Communities and Local Government

• Corporate
• Newsroom
• Speeches, statements and articles
• Nationally significant infrastructure

Local government

Nationally significant infrastructure

Date of speech	30 October 2007
Location	CBI Conference Centre, London
Event summary	CBI Major Infrastructure Conference

---

Transcript of the speech as delivered.

Thank you John [Cridland] and the CBI for putting on this event; and thank you all for giving me the opportunity to join you. I welcome your interest. Many of you responded to our recently completed consultation - thank you also for that.

We are now on the threshold of major change in how we deal with nationally significant infrastructure needs in this country.

In the next few weeks the process of putting in place legislation for that change will begin in earnest.

We can't as a country continue to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact that the current system is holding us back from coming to terms with the challenges of the twenty-first century economy, society and environment.

We need a better way to deal with the decisions at the heart of the big issues, such as climate change, new housing need and the provision of secure energy and water supplies.

Later sessions will look at the details of the proposals, so I want to dwell more on why we are making the changes and the broad principles underpinning our reforms.

I will also question some of the entrenched defences of the current system and map out some common ground that I believe we should build on - metaphorically speaking, of course, and with consent!

We are facing a number of profound long-term challenges - analysed last year as part of the Treasury's preparation for this month's Comprehensive Spending Review.

Economic competition and change is developing faster than at any time in our history, especially from the emerging economic super-powers such as China and India. This requires us to reinforce our competitive strengths and remove unnecessary barriers to growth.

Threats from climate change and finite natural resources are escalating, as our scientific evidence and understanding improves. This demands that our generation take the steps to protect the environment that help ensure future generations can contemplate their own future with confidence.

Demographic changes are being driven by increasing population, life expectancy, mobility and household numbers. And this means huge pressures on infrastructure and services in the decades ahead. 

These trends force us to face some big decisions. 

• Road congestion costs the UK economy £7 to £8bn a year.
• One-third of the UK's electricity generating capacity must be replaced during the next 20 years, just to meet current levels of demand.
• The UK emits around 150 million tonnes of carbon a year, when we must cut this by around 30 per cent by 2020 and at least 60 per cent by 2050.

As a nation, we are having to make increasingly complex decisions.

Decisions which must bring together international, national, regional and local interests.

Decisions which must bring together environmental, social and economic concerns.

Decisions for the long-term which must be considered and made now.

We need a policy and planning system in which these interests  can be integrated. This demands a balanced and well-informed debate. And it places a duty, I believe, on us all to strive to establish a way of making such decisions which command support, even when disagreements will remain over the wisdom of the decisions taken.

We plan three major Bills for the next Parliamentary year - the Energy Bill, the Climate Change Bill and the Planning Bill. All designed help deal with these challenges and equip ourselves and our country for the future.

The Climate Change Bill will set legally binding emission reduction targets based on a new system of 'carbon budgets'. Hilary Benn announced yesterday measures to strengthen the Bill, including Parliament's ability to hold government to account and an expert study on including emissions from international aviation and shipping in the UK's targets.

The Energy Bill will help achieve our objectives by creating the right legislative framework to support investment in more low carbon sources of energy. There will be more from Government on that soon.

And the Planning Bill will ensure that major infrastructure plans are subject to an efficient and fair planning process, which - in coming to decisions - can mediate and integrate the economic, environmental and social interests involved.

Whether you're from Friends of the Earth or the Federation of Small Business, these objectives for a modern planning system will be common ground.

There's widespread support in principle for national policy statements becoming the cornerstone of a new development consent system.

There must be a broad acceptance that the system needs less complexity and more certainty - when the Thameslink 2000 application, for example, needed 30 consents, four Acts of Parliament. When this decision took eight years. Or when top quality renewable power projects, like Scout Moor wind farm, take two years to get planning permission. Then, surely, there can also be wide agreement that delay must not be an objective of the planning system.

A 'go slow, go away' system, when decisions on applications take years, areas are blighted and communities feel unable to get involved, is in no-one's interests.

We currently have a planning system devised piecemeal over the last sixty years. It is not fit to strike the balance we need between modern-day social, environmental and economic goals.

Those who oppose our plans, too often ignore or downplay the problems in the present system. 

The first serious flaw, it seems to me, is that every major case has to be argued separately on its merits, starting from the basic arguments and taking on board both local circumstances and national priorities. Every major case can - and often does - consider afresh the case for national need. Every major case has to consider relevant parts of a patchwork of overlapping consent regimes.

The second serious flaw is the opportunity for individuals and communities to have their say, easily and at every stage. Government policy has not always been clear. Some developers consult local communities well, but by no means all do. And anyone who has taken part in a planning enquiry must question the process as a way of making it easy for ordinary people to put their point of view. 

The third flaw is that the involvement of Parliament is in practice very limited - officially a small number of cases can be scrutinised by Parliament, but this is very rare.

Even the role of Ministers is widely misunderstood - among those familiar with the system as well as those who are not. Some believe that the current system allows them to lobby Ministers and influence applications. The truth is that these decisions are quasi-judicial. If Ministers took decisions based on political consideration, such decisions would likely be overturned by the courts. In practice, political accountability in the present system is largely to judges in court, not MPs in Parliament.

There is, therefore, a strong case for root and branch reform rather than incremental change.

A single consent regime, which can integrate the proper consideration of social, environmental and economic interests in policy and in project applications is required for nationally significant infrastructure - for energy, transport, water and waste.

Decisions are required at the right level. Those which affect us as a nation should be taken at a national level, so that the wider national interest can be considered. Others should be taken at a regional or local level.

And political decisions - such as infrastructure policy - should be taken by politicians, while quasi-judicial decisions on individual projects are better taken by independent experts. 

So in the system we plan for the new legislation: 

• Economic, social and environmental objectives will be integrated in strategic infrastructure policy.
• There will more transparency and a clearer division between policy making and decision making.
• There will be more consultation and scrutiny - from Parliament right through to the local people most affected by the project.

I intend to nail the myth that there is a choice between a fairer system and a faster system. Our proposals will deliver both.

There are three key stages in the new system:

• First, the Government will set out national policy statements for the country's critical infrastructure sectors, following extensive discussion and consultation
• Second, developers will improve the way major projects are prepared, and
• Third, an independent planning commission will take decisions on individual projects.

We are rapidly approaching crunch time when we must put forward our proposals for a new system and then make it work. There are challenges for us all in achieving that.

As you know we consulted on our Planning White Paper. We are weighing carefully the conclusions we should draw to ensure:

• Particularly that sustainability is integral to consideration throughout the process
• Particularly that Parliament plays a full part in debating and scrutinising our plans
• Particularly that those most affected by any application have the chance to put their viewpoints directly at teach stage.

We will be in a position to publish the Bill shortly, and with it an updated regulatory impact assessment which shows the new system can save around £300m a year - nearly £5bn by 2030 - and end the years of unnecessary and unproductive delays on critical schemes for the country, such as wind farms, trainlines and reservoirs.

I drew a distinction earlier between the content of policy and planning decisions that are taken - on energy, transport, waste - and the method we establish to make such decisions.

The Departments of Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR), Transport (DfT), and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) are responsible for the former. Our job in Communities and Local Government is the latter.

We are the architects and engineers - or the brickies and chippies if you like - constructing the new system.

The harshest spotlight will therefore be turned on us in the period ahead. But if we do our job properly - and this is my aim as Minister responsible for the Bill - then the framework and fabric of the finished system will be largely unseen as all attention properly turns to dealing with the complex long-term challenges we face as a country.

Now we're rapidly approaching the point of publishing our legislative proposals.

We know from experience that those campaigning against change find their arguments are more easily heard. So from those who are pro reform, we need support in three ways.

First, help make the case for change, with your customers, with commentators and with people you contact. This will go a long way towards developing a well-informed public debate. I know that infrastructure development can be controversial and unpopular so the countercase is all the more important.

It is vital to explain the benefits the changes can bring to local communities, the environment and the economy.

And it is vital to explain what we are proposing. Ill-informed myths - such as the claim that we are removing people's rights to be heard, when we plan to increase them - can be unhelpful and often damaging. Many responded to the consultation on the basis of such misinformation.

The CBI and its members have been very supportive. We need that support now more than ever before.

Second, help shape national policy statements. Your expertise, ideas and views are invaluable. If we don't get these right, the rest of the system will be undermined.

And third, as promoters of infrastructure, help make sure that the very best practice spreads throughout the sector.

To get the best results out, everyone must put the best in.

I was searching for a way to end my speech but I guess that exhortation serves well for both the promotion of major projects and for the promotion of this major reform to the planning system. Thank you.

Speech by John Healey MP on 30 October 2007.