases permits decision-makers to grant deemed consent. However, where those consents include a requirement to have regard to one of the important matters mentioned earlier, it is vital that we ensure the protection provided is not lost. This SI therefore reapplies the tests contained in those consents to ensure that decision-makers have proper regard to them. For example, Section 33 of the Planning Act removes the requirement to obtain listed building consent under Section 8 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 16 of that Act requires decision-makers, in considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. Since the need to obtain consent is removed, the protection provided in Section 16 would also be lost if it were not reapplied by this statutory instrument. That is the essence of this short but important statutory instrument. In closing, I want to set this in the context of the wider planning system. The requirements to have regard to certain matters exist across the planning system to ensure that decision-makers take proper account of the effect of their decisions on certain areas, such as national parks, biodiversity, and so on. Since the issues are cross-cutting, it is important that there is consistency across the legislative framework applying to decision-makers under both the Planning Act and the wider Town and Country Planning Act system. A change to one would necessitate a change to the others. It is therefore a basic principle of these regulations that they should not seek to add or remove elements of this framework. They should ensure that the status quo is maintained, and where that status quo changes in the wider context—where the requirements are changed, added to, or removed—these regulations will need to be amended to reflect that. I beg to move.