STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE
26 March 2002
ITEM 5
NEW PARLIAMENTARY PROPOSALS FOR PROCESSING MAJOR
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS – CONSULTATION PAPER
Report of the:
Director of Operations
Contact:
Peter Edwards
Urgent Decision?(yes/no)
Yes
If yes, reason urgent decision required:
Response required as soon as possible. Deadline
was 22 March 2002
Annexes/Appendices (attached):
None
Other available papers (not attached):
New Parliamentary procedures for processing
major infrastructure projects – consultation paper.
New Parliamentary procedures for processing major infrastructure projects are
proposed. These are intended to give Parliament the opportunity to debate proposals
for major infrastructure projects and to approve them in principle and to streamline the
current procedures without reducing people’s involvement in the process. The
proposals are considered to be worthy of support.
Notes
RECOMMENDATION
That the Secretary of State be informed that the Council
supports his proposals for new parliamentary proposals for
processing major infrastructure projects.
1
Implications for Committee Policies/Objectives
1.1
2
This Committee is responsible for responding to consultations by central
government.
Introduction
2.1
The Government published a consultation paper on new Parliamentary procedures
for processing major infrastructure projects. A copy of this document has been
placed in the Members Room. Responses to the consultation paper are required
by 22 March 2002.
2.2
The consultation paper seeks views on proposals for detailed procedures to
streamline the procedures and reduce unnecessary delay and expense for all
involved whilst safeguarding public consultation and involvement. Primary
legislation would be required to introduce the proposed change.
Page 1 of 3
STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE
26 March 2002
2.3
3
ITEM 5
In view of the 22 March deadline and with the agreement of the Chairman, the
Secretary of State has been requested to take account, on an interim basis, of the
recommendation set out in this report. The formal views of the Council will be
submitted immediately after consideration of the report by the Committee on 26
March.
Proposals
3.1
In essence, the proposition is to enable the Secretary of State to designate a major
infrastructure project as one to which the procedures would apply. This would be
publicised and an opportunity given for objections and representations to the
Secretary of State within 42 days. At the same time, Parliament would be given as
much information as possible. No later than 21 days from the designation, the
developer would have to provide a statement of economic and other public
benefits of the project and the Secretary of State would then give copies to
Parliament.
3.2
The Secretary of State would give Parliament copies of individual objections and
representations as soon as practicable after he had received them. He would also
supply a summary at the earliest opportunity and no later than 14 days after the 42
day deadline. The Secretary of State would not be able to lay a draft Order proper
until 60 days after the project was designated.
3.3
If the project were approved by Parliament, it would go forward to a public
inquiry to consider the detailed aspects. The Secretary of State would make his
decision in the light of the Inspector’s report and recommendations.
3.4
Because Parliamentary procedures are ultimately a matter for Parliament itself to
determine, the proposals focus on a framework and timetable for action by the
Secretary of State.
3.5
The benefits of the proposals are seen as

reducing the delays, costs and uncertainty associated with the current inquiry
process

realising investment opportunities and the economic and other benefits of new
infrastructure more quickly

giving Parliament the opportunity of debating proposals for major
infrastructure projects and taking a view about the principle of them

giving people the chance to influence Parliament’s debates by feeding in
objections and representations beforehand

making it easier for people to be involved in the subsequent more tightly
focused inquiry process looking at the details of a scheme.
Page 2 of 3
STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE
26 March 2002
4
3.6
The Secretary of State would have discretionary powers to decide that a major
infrastructure project was one to which the new Parliamentary procedures applied.
Designating such projects would be on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the
specific nature and circumstances of the project concerned.
3.7
Examples of major infrastructure projects to which the new procedures could
apply include new airports and runways, ports, trunk roads, rail schemes, power
stations, radioactive waste disposal, and other forms of infrastructure, such as new
reservoirs.
3.8
The consultation paper states that the Secretary of State would be sparing in his
use of the proposed power to designate a major project as one to which the new
Parliamentary procedures applied and that, as a general guide, he could be
expected to focus on schemes he judged to be of national significance.
Financial and Manpower Implications
4.1
5
Primary legislation would be required. It is appropriate to assume that the
government has taken full account of the implications for Human Rights
legislation.
Social, Economic and Environmental Well-being
6.1
7
None anticipated for this Council.
Human Rights and Other Legal Implications
5.1
6
ITEM 5
The proposals are intended to streamline the existing procedures for processing
major infrastructure projects through to a decision without reducing people’s
involvement in the process. The timely consideration and provision of major
infrastructure, which is required in the public interest, should enhance the social,
economic and environmental well-being of the wider community, but not
necessarily that of the community where the infrastructure is to be located.
Conclusions
7.1
As stated in the consultation paper, the present planning system takes too long to
process major infrastructure projects, such as new trunk roads, airports and
runways, through to a decision. The process is lengthy, unwieldy and expensive
for all concerned. The length of inquiries under the current system makes it
difficult for people to be properly involved.
7.2
The proposed changes to the current procedures would appear to be worthy of
support.
WARD(S) AFFECTED: ALL
Page 3 of 3