Mustafa Latif-Aramesh

For context, this is not statutory guidance, but the Inspectorate’s advice on what constitutes good practice. Like everyone else, we will be digesting these advice notes over time. The changes appear to be making things clearer through consolidation and restructuring, rather than introducing anything radically different. More analysis will follow, but for here’s a brief introduction.  

Looking at the application preparation and submission advice note, there is now a specific suggested indexation of application documents. That indexation recommends ‘Pre-application Land and Rights Negotiations Tracker ‘ is separate from the Statement of Reasons – a good move given the former is then updated through the examination. The suggested indexation also has a Planning Statement which is separate from a ‘Policy Compliance Document’ – of course its common to include a full appendix showing compliance, but I’m less sure about the recommended disaggregation here given the inter-relationship.

You’ll also see reference to the Design Approach Document (DAD) in the recommended list of documents to include in an application – one of the (daddy) issues is whether the other guidance (which references both a design principles document and a design approach document) is intentional. (On the design of documents, rather than the project itself, the old advice note said that you should use a clear font in application documents ‘such as Arial or Verdana’, whereas the updated advice note merely references Arial – unlucky Verdana, good game, well played but you’ve been bested).

The advice note for local authorities includes a more comprehensive table of key points of involvement for local authorities in the NSIP process, as well as a useful table on what should be included in a Local Impact Report. It also highlights that ‘the government intends to publish guidance setting out the principles for PPAs.’ That will be a very important guidance document indeed: PPAs are intended to deal with resourcing issues at the local level, but they may well have perverse incentives in protracting or creating disagreement where it wouldn’t otherwise exist. That guidance must protect against disproportionate and plainly excessive information requests and submissions.

There is a new advice note on submitting representations or comments. Most of the things in there are common sense, but I’m pleased to see a clear recommendation to ‘avoid repeating the same point’ – it is a deleterious tactic to simply copy and paste representations over and over, and it’s hoped that this will signal ExA’s being robust in enforcing the new edict.

The advice note on making changes during the examination has been restructured, though not radically changed in substance.

What do the proposed changes to the NPPF mean for infrastructure?

We covered the changes proposed to the NSIP regime in the government’s consultation documents last week – but it’s worth also lifting the bonnet on some of the other changes being proposed which have a more indirect impact on infrastructure delivery.

First, the NPPF is proposed to be altered so that it is clear that ‘Local planning authorities should support planning applications for all forms of renewable and low carbon development’ and that renewable development should be given ‘significant weight.’ This isn’t quite as far as the Critical National Priority status in the Energy NPSs, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Second, one change that caught my eye was the tweak to paragraph 111 which previously stated ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. Mere congestion, or adverse impacts in particular locations (where the residual impact is not severe) are not sufficient for withholding consent in the TCPA regime. That makes sense, particularly for public sector developments where there is a wider road investment strategy in place. Interestingly, the proposed draft adds ‘in all tested scenarios’ meaning it is even more difficult to withhold planning permission. I think that’s a useful indication of government policy on managing transport impacts generally.

Lastly, there is also stronger need to consider and make provision for data centres, also to be welcomed. Incidentally, I keep seeing commentators suggest that the (new) government intended to bring prisons into the NSIP regime. This seems to be a myth traced back to bad reporting: the phrase used was ‘nationally important’, not nationally significant – the former is a reference to section 109 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (which includes provision for development of national importance), not to bringing in prisons into the DCO regime. Don’t buy the fake news!