Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and IPC

RICS RURAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE APRIL 2010

ROOTS2010

Research

Roots 2010, Plumpton, Sussex Planning Act 2008: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the IPC

Implications for Rural Practice Surveyors, landowners, occupiers and other professional advisers

1

PLANNING ACT 2008: NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING COMMISSION THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE RURAL PRACTICE SURVEYOR, LANDOWNER, OCCUPIER AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISERS. Charles Cowap Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire INTRODUCTION The Planning Act 2008 has introduced a radically different procedure to deal with the approval of major infrastructure projects. This centres around the newly-created Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which will operate within a framework of National Policy Statements (NPS) for major infrastructure projects. The new arrangements arose from concerns that the approval of these projects took too long and was too complicated, often involving up to eight different types of approval. The IPC will therefore deal with planning approval for projects within its purview, as well as the authorisation of compulsory acquisition of land where this is appropriate. The purpose of this note is to provide an introductory briefing for rural practitioners, landowners and occupiers. In particular the note is focussed on the advice likely to be needed by landowners and occupiers whose land may be subject to compulsory acquisition proposals. The work of the IPC is briefly reviewed, before identifying the particular aspects in which rural property advisers are likely to be involved and discussing the scope for effective representation of clients’ interests. Comments would be welcome from practitioners, promoters or others with a view to further development of the note as experience with the new approaches develops. BRIEF OVERVIEW The work of the IPC will cover specific types of infrastructure, above a threshold stipulated in the 2008 Act itself. These projects are known as ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects’ (NSIPs), and include (s14, 2008 Act): • Generating stations (construction or extension) • Above ground electric line (installation) • Underground gas storage facilities • Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities (construction or alteration) • Gas reception facilities (construction or alteration) • Gas pipeline (construction) • Other pipelines (construction) • Highways (any related development) • Airports (any related development) • Harbours (construction or alteration) • Railway or Rail freight interchange (construction or alteration) • Dam or reservoir (construction or alteration) • Water resources transfer facility (any related development)



2

• Waste water treatment plant (construction or alteration) • Hazardous waste facility (construction or alteration) The Secretary of State may amend this list, and has already made minor modifications in respect of electricity lines. As an example of the scale of development covered by the IPC, some of the thresholds are as follows: • Power lines: 132 kV power lines; • Offshore generating stations: 100 mW; onshore generating stations: 50 mW • Reservoirs and dams: above 10 million cubic metre storage • Airports: 10 million passengers pa • Roads: for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority (as distinct from

a local authority, thus trunk roads, motorways etc) • Gas pipelines: diamater greater than 800 mm and length over 40 km. These and other thresholds are set out in ss 15 to 30 of the Planning Act 2008. Applications for Development Consent are made to the IPC. An application is considered by a single commissioner or a panel of commissioners. National Policy Statements (NPS) set the policy framework within which applications will be decided. The preparation of these is the responsibility of the Department of Transport, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). Draft NPS are laid before Parliament which can therefore debate and challenge them. NPS may also be location-specific. If no NPS is in place, the IPC will only make a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State, rather than taking the decision itself, who will then have up to three months to decide whether to grant Development Consent. The relevant Secretary of State has a power to intervene in the work of the IPC under circumstances specified in the 2008 Act (eg material change in policy since a NPS was confirmed, defence and national security), and the usual 6 weeks is allowed for a legal challenge to an IPC decision (section 118). A Development Consent can authorise compulsory acquisition of land (s122) for the project being given consent. The special parliamentary procedures required for commons, open spaces and National Trust inalienable land will also apply to IPC Development Consents. The Act authorises the use of Compulsory Acquisition Notices. These notices will perform the same function as a Compulsory Purchase Order.



3

STEPS IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS There are six steps in the IPC decision-making process: Step One: Pre-application At this stage the promoter is developing the infrastructure proposal and is expected to consult widely. The IPC is notified of the intention to submit an application for development consent. Statutory consultees, who are broadly defined, have a particular role in the consultation process. The promoter can seek the opinion of the IPC as to the scoping process for initial assessment work, and these opinions (and other IPC advice) are published in summary form on the IPC website. In early April 2010, 28 proposals were listed by IPC as at the pre-application stage, in respect of which the IPC had provided three scoping opinions (two for nuclear power station proposals). Table One shows the types of proposal. Table One: Pre-application proposals to IPC at 9 April 2010 Type of proposal NumberWaste combustion plant 2Biomass power plant 1Wind Farm 6Nuclear power station 4Railfreight interchange 1Highway/road improvements 3Offshore wind farm 5Gas power station 1National Grid connection or overhead line 3Gas pipeline 1Waste water facility 1Total applications 28 The geographical distribution of these proposals is shown in Table Two Table Two: Geographical distribution of pre-application proposals at 9 April 2010 Location NumberEngland 15Wales 8At Sea: offshore England 3At Sea: offshore Wales 2 Two promoters were responsible for three proposals each, the Highways Agency and National Grid PLC, while six promoters were responsible for two proposals each. However within this latter group, members of the RWE Group of companies were responsible for six proposals in total (RWE NPower Renewables, RWE NPower and RWE Innogy). The remaining 10 proposals are each from a single promoter.



4

At this pre-application stage, the IPC will have been notified of the proposal and the promoter will be seeking to ensure that preliminary design and consultation work has been done to a sufficient standard for the Commission to accept the formal application. In particular, the promoter will be seeking information regarding land ownership and occupation and may need to enter land to undertake site survey work. The promoter can approach the IPC under section 52 of the 2008 Act for authorisation to serve notices requiring information on owners, lessees, tenants or other occupiers, for information on other persons interested in the land or persons having power to sell, convey or release the land. This information can be sought from occupiers, freeholders, mortgagees or lessees, anybody directly or indirectly in receipt of land and – notably for the estate manager – a person who is authorised to manage the land or to arrange for its letting under an agreement with the owner. The minimum period which can apply to such a notice is 14 days, although in practice longer may be expected. Failing to answer the notice, or deliberately giving false information, is an offence. The fine can be as much as £5,000 on the Standard Scale of Fines. The promoter is, at this stage, under a statutory obligation to consult a wide range of interested parties (section 42, the duty to consult). These include owners, lessees, tenants (no minimum period) and occupiers. It also includes others who may be subsequently in a position to claim compensation under Part One of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Claims arising from the use of works where no land is lost) or claims under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (claims under the McCarthy rules). A minimum of 28 days is allowed under section 45 for responses to consultations. The promoter may also seek authority to enter land from the IPC for surveying and levelling purposes (section 53). The right of entry may be sought at this or later stages in the process. A minimum of 14 days notice of entry to occupied land must be given, compensation is payable for any damage or disturbance and it is an offence wilfully to obstruct entry, risking a fine of up to £1,000. The key points for the professional adviser at this stage are therefore likely to be:

• Concerned clients seeking advice on the potential impact of the proposed development, needing advice on the procedures which are about to commence. Aside from direct approaches from the promoter, there is likely to be local publicity in the areas affected and the IPC website itself provides a schedule of proposals at the pre-application stage. This includes contact details for the scheme promoters;

• Responding to requests for information about land tenure and occupation within a deadline which may be as short as 14 days;

• Responding to consultation exercises within a deadline which may be as short as 28 days;

• Dealing with pre-entry surveys in terms of schedules of state and condition, records of works and the formulation and negotiation of compensation claims under section 53.

• The formal request for Development Consent may include a request for



5

compulsory purchase powers over land. In these cases, the decision-maker (the IPC or the relevant Secretary of State) must be satisfied that the land is required for the development itself, to facilitate it or as ‘replacement land’ and that there is a compelling case for acquisition in the public interest.

For most advisers, the principal role at this stage will be to understood fully the implications of what is being proposed, to manage the client-relationship realistically and to negotiate pragmatically on concessions and mitigation works with the promoter. While some clients may be dogmatic in requiring a confrontational approach with the promoter, the emphasis for most practical purposes is more likely to be on ensuring that the promoter fully understands any environmental, economic or social implications which will need to be addressed by their scheme, and to laying a solid foundation for subsequent mitigation works or compensation aspects. Step Two: Acceptance by IPC The promoter has now completed all the initial consultation work, has designed its scheme and knows what land will be required. The interests in the land affected will all have been identified (in respect of which the promoter is under an obligation to make ‘diligent inquiry’). The proposal is therefore formally submitted to IPC, which has 28 days to decide whether there has been effective consultation and whether the application meets the required standards. If the IPC is satisfied of this, the proposal will move to Stage Three. The submission to IPC must include details of all landowners, tenants, occupiers and others with interests in land. It would appear that this information will be published. The first formal submission to IPC is scheduled for 30 April 2010 currently, a waste combustion plant of 65 MW output in Bedfordshire. Stage Three: Pre-Examination The Chair of the IPC now appoints a Single Commissioner or Panel of Commissioners to deal with the application, at this stage known as the ‘Examining Authority’. A Panel of Commissioners will be appointed where the case is complex, or where there is a high level of public interest in the outcome. It is expected that about two-thirds of applications will be dealt with by a panel of three commissioners, and the largest and most complex cases will usually be handled by a panel of five commissioners. All aviation and nuclear power projects are expected to be handled by a panel (DCLG 2010) On the other hand, single commissioners are expected to deal with smaller and less complex projects, expected to be highways and separate electricity line schemes (DCLG 2010). Single Commissioners will report (with recommendations) to the Council of the IPC. A Panel of Commissioners will be able to determine the application where there is in place a National Policy Statement (NPS). If there is no NPS, the decision must be made by the appropriate Secretary of State, in which case the panel will formulate recommendations. At this stage, a procedure and timetable is set for the



6

examination. The IPC will publish the documents relating to the application on the project’s own web-page. The promoter (applicant) will also publicise the application and ‘interested parties’ can register as such. Interested parties will then be kept informed of progress and of the opportunities to be involved in the examination stage. After 28 days from the start of the Pre-Examination stage, all relevant representations will be published on the website. There is then a further period of 21 days to respond to these representations, online or in writing. These responses will also be published on the website at the end of this period. As the pre-examination stage draws to a close, the Commissioners will arrange a preliminary meeting. All registered interested parties are entitled to attend this meeting which is concerned solely with procedural matters for the examination stage. The merits of the scheme are not a matter for debate at this point. The IPC will issue its procedural decisions on how the proposal is to be examined at or shortly after this meeting. This will include deadlines for the local impact report (required of local authorities), for the receipt of detailed representations and the dates of hearings. The role of the professional adviser at this stage is therefore likely to be concerned with:

• Ensuring that the client is registered as an interested party. The definition of an interested party is a wide one, including anybody who has made a ‘relevant representation’ under section 102 (4) of the Act. It also includes ‘statutory parties’, a definition which in turn includes ‘affected persons’, ie those with an interest land which will be affected by compulsory purchase. The client may therefore become an interested party by virtue of having made a relevant representation within the deadline, or by virtue of facing compulsory purchase. Note that not all proposals will necessarily involve compulsory purchase, so the best approach on behalf of a client is likely to be ensure that formal representations are made as well as ensuring that the promoter is aware of the client’s interests in the land affected by the proposal;

• Ensuring that initial representations have been made. These representations can be in outline, but should suffice to outline the principal arguments which will be put forward and to help the examining authority to structure the examination programme. Representations which cover compensation entitlement, or the merits of National Policy Statements, do not count as ‘relevant representations’ for this purpose. Vexatious and frivolous representations can also be excluded, although this step does leave open the possibility of a claim for judicial review. DCLG guidance therefore urges caution in this respect (DCLG 2010);

• Responding to published representations insofar as they are relevant to the client’s interests within the 21 day deadline;

• Taking part in the Preliminary Meeting to ensure that the client’s interests are properly reflected, and to understand the remaining procedures;

• Confirming client instructions as to further representations to be made, the



7

professional ‘team’, and the need to prepare for work as an expert witness. An interested party can appoint a representative (including a legal representative) to speak for them at an oral hearing. Again, a certain amount of ‘client management’ may be needed here with regard to the different roles of professional adviser, representative (or advocate) and expert witness;

• Clearing diary dates for hearings; • Working on the content of detailed representations which may now be

required to complement earlier representations. Stage Four: Examination The timetable for events at this stage will be as set out at the end of the Pre-Examination Stage. Registered Parties (see Stage Three) have 28 days from the start of the Examination Stage to submit their detailed representations, which will be published on the IPC website. This is followed by a further period of 21 days in which anybody can comment on the representations. These comments will also be made available online. Local authorities for the areas affected by the proposal are also expected to produce a Local Impact Report, although they are not obliged to do so. This must be submitted to IPC no later than 42 days after the examination stage has started and will also be published online by IPC. A further period of 21 days is then available in which to comment on the LIR, through the website. The maximum period for the examination stage is six months, during which all submissions, responses, and hearings must be completed. Detailed rules cover the preparation of statements of common ground (along the lines of statements of agreed facts for arbitration and tribunal hearings), the rights of registered parties to speak at hearings, to call expert witnesses and to be legally or otherwise represented. The basic philosophy of the IPC approach to hearings is that they are to be ‘inquisitorial’ in nature (rather than ‘adversarial’), with panel members leading questioning and discussion on proposals, and with interested parties able to make points and put their own questions. This is reflected in the language of consultation, for example, which refers throughout to submissions for example, rather than ‘objections’ and similar wording. The IPC can itself appoint counsel to assist in the conduct of an inquiry, and registered parties can appoint their own legal or other advisers to speak for them. Expert witnesses can be called, but only with the permission of IPC. Opportunities for cross-examination of other parties’ evidence are likely to be limited, with the onus on IPC itself to lead questioning. The role of representatives is therefore likely to focus on putting their respective clients’ cases, and to prompting questions of the IPC. There is an emphasis throughout, on the management of this process to ensure that the examination is well-focussed and that hearings are conducted effectively. IPC will undertake an initial assessment of the application once the 28-day period for



8

receipt of detailed representations has expired, and will normally complete this initial assessment within 21 days (ie within the same period that responses to the detailed representations are being received). A Preliminary Meeting will then be held by IPC, of which 21 days‘ notice will be given, for the applicant, interested parties and others. The purpose of the preliminary meeting is to determine how best the proposal should be examined. Various types of hearing may be held, including specific issue hearings (which may be held in parallel), compulsory acquisition hearings and open-floor hearings. It is generally expected that most hearings will focus on matters which have already been identified in written evidence. Compulsory Acquisition hearings will be arranged where ‘affected persons’ (landowners, tenants, occupiers and others with an interest in land) request them. IPC will notify affected persons of the date by which they must request a compulsory acquisition hearing. This date will be notified as soon as possible after the period for relevant representations closes. The hearing itself is to enable affected persons to make oral representations about the request for compulsory acquisition. The IPC can also be expected to make a site inspection during this phase, and similar rules apply as to other planning appeal site inspections, arbitrator’s site visits and so on. The Examining Authority can make an unaccompanied visit before or during the examination without notice, and may make accompanied site visits during the inspection. Evidence or other submissions will not be heard during a site visit but it is acceptable for particular features of the site to be indicated. Experienced participants in this process will know the fine distinction sometimes to be drawn between pointing out a salient feature on the site, and the presentation of evidence. A Development Consent Order can also authorise compulsory acquisition, and separate guidance has been published by DCLG on this (DCLG 2010). The application to IPC can include details of the need anticipated for compulsory purchase, covering a statement of reasons, how acquisition will be funded, plans showing the land required and a book of reference. Once the proposal has been ‘accepted’ by IPC, the promoter must also give notice of the names and other details of people who would be affected by the compulsory acquisition. The 2008 Act is framed to cover all parties who would in due course be able to claim compensation, including parties who would not be losing land to the scheme. These same parties must be notified (by the promoter) that the application has been accepted, and informed of the deadlines for representations. Compulsory purchase itself will be authorised in the Development Consent Order, but the procedures thereafter will follow the general procedures of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (Notices to Treat etc). The Order may also provide for a General Vesting Declaration. The promoter can also apply for compulsory acquisition at a later stage, subject to procedures set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Compulsory Acquisition) Regulations 2010. Compulsory Purchase will only be authorised where there is a compelling case in the



9

public interest (section 122(3)). This is taken to mean that the public benefit will outweigh the private loss. The initial focus of the DCLG guidance seems to suggest that the justified need for the NSIP itself is likely to be the most significant indication of public benefit, and emphasises the need for consistency between the Development Order granting consent and the authorisation of compulsory acquisition. It does however, go on to refer to cases where the decision-maker might not be convinced that not all of the land identified is required, or where the scheme might be modified in such a way as to require less land. Promoters are urged to acquire land by agreement wherever practicable, and only to include a request for compulsory acquisition where this is likely to prove difficult. In practice, long linear schemes, will be likely to include requests for compulsory acquisition because of the difficulties which might otherwise arise. The DCLG guidance also lays emphasis on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques throughout the acquisition process. The key points at this stage for the professional adviser are therefore likely to include:

• Preparation of detailed submissions during the first 28 days of the Examination phase;

• Attending Preliminary Hearings to discuss the procedures to be adopted, including requests to put forward an expert witness;

• Responding to other submissions within the deadline (21 days); • Participating in hearings, either as representative of the client or as expert

witness; • Requesting a Compulsory Acquisition Hearing on behalf of the client (by a

deadline which will be notified by IPC); • Participation in Compulsory Acquisition Hearings; • Responding to Local Impact Reports submitted by local authorities; • Continuing liaison with promoters concerning land acquisition matters, with a

view to ensuring that impacts are fully considered and mitigated; • Resolution of issues concerning acquisition through Compulsory Acquisition

Hearings or ADR as appropriate to the issue. It is important for the adviser to appreciate that a Development Consent Order takes the place of several other authorisations in one single document. For example, it may cover planning permission (always), listed building consent, various highways consents, Electricity Act or Pipelines Act consents, Ancient Monuments Consent as well as taking the place of a Compulsory Purchase Order. Work at the formal examination stage is therefore pivotal in ensuring that the client is properly and fully considered and protected in the decision-making process. The time limit for this stage is six months. Stage Five: Decision Three months is now allowed for a decision. Generally where a NPS is in place, the IPC will make the decision (either the panel appointed for the examination, or the IPC Council where a single commissioner has overseen the examination). In the



10

absence of a NPS, the IPC will make a recommendation to the appropriate Secretary of State. The decision will be accompanied by a Statement of Reasons. As noted already, the decision will cover not only Development Consent for the project (the equivalent of planning permission) but also a range of other consents which may be required, including for compulsory purchase. At this stage (April 2010), no NPS have been approved. A series of energy statements has been considered by the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee and their report, published on 23 March, is highly critical. The Committee believes that all six statements must be improved if they are to serve their purpose successfully. In particular, the committee has noted significant concerns about the government’s consultation process for the NPS, and concerning its sustainability appraisal of them. The Committee has therefore recommended a full parliamentary debate, in view of the significance of these statements to broader energy and climate change objectives. Another NPS is at earlier stage of preparation, concerned with harbour facilities. There will be no formal involvement for the professional adviser at this stage, but it is likely that negotiations may be continuing for land acquisition. Stage Six: post-decision The so-called post decision stage is a six week period for legal challenge of the decision in the courts. Thereafter the promoter can be expected to start work on development itself, involving all the usual demands on professional advisers where land works are in progress, including appropriately-formulated compensation claims. If the work is not commenced within the time limit specified in the order then the consent lapses, including the related powers of acquisition. There is a general time limit of five years for both commencement and the service of Notice to Treat (The Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010 SI 2010 No. 105), but the Consent Order may allow for a shorter or longer period than this. WHAT THE IPC DOES NOT COVER It is important to note that the previous regime of separate specific consents for projects has not gone away. For example, electricity lines below the NSIP threshold will continue to be subject to Electricity Act procedures, similarly with Pipelines covered by the Pipelines Act. Local road schemes will still come within Highways Act procedures, and so on. Neither has the introduction of the IPC altogether ruled out the Hybrid Bill procedures which have also been used in recent years. For example, current proposals for HS2, the new high speed rail link from London to the Midlands, may be subject to Hybrid Bill procedures IN 2014, with a view to construction commencing in 2019, according to a government announcement in March 2010.



11

THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK The Conservative Party were originally opposed to the concept of the IPC, believing that major decisions should lie with Ministers. It was therefore felt that a new Conservative administration would abolish the IPC. However, the party’s Planning Green Paper: Open Source Planning (February 2010) outlines proposals to transfer the IPC’s expertise to a ‘specific unit for major infrastructure projects’ within the Planning Inspectorate. The new Unit’s officers would not make the final decisions as that power would return to Ministers. It therefore seems likely that whatever the outcome of the forthcoming General Election, the new arrangements for dealing with major infrastructure proposals will remain in place with the key difference between the parties arising from the level at which decisions are to be made. CONCLUSIONS This note has attempted to highlight some of the issues which the adviser may need to address with a client whose land may be identified for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, subject to the new regime in the Planning Act 2008 for approval through the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It is overarching importance to appreciate that a single approval procedure will now apply to these projects, incorporating planning approval, authorisation of compulsory acquisition and a number of approvals which would previously been subject to separate applications and procedures (listed building consent, Electricity Act consent etc). Such proposals can now be expected to move forward at a much quicker pace. While the pre-application stage is in the control of the promoter – and enough time will be needed to convince the IPC that adequate consultation has taken place – there are strict time limits for the later stages. All the requirements of the examination phase must be completed within six months, and the period for a decision is three months. From formal application to the grant of a Development Consent Order may therefore be no more than a year. There will therefore be an onus on the professional adviser to ensure that clients appreciate the timescales properly, and that adequate steps are taken at each stage to register the client’s interest, and to ensure that full representations are appropriately made on the client’s behalf. Unlike similar schemes in the past, this is likely to involve the simultaneous representation of a client’s general responses to a scheme as well as the more detailed aspect of compulsory acquisition proposals. Previous procedures have tended to deal with these two aspects at different times, sequentially.



12

These procedures are still at an early stage of development, with the first application yet to be formally submitted to the IPC. Feedback from practitioners and promoters would therefore be welcome as the new procedures unfold, with a view to further development of this guidance if that would be helpful to practitioners working either for those affected by NSIPs or promoters. Charles Cowap Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB [email protected] 820280 Statutes and Statutory Instruments Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (National Policy Statement Consultation) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009 No 1302) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009 No 2263) The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009 No 2264) The Infrastructure Planning (Model Provisions) (England and Wales) Order 2009 (SI 2009 No 2265) The Conservation (Natural Habits, &c) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009 No 2438) The Planning Act 2008 (Commencement No 4 and Saving) Order 2010 (SI 2010 No 101) The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010 No 102) The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (SI 2010 No 103) The Infrastructure Planning (Compulsory Acquisition) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010 No 104) The Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010 No 105) The Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010 No 106) Explanatory Memorandum (including impact assessment) to SIs 2010 Nos 101-106 (PDF, 163kb, 50 pages)

Other publications: Bull R (2010) Tories Propose Modest Reforms Estates Gazette 6 March 2010, p163 Communities and Local Government, Dept of (2009) Infrastructure Planning Commission, Implementation Route Plan July 2009; London: Infrastructure Planning Commission http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/routemap.pdf Communities and Local Government, Dept of (2009) Infrastructure Planning Commission, Implementation Route Plan Diagrams; London: Infrastructure

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/routemap.pdf



13

Planning Commission http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/routemaptables.pdf DCLG (2010) (Communities and Local Government, Dept of) Planning Act 2008: guidance for the examination of applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects London: DCLG DCLG (2010) Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for compulsory acquisition London: DCLG Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009) Consultation on draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure London, DECC November 2009 House of Commons (2010) The proposals for national policy statements on energy House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, Third Report of Session 2009-10. London: The Stationery Office, 23 March 2010 Websites: Infrastructure Planning Commission website: http://www.infrastructure.communities.gov.uk/ Planning Act 2008: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080029_en_1

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/routemaptables.pdf

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/routemaptables.pdf

http://www.infrastructure.communities.gov.uk/

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080029_en_1

Technology

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and IPC