Last weekend's conference was time well spent. In addition to catching up with many colleagues in the world of planning it was a good chance to meet and hear about the new Infrastructure Planning Commission which opens its doors next week, on 1st October. It seemed as though half of the commission was there led by its Chairman, Sir Michael Pitt, with support from some newly appointed commissioners.
There was a great deal of talk about the vulnerability of the IPC's decisions. Not only does it suffer from democratic deficit, but also all submissions and objections will be made in writing. The complexity of the issues involved in for example nuclear power or high speed rail links are likely to lead to huge submissions and one wonders how the Commission is going to avoid misunderstanding some vital aspect from time to time. Most people present, not just fellow lawyers, agreed that the IPC is likely to face a series of challenges and that there are a number of weak points. For example, it looks as though the national policy statements are not going to be ready when the first applications are made, but will be issued later, before the decision is taken. That is an obvious target for legal challenge.
Bob Neill from the Conservatives who gave the keynote after-dinner speech on Friday also had a word about the IPC and said the single consent regime would stay, but that national policy statements would need a positive vote in Parliament. He also said that decisions on national infrastructure would be made by politicians thus ensuring democratic accountability. And he promised that cross-examination would be allowed.
It is clear that we must take the new regime seriuosly. The policy statements are going to be very important and Parliament is the opportunity to put one's case. It is an opportunity to be seized.
Comments