Overcoming the Challenges of Nationally

Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)

under the Infrastructure Planning
Commission (IPC) Process
Overview of Challenges For Onshore Project Development under the IPC

1. Political

2. Policy and the National Policy Statements (NPS)

3. Procedures

4. Stakeholder

5. Supply Chain Capability - Grid Capacity and Infrastructure

6. Planning Performance Agreements and Planning Gain

7. Suggested Course(s) of Action to Overcome Challenges

Schematic of Challenges
 1. Political Challenges
Change of Government?
The Tories’ criticisms:
• The NPSs would quickly get out of date because energy policy was far from settled;
• The new regime was very far from being the one stop shop it was claimed to be;
• They would table an amendment to EN-1 on need (raising interesting procedural
questions); and,
• On taking into account carbon impacts;
Decision ‘Ratification’ by Parliament?
Country Political Differences (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland)
Local MPs, Leaders and Councils – differing agendas?
Key Stakeholders: Regional Development Agencies, Local Councils, National Grid,
OFTO, Ofgem, DECC, etc.
2. Policy and the National Policy Statements (NPS)
 2. Policy and National Policy Statements (NPS)
• Country Planning Differences (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland)
• Single Development Consent to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), a newly
established, unelected body under the chairmanship of Sir Michael Pitt.
• The IPC is already offering advice on procedure to applicants and will be receiving
applications for NSIPs from 1 March 2010.
• The IPC will, other than in exceptional circumstances, have to take its decision in
accordance with the relevant NPS.
• Its key role will be to examine the site specific implications of the proposal in question.
• Subject to the right of an interested party to be heard, it will determine its own
examination procedures and is expected to conduct most of its business on the basis of
written representations.
• In a highly controversial measure, cross-examination is to be at the discretion of the IPC.
3. Procedures
 The New IPC Planning Regime for the UK:

Everything is geared towards speeding up the authorisation of major infrastructure, mainly in

England, some types in Wales and one type in Scotland.

The IPC combines eight planning systems into a single process: (Planning Policy Statements;
Good Practice Guidance and Advice; Circulars and Statements; Regional Spatial Strategies;
Mineral and Waste Local development Frameworks; Local Development Frameworks;
Development Plan Documents; and, Supplementary Planning Documents).

It will also cut the time taken to make decisions from up to seven years to under a year (saving up
to £300 million a year).

The new planning system will give communities a greater say in planning decisions for major
infrastructure projects. The IPC will insist on seeing evidence that communities have been
consulted about proposed projects.
The IPC Planning Process Map Summary
Key Stages: IPC Planning Process and Proposed Timescales for Wind Projects

• Pre-Application – No set timescale

• Submission to IPC – within 28 days decide whether to accept or not
• Consultation Period – 28 days for specified bodies / people
• Unknown Timescale Period – IPC decide whether single
commissioner or panel – make initial assessment
• Examination of Application – meeting held by IPC – triggers timescale
for determining app: Written reps; Hearings about Specific Issues; or, Open-
Floor Hearing – IPC legal duty to complete by 6 months from date of
meeting
• Determination of the Application – IPC legal duty to decide by end of
3 months. Provision in Planning Act for IPC allowing later date (SoS’s
discretion)
• Legal Challenge – Once application determined can be subject to Legal
challenge. No Right of Appeal. Any person wishing to make Legal
Challenge must do so within 6 weeks of Decision
 IPC Planning Process and Proposed Timescales for
Wind Projects

Pre- Validation Pre- *Time Lag Examination Decision Post- Court

Application Examination Decision Proceedings

•Pre- •IPC Decide •Consultation •IPC to have •Decision on •Legal •Court

application whether to Period for completed Application Challenge Proceedings
•Consultation accept Specified Examination of Filed
•EIA Application Persons Application
Preparation

From 9 months 28 Days 28 Days Ballpark 6 Months 3 Months 6 Weeks 1 Year

Up to 3 years (Statutory) (Statutory) 2 Months (Statutory) (Statutory) (Statutory) (Assumed)
and 28 Days (Assumed)
(Assumed)

Once planning permission has been received, assume project must commence (i.e. ‘spade in the ground’) within
5 years as per previous practice (in discussion at present)
 Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)

• The Act places considerable emphasis on pre-application consultation,

where promoters of projects must consult a large number of public
bodies and landowners, and also publicise the application locally
according to its published Statement of Community Consultation
(SoCC).

• This is a statement of how the promoter proposes to consult the

community local to its prospective project, which it must prepare and
allow the local authority/ies whose area will contain the project, to
comment on.
 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Environmental
Statement (ES) and Development Consent

• Development Consent will be given by the Infrastructure Planning

Commission (IPC), a newly established, unelected body under the
chairmanship of Sir Michael Pitt. Looking to determine applications
within 9 months.

• Commentators have noted the vulnerability of the new system to legal

challenge at many stages, from the formulation of the NPS, right
through to the examination procedures adopted by the IPC, and have
suggested that, as a result, the anticipated acceleration of the
determination process could be significantly undermined.
 Carbon Capture Storage (CCS)

• Suggestion that the IPC would try to get round the prohibition on
considering carbon impacts by taking account of advice from the
Committee on Climate Change on carbon impacts, i.e. do it indirectly.

• It was admitted that the IPC could not stop people giving evidence on
need. In its annual report, the IPC would mention any perceived
conflict between government policies, e.g. need versus carbon
impacts - another way it might make its feelings known on carbon
impacts.
 Local Impact Reports (awaiting IPC Guidance)

• The Local Impact Report is the one document that the Infrastructure
Planning Commission (IPC) must take into account when it makes a
decision on an application made to it for a nationally significant
infrastructure project.
• The wider set of local authorities that can each send the IPC a local
impact report, so this could mean the IPC being inundated with up
to 39 local impact reports for a single application - even more if the
application crosses local authority boundaries.
 contd. Local Impact Reports (awaiting IPC Guidance)

• IPC recommends that the IPC sets a deadline for the submission of LIRs of six
weeks after the 'preliminary meeting' (the new term for pre-inquiry meeting)
that the IPC must hold when it kicks off examination of an application. .

• It should probably be thinking about it from the moment the promoter starts its
pre-application consultation, or if it is one of the host authoritiesconsults it on
the statement of community consultation.

• Regional Spatial Strategies, Structure Plans, Unitary Development Plans,

Local Plans and Local Development Frameworks
4. Stakeholder Challenges
 Consultation Bodies

See Appendix for Full List

• Members of the Public

• Governmental and Non-Governmental Authorities / Bodies
• IPC
• DECC
• GOs
• RDAs
• Local Authorities and Local Planning Authorities
Key Stakeholder Management and Relationship-Building Activities

See Appendix for Full List

• National Grid, Ofgem and OFTO

• Distribution Network Operators
• Highways Agency
• Maritime Bodies
• British Rail
• Local Planning Authorities
• Confederation Of British Industries
 The Project Team and Project Management

• Management Team (Project ‘Standardisation’ Systems)

• Management and Documentary Systems
• Sharing of Best Practice
• GIS Systems
 Specialist Consultants

– Planning policy
- Legal and Financial
– Landscape and Visual
– Noise
– Ecology & Ornithology
– Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
– Geology and Hydrology
– Transport and Transportation
– Social and Economic Factors
– Infrastructure, Telecommunications and Air-safeguarding
– Public Access and Amenity
– Land Use and Forestry
 3rd Party Land Ownerships

Cabling Routes
Habitat Management
Access Provisions – Wayleaves and Other Land Transactions
‘Blight’ Potential
Potential Development Sites
 ‘Issues’ Groups and

Legal Challenges
‘Issues’ Groups

• Friends of the Earth, CBRE, etc.

• Professional Institutions – RTPI, ICE, BGS, etc.

Legal

• The government hopes that as a result of the various means by which expedition has been
built into the new system, applications for an NSIP should be determined within less than a
year, with an annual overall saving to the economy in the region of £300m.

• Commentators have noted the vulnerability of the new system to legal challenge at many
stages, from the formulation of the NPS, right through to the examination procedures
adopted by the IPC, and have suggested that, as a result, the anticipated acceleration of the
determination process could be significantly undermined.
Typical Problems relating to Renewable Energy Projects (Wind Farms)
 5. Supply Chain Capability
and
Grid Capacity and Infrastructure
 Supply Chain Capability for Energy Renewables Projects

Inter-Turbine Cables
Offshore Sub-Station, if necessary (Expensive – avoid if possible)
Transmission Cables to shore
Onshore Sub-Station (and Onshore Cables)
Electrical Systems
Transmission Cables to shore
Cable Size Optimisation to minimise losses
Cable Landing important
Onshore Sub-Station relatively standard design
Reactive Compensation important – long HV cables produce significant reactive power
Grid Operator Requirements important:
- Reactive Power Control
- Voltage Control
- Ability to Limit Power Output, or Rate of Change of Power
- Power Quality: Voltage Steps; Voltage Flicker; and, Harmonics
 Grid Capacity and Infrastructure

Offshore Transmission Network Owners (OTNO)

• The government introduced the Offshore Transmission Network Owners

(OFNO) regime in 2009 as a new regulatory regime for licensing offshore
electricity transmission, which uses competitive tendering to ensure the cable
connections are delivered on time and at reasonable cost.

• Ofgem is managing the present round of tenders, known as the Transitional

regime, which is the first phase of a £15 billion programme to ensure links to
offshore wind farms, which Ofgem claims could total 33GW by 2020, are built
on time and cost effectively for consumers and generators.
 Contd. Grid Capacity and Infrastructure

Offshore Transmission Network Owners

The short list of firms competing for transmission links to wind farms includes:

• Balfour Beatty Capital Ltd;

• DONG Energy Sales and Distribution A/S;

• Green Energy Transmission (a consortium of Equitix Ltd and AMP Capital Investors Ltd);

• Macquarie Capital Group Ltd ;

• National Grid Offshore Ltd;

• Transmission Capital Partners (a consortium of Transmission Capital, International Public

Partnerships and Amber Infrastructure Group).

Ofgem is set to announce which bidders have been successful in May 2010.

The companies will then take ownership of the transmission links once they are constructed
and in return will receive a stable, regulated income for 20 years.
 6. Planning Performance Agreements and Planning Gain:

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), Section 106s and Section 278s

 Planning Performance Agreements and Planning Gain:

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), Section 106s and Section 278s

Four potential challenges for those involved in CIL:

• The ‘mandatory’ issue – that paying CIL is mandatory, so developers would not
have the option to fail to agree a s106 agreement and then appeal the
application for non-determination;

• The ‘residue’ issue – that the more money is spent paying CIL, the less will be
available for other areas such as affordable housing;

• The ‘spending’ issue – that local authorities will not wish to hand over CIL to
infrastructure providers without strings attached; and

• The ‘liability’ issue – that landowners will have to be careful to deal with liability
for CIL if ownership changes during the lifetime of a project.
 Contd. Planning Performance Agreements and Planning Gain:

Community Infrastructure Levy, Section 106s and Section 278s

• CIL - is a way of introducing greater certainty in the thorny area of new development
having to pay for the infrastructure that would be needed to support it.
• The principle is that each local planning authority will publish a ‘charging schedule’ of
how much each type of development should pay towards ‘infrastructure’ according to
its size, although it does not have to do so – this is a voluntary scheme.
• Developers will therefore know in advance how much they will have to stump up.
• The charging schedule will be subject to examination in the same way as development
plan documents.
• The charge becomes payable upon commencement of the development.
• Even where the scheme is in place, CIL will not wholly replace section 106
agreements, the current ad hoc scheme for raising infrastructure contributions, but they
may be prevented from being used to operate planning gain tariffs after a couple of
years' operation of the CIL.
7. Suggested Courses of Actions to Overcome Challenges
 Challenges For Onshore Project Development Suggested Course of Action
under the IPC
1. Political a. Continue consultations with MPs, Councillors /
Leaders, RDAs, National Grid, OFTO, Ofgem etc
2. Policy a. Continue to engage with IPC, DECC etc.
b. Ensure conformity with the IPC Planning Process (see
slides)
c. Ensure that Energy Renewable ‘solution’ gets
addressed by RDAs, LPAs, RSSs, UDP, LDF and other
DPDs
d. Engage with host LPA to ensure that satisfactory SPD
for Planning Gain is being drafted or in place
e. Engage best planning consultancy

3. National Policy Statements a. Contribute to policy debates on NPS’, etc.

4. Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) a. Examine SoCCs already submitted to IPC and ‘take-
on-board’ IPC Opinion
b. Ensure SoCC conforms to Government Guidance
c. Engage best consultancy to formulate SoCC

5. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA),a. Engage best consultancy

Environmental Statement (ES) and Developmentb. Ensure Development Consents cover all issues – Land
Consent Management CPOs, One NSIP or more than one?,
 Challenges For Onshore Project Development under the
Suggested Course of Action
IPC

6. Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) a. Issue should become clearer following consultation
exercises
7. Local Impact Reports (awaiting IPC Guidance) a. Identify all those potential authorities that may be submitting
a LIR
b. Begin to formulate what base-line data may be necessary
for host / affected Local Planning Authorities (LPAs)
c. Engage with host / affected (LPAs)
d. Do not contribute financially to any LPA (LIR) to avoid
accusations of ‘buying’ planning permission

8. ‘Issues’ Groups a. Identify and engage positively with Issues Groups

9. Legal a. Ensure adequate ‘slippage’ is built into the programme to

take account of legal challenges
b. Engage best legal practice involved in such NSIP / large
submissions to optimise chances of successful decision
c. Begin formulating Draft Heads of Terms for Planning Gain
based on a ‘Worst / Best Case Scenario’
d. Keep up to date with www.Lexology.com and various blogs
re. NSIPs, IPC, NPSs etc on there
e. Ensure legal, engineering and planning presence at all
meetings with outside parties

10. IPC Planning Procedures a. Optimise timescales on IPC Process for maximising delivery
of the Planning Decision
 Challenges For Onshore Project Development Suggested Course of Action
under the IPC
11. Technical / Supply Chain a. Engage with Supply Chain as early as possible
b. Ensure technical, regulatory licences are in place
12. Consultation a. Effective consultation with Statutory and Non-Statutory
authorities / bodies will be key to achieving a
successful outcome in the optimum time available
b. Ensure management processes are in place to ensure
it happens
c. Dedicated website for distributing information

13. Key Stakeholder Management and Relationship-a. Effective consultation with Statutory and Non-Statutory
Building Activities authorities / bodies will be key to achieving a
successful outcome in the optimum time available
b. Ensure management processes are in place to ensure
it happens
c. Dedicated website for distributing information
 Challenges For Onshore Project Development under Suggested Course of Action

the IPC
14. The Project Team and Project Management a. Management Team (Project ‘Standardisation’ Systems)
b. Management and Documentary Systems
c. Sharing of Best Practice
d. GIS Systems
e. To be made available by appropriate ‘cloud’ computing

15. Specialist Consultants a. Ensure best consultancies, appropriate to each task,

are engaged – tight briefs that they have contributed to
on a, ‘without prejudice’ , basis

16. Planning Performance Agreements and Planninga. A specialised task that involves Legal, Planning,
Gain: Community Infrastructure Levy, Section 106s Engineering and Financial expertise
and Section 278s b. Ensure all disciplines attend meeting with LPAs etc

17. 3rd Party Land Ownerships a. Engage services of best land agent
b. Formulate land requirements early on in the process
c. Ensure all legal processes are followed
d. Take planning/legal/Counsel advice where appropriate

18. Offshore Transmission Network Owners (OTNO) a. Engage with all interested parties as soon as possible
Appendices
 Appendix 1:
Statutory and Non-Statutory Organisations involved
in New Build NSIPs
Statutory and Non-Statutory Organisations
involved in New Build NSIPs
Appendix 2: Statutory Consultees on NPSs and NSIPs
 National: Public Authorities

Central Government
Local Government
The National Health Service
Maintained Schools and Other Educational Institutions
Police
Other Public Bodies and Offices – England and Wales
Other Public Bodies and Offices – Northern Ireland
 Statutory Consultees (1 of 2)
(a) The Scottish Executive
(b) Welsh Ministers
(c) Relevant Northern Ireland Department
(e) The relevant Strategic Health Authorities
(f) The Health and Safety Executive
(g) The relevant Fire and Rescue Authorities
(h) The relevant Police Authorities
(i) The relevant Regional Development Agencies
(j) The relevant Parish Councils (Community Councils in Wales and Scotland)
(k) The Environment Agency
(l) Natural England
(m) The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
(n) The Equality and Human Rights Commission
(o) The Local Government Association
(p) The Commission for Sustainable Development
(q) The relevant Regional Assemblies
(r) The Crown Estate Commissioners
(s) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency
(t) The Marine and Fisheries Agency
(u) The relevant local resilience forum
(v) The Highways Agency
(w) The relevant Highways Authority
(x) Scottish Natural Heritage
(y) Transport for London
(z) The Civil Aviation Authority
 Statutory Consultees (2 of 2)
(aa) The Rail Passengers Council
(bb) The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
(cc) The Coal Authority
(dd) The Office of Rail Regulation and approved operators
(ee) The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority
(ff) The Water Services Regulation Authority
(gg) The Forestry Commission
(hh) The British Waterways Board
(ii) The Health Protection Agency
(jj) The relevant statutory undertakers
(kk) Trinity House
(ll) The relevant waste regulation authority
(mm) The relevant internal drainage board
(nn) The Countryside Council for Wales
(oo) The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales
(pp) The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England
(qq) The Commission for Rural Communities
(rr) The Homes and Communities Agency
(ss) The relevant Integrated Transport Authorities and Passenger Transport Executives
Appendix 3: IPC – Anticipated / Confirmed Projects
 Appendix 4:

The New IPC Planning Regime:

National Policy Statements (NPSs) for Nationally

Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) to be
submitted through the Infrastructure Planning
Commission (IPC) process
 National Policy Statements (NPSs)
There are going to be 12 of these, issued by the government in draft starting this autumn, subjected to
consultation, and then finalised in turn over the next two or so years. These will set out national policy
on a particular area of national infrastructure in a single accessible document, and will state to a
greater or lesser degree what infrastructure is needed over the next 15-20 years, sometimes where it
should go, sometimes who should build it, and sometimes what it should look like.
The 12 NPSs proposed are to have the following titles:
1. Overarching Energy (i.e. energy of all types, to sit above the other energy NPSs);
2. Nuclear Power;
3. Fossil Fuels;
4. Renewable Energy;
5. Electricity Networks;
6. Gas and Oil Infrastructure;
7. Ports;
8. National Networks (i.e. railways, motorways, trunk roads and rail freight interchanges);
9. Airports;
10. Water Supply;
11. Waste Water; and
12. Hazardous Waste
Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)
Legislative Context:
The Planning Act 2008 (Parts 1 to 8) sets out, for each type of project, (16 in total), how big it
needs to be for it to become an NSIP and provides for the grant of development consent for
development consisting of nationally significant infrastructure projects including:
1. Generating Stations;
2. Overhead Electric Lines;
3. Underground Gas Storage;
4. LNG Facilities;
5. Gas Reception Facilities;
6. Gas pipelines;
7. Other Pipelines;
8. Highways;
9. Airports;
10. Harbours;
11. Railways;
12. Rail Freight Interchanges;
13. Dams/Reservoirs;
14. Water Transfer Facilities;
15. Waste Water Treatment Plants; and,
16. Hazardous Waste Facilities.
 The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) and
National Policy Statements (NPS)

Where Development Consent is required under the Act, there is no need for
certain other consents to be obtained – such as planning permission,
pipeline authorisation, an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992,
consent under the Electricity Act 1989 or listed building consent. The Act
also provides for the establishment of the Infrastructure Planning
Commission (“IPC”) who will examine and, where a National Policy
Statement (NPS) has been designated, determine applications for
development consent.
Section 5 of the Act provides for the designation by the Secretary of State of
NPSs. A NPS may, in particular, set out, in relation to specified descriptions
of development, the amount, type or size of development, the criteria in
deciding appropriate locations and the weight to be given to specific criteria.
Section 74 provides that where a NPS has effect in relation to development
of the description to which the application relates, the IPC will examine and
determine the application.
 Appendix 5:

Statutory Timetables for Delivery of NPSs

National Policy Statements Publication of draft Designation

Members of the public will have their first chance to get

involved in the new process when National Policy
Statements on infrastructure are published for
consultation later this autumn.
Energy: Autumn 2009 During 2010
Nuclear Power Stations; (Probably End of October)
Renewables;
Electricity Networks;
Fossil Fuel (electricity generation); and,
Oil and Gas Infrastructure
Ports Autumn 2009 During 2010
(Probably End of October)
National Networks (Road and Rail) Autumn 2009 During 2010
(Probably End of October)
Waste Water Spring 2010 During 2011

Water Supply Late 2010 Early 2012

Hazardous Waste Summer 2010 During 2011

Aviation By 2011 During 2011

Appendix 6: The IPC Process in Detail
Appendix 7: NSIP Thresholds
 Appendix 8:

Existing Spatial Plans / Business Plans /

Masterplans for Transport and Utilities
Infrastructure

Based on:
20-30 year Business / Masterplans for National Rail,
DfT and National Grid.

Needs also to be carried out for:

Oil, Gas, Water and Waste
National Grid Connection Reinforcements
Route Utilisation Strategy November 2008