Clause 13
Planning Bill
10:30 am
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
That mistake is easily undertaken, Mr. Illsley. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has carried the whole Government burden for this Bill so far, with assistance from our right hon. and hon. Friends, so I am pleased to be able to assist him today. It is a pleasure to see you presiding over the Committee this morning, Mr. Illsley, and I am sorry that you do not sound in the best of health. I have not yet had the opportunity to welcome you and am happy to take the chance to do so now. I hope that you will allow me a little licence to make some general opening remarks in moving the amendment, as there are some similarities between its drafting and that of a number of the other Government amendments relating to clause 13.
The clause lists the type of projects that we consider to be of national significance, subject to the thresholds in clauses 14 to 26. Many of those replicate the thresholds already in existing legislation. It is important to make it clear, therefore, that the majority of projects that we define as nationally significant are those which have already been decided by Ministers. We have taken decision making away from local authorities only in the small number of cases in which there is a strong case. In most cases, given the national significance, we would have expected to call those in anyway. For instance, as the UK’s indigenous gas supplies decline and we become increasingly dependent on imports, gas infrastructure will become much more important to the security of our national energy supply. Failing to modernise that infrastructure in a timely fashion might mean that we do not have enough capacity to meet our energy demands.
Equally, however, we are also exploring options for devolving decision making in relation to transport schemes that fall under the thresholds in the Bill, such as local highway and local light rail schemes. The Department for Transport will be discussing that with the Local Government Association and other stakeholders over the coming months, with the aim of identifying possible options for implementation. The Government remain committed, as set out in “Strong and Prosperous Communities—The Local Government White Paper”, to ensuring that decision making is at as local a level as possible, so that it can fully reflect local circumstances and needs.
The changes in amendment No. 96 and the other Government amendments have come about for three main reasons. First, they have come about as a result of consultation responses to the planning White Paper. As members of the Committee are aware, over 30,000 responses were received, and it has therefore taken time to fully digest all the comments. Some of the amendments, such as that on including an air freight threshold in clause 19, are in direct response to that process.
Secondly, the changes have come about because we are bringing together elements of legislation within 13 different Acts from the past 40 years. Due to the nature of creating a single consent regime, it has taken us time to iron out the precise terminology that must be used to ensure the correct legal framework for the infrastructure planning commission to operate and to ensure consistency.
Thirdly, the changes have come about to ensure that we have captured the necessary geographical scope. For instance, the power to add a new type of nationally significant project needs to extend to English waters as well as to England itself. The infrastructure essential to the UK’s response to climate change could relate to offshore sources, and we cannot be certain that new, innovative technologies would necessarily fall under the definitions in clause 13. It is, therefore, a sensible precaution to ensure that new types of nationally significant projects in English waters can be added when there is a strong case to do so.
The specifics of amendments Nos. 115, 117, 119 and 120 change the types of gas storage project that are nationally significant infrastructure projects and would thus fall within the remit of the IPC. The amendments add thresholds consisting of a specified working capacity and a maximum flow rate. The alteration of facilities is covered, as well as their initial creation or use.
Amendments Nos. 96, 114, 116, 118, 121, 157 and 158 are drafting and definitional amendments, which are needed as a result of the changes that I have just outlined. Under the amendments, projects must satisfy one of two thresholds to qualify for consideration by the IPC. Either the expected working capacity should be at least 43 million standard cubic metres, or the expected maximum flow rate should be at least 4.5 million standard cubic metres per day. The starting point for the capacity test was that it is roughly equivalent to 1 per cent. of the current storage capacity in Great Britain, which stood at 4,366 million standard cubic metres in April 2007. The flow rate is based on 1 per cent. of the highest day demand in Great Britain, which was 450 million standard cubic metres on 7 January 2003. We have discussed those figures with industry, and it is generally supportive.
Alterations will need to meet one of the threshold tests in their own right, either by an expected increase to the working capacity or an expected increase to the maximum flow rate of the facilities by the relevant threshold amount. The tests will ensure that a range of capacity projects can be considered by the IPC in order to make certain that the market as a whole can provide both endurance and deliverability benefits.
Although we already have some underground gas storage, more is needed. In the face of declining North sea production of gas, the UK will increasingly rely on having the infrastructure to store gas close to demand so that peaks in the system can be met. Large gas storage projects benefit the UK because they can store more gas and therefore contribute to the endurance of supply. That is a well-established practice in countries that do not have an indigenous source of gas to ensure a reliable supply during periods of high demand, such as winter. Smaller storage capacity projects are important because of their potential to deliver to the market more quickly as they may be located closer to demand. I commend the amendments to the Committee.