Another NSIP decision and more good documentation

Angus Walker picture-13This entry reports on the latest nationally significant infrastructure project decision and more examples of recommended documentation.

Woodside Link

It was a busy September for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), with five of them in one month, the most to date. The previous record was three for both March and July 2013. The last decision snuck in yesterday, a few days early. Here are the stats.

  • project: a 3km highway from Houghton Regis to a new junction 11A on the M1 in Bedfordshire (the junction being part of another project, the A5-M1 Link Road);
  • promoter: Central Bedfordshire Council;
  • application made: 14 May 2013;
  • one inspector, Glyn Roberts, his fourth application but first highway;
  • 20 relevant representations, a low number;
  • 12 written representations, a low number;
  • 66 questions in the first round - low these days; 
  • one open floor hearing, one compulsory acquisition hearing and two issue-specific hearings, a low total; 
  • two Local Impact Reports, from promoter Central Bedfordshire and its neighbour Luton;
  • examination four days short of six months, recommendation exactly three months, decision four days short of three months; and
  • 504 days from application to decision, i.e. 16 1/2 months, one of the shorter ones.

Having attended the hearings I can say that the inspector had a useful practice of reading out a list of actions at the end of each hearing, which his case manager had compiled as it unfolded. That'll make me popular with case manager.

The only substantive change to the development consent order (DCO) was to restrict the power to create restrictive covenants from applying to all order land to just land over which new rights can be created. The same happened to the A556 highway DCO.

Sample documents

Having bemoaned there being just one example of a good document on the Planning Inspectorate website on Friday, eight more were published that very day. I am led to believe that that was a coincidence.

Joining the Triton Knoll consultation report are various other documents, all but one produced by parties other than the applicant, and even that was a statement of common ground with another party. The Rampion wind farm project seemed to attract good practice by affected parties, giving rise to five of the new documents - an adequacy of consultation response from Brighton & Hove Council, a local impact report from the same council, a statement of common ground with the South Downs National Park Authority, a relevant representation from the National Trust and answers to questions from Natural England.

Two of the other three documents were from the Atlantic Array application, being relevant representations from the Mumbles Community Council (clearly expressed despite their name) and the Five Parishes Atlantic Array Working Group. They must have been particularly effective, since the application was withdrawn two months after the representation deadline... The final recommended document is the Local Impact Report for the North London Reinforcement (electric line) Project from the Greater London Authority.  Well done all! The Nsippy Academy will be taking note, of Brighton & Hove in particular.

So while it is good to see that more documents have been published, my remark that applicants apparently still need to up their games still stands.