New Parliamentary Procedures
for Processing Major Infrastructure Projects.

Response from the Open Spaces Society, March 2002
 

1

The Open Spaces Society, founded in 1865, is Britain’s oldest national conservation body.  A registered charity, we campaign to create and conserve common land, village greens, open spaces and rights of public access, in town and country, in England and Wales.  We have 2330 members consisting of individuals, organisations and local authorities.
 

2

We are the leading pressure group concerned with the protection, management and public enjoyment of common land, village greens and open spaces, and we are consulted by DEFRA and the National Assembly for Wales on all applications for works on common land made under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, section 23 of the National Trust Act 1971 and similar legislation.
 

3

We do not accept that the package of measures proposed will fulfil the aims of increasing opportunities for public involvement in the process or speeding up decision making.  We do not agree that the approval of a project in principle should be decided by parliament and separated from the consideration of local impacts.  [1]
 

4

It would appear that the only public involvement in respect of the principle of development would be confined to the submission of comments to the Secretary of State, who would then make them available to parliament.  We believe this is a direct attack on the public’s ability to be involved in decisions about the projects with, often, significant environmental effects.  [2]
 

5

These types of major infrastructure projects are relatively infrequent.  There is no consideration of whether there is a role for more sustainable infrastructure or alternative measures.  The government’s objective is to save time, however we remain concerned that moving discussion from one forum to another may not save time at all.  [4] 
 

6

It is essential to develop and produce a national policy statement, including public consultation.  An important issue which needs to be addressed carefully by the government is the need for clear statements of national policy to be put in place before a major planning inquiry begins.  We have a great concern about whether parliament would have the required time and expertise to consider and decide on such issues. 

We support measures to speed up and simplify the inquiry procedures.  This may help to achieve the government’s objective to save time by removing the debate on what should be national policy from the public inquiry, but without preventing the inspector from recommending against a project if the evidence demands it. [6]
 

7

We support the proposed national policy statements on specific issues, ie aviation, provided they are subject to proper public consultation and are not site-specific.  These statements would form the context for consideration of the individual proposals at public inquiries.  National planning policy for major developments should be provided in planning policy guidance notes, and there should be public consultation.  [7]
 

8

We question the appropriateness of parliamentary procedures to decide in principle on major infrastructure projects.  At present the systems of committees and debate appear inadequate.  The question of ‘what if the project fails to get parliamentary approval in principle?’ has not been addressed.  Neither has what happens if the two houses disagree on a planning application.  Parliamentary consideration can only be useful if the government is genuinely neutral and there is no whipped vote.  [8]
 

9

If a similar process to the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) were adopted as a procedure for proposals of national significance, we would expect parliament to say whether the largest, most environmentally damaging and controversial projects conform to national policy.  If they do, we believe they should then  proceed to public inquiry.  The pros and cons of location for a development could then be heard by an experienced planning inspector.   [9]

10

Without prejudice to our opposition to the government’s proposals, we are concerned about the extensiveness and in some cases the size, of the projects referred to in the list at annex C.  [12]
 

11

There must be criteria to define what is of ‘national significance’.  [16]
 

12

We believe that allowing parliament to consider the principle, need for, and location of a project is contrary to the basic principles of sustainability, ie that all sections of the community are empowered to participate in decision making. [19]
 

13

It is important that, even if there is a favourable vote by both houses, there should  be a further safeguard in the process.  We believe the subsequent public inquiry ought to be able to produce evidence and an inspector’s report that indicates the application should be refused if appropriate. [21]
 

14

Even though the Secretary of State would be able to reject a proposal approved by parliament, we are concerned that this would only be in ‘exceptional circumstances’ which are not defined.  If there is a referral back to parliament this would inevitably delay any decision. [22]  
 

15

A key element to these proposals must be the provision of clear statements of national policy to be set in place before a major planning inquiry begins.  One of the problems with a scheme such as terminal 5 was that there was no clear statement of government policy and it was therefore open to objectors to argue that demand should not be met, or that the government should consider an alternative scheme. 
 

16

We question the decision to allow parliament to decide the principle need for and location of a project.  Those most affected by development proposals should not be prevented from questioning the need for it or the location.  This is contrary to Steven Byers’s statement of safeguarding and increasing public consultation and involvement (Annex A page 13 paragraph 2). [23-27]
 

17

We question whether parliament could realistically consider the potential impacts and appropriateness of a particular development.  It is difficult to envisage how referring the matter to a committee to hear evidence would streamline the procedures and reduce unnecessary delay. [30]

Summary
 

18

We are deeply concerned that allowing parliament to approve major infrastructure projects in principle will remove the public’s right to debate the principle of development at a public inquiry.  It is essential that those most affected by major development proposals should have a right to question both the need for it and its location.  We therefore oppose the government’s proposals.
 

19

We do not accept that parliament could give sufficient time or have the expertise to consider detailed issues which often have significant environmental effects.  It is essential that any new procedure should not work contrary to the current plan-led system especially if the government’s aim is to maintain public confidence.  There may also be implications under the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly since individuals may be denied a fair and independent hearing, to which they are entitled.
 

Nicola Hodgson
Case Officer
Open Spaces Society
18 March 2002