1031: An infrastructure planning miscellany

In the absence of major Planning Act 2008 news, this week’s blog post contains a selection of related news items. This post is published on the day that the delayed Net Zero Teesside DCO application decision is due; whether it was granted, refused, or delayed further will be reported next week.

Biodiversity net gain becomes law

‘Major’ planning applications made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 now have to provide at least 10% improvement in habitats if they impact more than 25 sq m of them. Smaller applications will follow on 2 April 2024. DCOs won’t be required to provide net gain until November 2025, but they are being pressed to provide voluntary net gain already. A ‘BNG Policy Statement’ is to be published in draft in April that will give some idea as to how DCOs should provide BNG.

Parliamentary committee nuclear scepticism

The chair of the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons, Philip Dunne MP, has written to the Secretary of State for Energy Claire Coutinho (misspelling her name) to say that they don’t think small nuclear reactors will be ready until 2035 and therefore won’t contribute to decarbonisation before then, even though it is the government’s target date for full electricity generation decarbonisation.

The letter asks a number of questions, asking for answers by 21 March 2024, mainly about costs but also seeking assurances that streamlining planning and regulation won’t compromise safety and environmental protection. We shall see what the government says in response.

Glaring solar refusals

For those thinking that the local authority route is the easy option for solar projects, Britain Remade has released a study showing that over 4.4GW of renewable energy projects, including many solar ones, have been refused by 70 local authorities, despite many of them having declared climate emergencies and similar positions.

One council, which shall remain nameless but is an anagram of ‘may-dew’, refused an application for the installation of solar panels on its own building. At least no solar DCO applications have been refused, although some have been delayed.

PPG can beat NPPF

The National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance are two sets of government planning documents whose status was usefully confirmed by the High Court this week.

In a judgment in the joined cases of Mead and Redrow, it was confirmed that the National Planning Policy Framework has no higher status than Planning Practice Guidance, and that the latter can trump the former (see paragraph 70) or restrict it (paragraph 71). Whether they are consulted upon before being finalised is not relevant (paragraph 69).

In question were paragraphs on the flood risk sequential test, namely 7-028 of PPG and 168 of the NPPF (referred to as 162 in the judgment but it has been renumbered since the case was heard). Incidentally, judges, just giving ‘028’ as a paragraph number of PPG is not unique, you need the initial part as well, in this case ‘7-‘, so you know you are in the flood risk section. Biodiversity net gain is the latest addition to PPG, with paragraphs starting ’74-‘.

Anyway, the NPPF can sometimes be relevant to DCOs, particularly where there is no National Policy Statement or the NPS does not cover an issue, PPG less so as it is more to do with practice under the town and country planning system as its name suggests.

What’s not to like?

Be careful what you like on LinkedIn, according to Planning Magazine (paywall) a planning inspector and local authority head of planning have been criticised for liking a LinkedIn post by a consultant to the developer relating to an inquiry they were involved in. The post looks purely factual to me, but the identity of the poster was the issue – you have been warned!