Written evidence to be reported to the House
Planning Bill
11:00 am
John Cridland: May I answer those in reverse order? In many ways the most challenging of the timetables is the timetable on consultation of other interested parties. Particularly for the applicant, the developer, there is a big onus on statutory authorities being able to get back within the 28-day pre-application deadline. There is a level of concern from business there—not that we think that the time should be lengthened, but that it will be very important for the statutory authorities to keep to that.
Our experience—one of our frustrations—with the current system is that progress in an application is often held up by the variety of statutory authorities that have an interest. It is often not the individual planning authority, but some other national statutory body that holds up the process. One of the great advantages for us, which we believe will lead to a much more streamlined and less costly and time consuming process is the notion of the single consent. The fact that the infrastructure planning commission, having consulted all the relevant authorities, is then able to give the single consent is the great prize for the business community. There was deep frustration, as we saw with terminal 5, at having to put in 37 separate planning applications, if memory serves me right. The prize here is the single consent.
The six-month and nine-month timelines are appropriate—business can support those. It is very difficult—I would not make claims—for us to give you cost savings in advance of this process, but looking at the provisions in the Bill, the business community strongly believes that there will be significant savings, both of cost and of time.