Property industry backs major infrastructure reform

The British Property Federation (BPF) has backed proposals for an Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in its response to the government's planning white paper consultation. The IPC would deal with nationally significant infrastructure projects through a series of agreed national policy statements.

Accountability of the IPC

Although the IPC will be politically independent and accountable to Parliament, members of the general public will have the ability to influence its decisions.

The IPC will be strongly guided by national policy statements (NPS) which, after extensive consultation, will clearly define the need for major new infrastructure developments (such as roads, energy, waste, etc), and indicate where they should be built. The BPF is calling for NPS to be as location-specific as possible so as to provide the certainty and clarity needed for effective and efficient delivery.

Liz Peace , BPF chief executive, said: "As the national policy statements will be the most important factor upon which the IPC will base its decision, it is vital that this new element of spatial planning works in harmony with the current planning system. There will need to be effective co-ordination between national and regional government and differences of opinion must be resolved fairly and promptly.

"Producing thorough, coherent and soundly based NPSs will also require a lot of co-ordination between numerous government departments, something which can be notoriously difficult to achieve. The key issue is striking the right balance between consulting the public and relevant stakeholders and issuing a sound decision as speedily and predictably as possible. The BPF believes that the proposals in the White Paper strike a reasonable balance between the need to allow adequate opportunity for debate and the need to expedite nationally important schemes."

Extending the IPC's remit

Government has stated its commitment to speeding up the planning process in order to help build eco-towns. Recognising the concept of 'nationally significant regeneration schemes' alongside nationally significant infrastructure schemes would send a clear signal that the government is equally serious about providing the certainty that is needed to deliver major regeneration schemes of this kind. It would also enable the remit of the Independent Planning Commission to be extended to cover complex regeneration projects of national importance.

No justification for increased fees

The BPF strongly supports the concept of Planning Performance Agreements, but would like to see their scope widened to include some smaller, complex projects. We do not feel that charging fees for planning appeals is an equitable proposal. If there are no legitimate grounds of appeal then the appropriate remedy lies in the award of costs.

Michael Chambers , BPF director for planning and regeneration, said: "We are also not convinced that the large increases in planning fees in 2005 have delivered sufficient improvement in local authority performance as to justify the further sharp increases that are now proposed.

"We feel that allowing individual local authorities to set their own fees would be a recipe for confusion and complexity. Equally, we believe that the suggestion of a premium planning service for those prepared to pay extra is misplaced as it would create a two tier planning system and undermine public confidence."