Clause 43 - Major infrastructure projects
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
10:15 am
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 99, in
clause 43, page 30, line 11, at end insert—
'(1A) Any planning application that the Secretary of State declares is of national or regional importance, as designated through subsection (1), must be subject to an Economic Impact Report.'.
This important clause deals with major infrastructure projects and covers some of the biggest planning applications in this country. I am sure that the Minister could do this, but it would be useful to give the Committee some examples of the projects that are covered by the clause. For example, it covers runways over a certain length, airport terminals, power stations and nuclear reprocessing plants—although not nuclear power stations—major port and major refinery applications and big quarrying applications. It does not cover roads because they are subject to separate legislation but, in short, it covers some of the most important planning applications in the UK.
We all know from past large public inquiries—for example, on terminal 5 and on some of the power station applications—that they are extremely complex and take a long time. Subject to certain safeguards, Conservatives support the principle of reform that streamlines that system, provided—this is the caveat—that the local planning authority and local people have an adequate opportunity to make their views known. This is perhaps where we begin to have a problem with the Government's proposals, because they do not allow the LPA in whose area the big projects are situated an adequate opportunity to have its say. I will return to that on the clause stand part debate, and before you rule me out of order, Mr. Amess, I shall move to amendment No. 99.
It is extraordinary that the clause does not specifically state that there must be an economic impact report. That would form much of one part of a major infrastructure project inquiry. There should be an economic impact report, just as there will almost certainly be an environmental impact report, a sustainability report and numerous other reports. It would be useful to state in the Bill that there had to be an economic impact report.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England raised that point. It says:
''Frequently new infrastructure is promoted on the basis that it will deliver economic regeneration benefits. Some of these schemes, including major new built development, airports and road schemes''—
I doubt that road schemes come within the scope of the Bill—
''can have a significantly damaging impact on the environment. It is therefore essential that demonstrable benefits will accrue, and for this information to be available before a decision is made on a development . . . The most expansive study into the relationship between transport infrastructure and economic regeneration was undertaken by the Government's Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA). The Committee (which comprised . . . academics, consultants, and those from environmental groups and business) reported in 1999. They
wanted to discover whether there was a causal link between delivering new transport infrastructure and economic benefits . . . The SACTRA report recommended that Economic Impact Reports be produced before decisions over new infrastructure are taken forward. The Government accepted this recommendation and the Department for Transport is continuing to work up guidance. In the meantime, there is no requirement for promoters of developments to undertake an EIR, as envisaged by SACTRA. We believe a requirement to undertake an EIR for any major infrastructure project should be included in the Bill because it would: help inform decision making, in keeping with the Government's desire for evidence based decision making; separate information on the genuine economic benefits of a new development from the more spurious arguments; enable proper consideration to be given to the distributional impacts of new infrastructure, particularly regarding income and geographical groups . . . avoid developments being promoted which have serious environmental consequences but are based on inadequate information on their economic implications; and assist in assessing the true value for money of the development.''
The CPRE gives one or two useful examples of case studies. It cites the Hastings bypasses:
''The Government commissioned a major study to examine the transport needs of the coastal town of Hastings. The Multi-Modal Study considered the need for two bypasses for Hastings. These would run through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a number of Britain's top wildlife sites. The local authorities in the area had consistently argued that the two roads were essential to the regeneration of the town. The consultants undertaking the study attempted to undertake an Economic Impact Report''
but they had great difficulty reconciling that with the environmental considerations.
That is a good example of why an economic impact report is useful in every case. It can begin to put the entire scheme in context. It must help to inform the Secretary of State, because he or she has to make the decision when an application is of sufficient size, complexity and national importance that it should become subject to the major infrastructure procedure.
Our amendment is eminently sensible, and I hope that the Minister will accede to it.