An inspector’s call: Sir Michael Pitt interviewed

Sir Michael Pitt is adamant that transferring infrastructure planning from the Infrastructure Planning Commission to the Planning Inspectorate in April won't delay applications. He explains why to Roger Milne.

For someone who is about to see the organisation he established abolished, Sir Michael Pitt, chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), is remarkably chipper. Surprising? Well,
not really.
Yes, the Commission is being axed, but its functions are continuing and most of the staff will continue doing what they are doing at present, just under the auspices of the Planning Inspectorate.
Most of Pitt’s energy is currently directed at easing the transition, making the changeover as painless as possible. It helps, of course, that the Commission occupies office space in the same building as the inspectorate. It is also useful that Sir Michael is currently chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate. So when he talks about a seamless switch, he is in a very strong position to ensure just that. The commissioners will become inspectors and the administrative back-up will become part of the inspectorate.
The only major change is that from April the fate of schemes will rest with ministers. For guidance they will have a recommendation from commissioners (who will by then be inspectors), but they ultimately will make the decision. This extra “leg” in the process will add an extra three months on to the time between the acceptance of a scheme for determination and the decision. What now takes a year will become 15 months.
But that’s in the future. What of experience so far? Sir Michael is on the record as suggesting many of the first crop of schemes have suffered, if that’s the right word, from slippage and what he has called “gold plating”. Ever the diplomat, he declines to name names or point the finger. He suggests that it was not surprising that some developers were perhaps overly cautious, and certainly perhaps unnecessarily overelaborate, in their pre-application work.
“It was understandable that promoters of projects who were carrying out applications for the very first time under a new planning regime answered every single conceivable question,” he says. “Now that we’ve gained more experience of the planning system there will be ways in
which the size of that application can be reduced, as well as the amount of preparatory work involved, while still meeting the requirements of the legislation.”
The good news is that the IPC is looking at ways in which some of the process can be streamlined. What is a very front-loaded system should become a little less onerous. The Localism Act has engineered one change. The unwieldy Special Parliamentary Procedure, where promoters need to compulsorily purchase land, will now only be required where a local authority objects to the Compulsory Purchase Order. And there are moves afoot to ensure that statutory consultees respond faster.
The other reason that schemes are taking longer to be readied for consideration by the IPC is down to problems with project management. “Everybody has learnt lessons about project management,” says Sir Michael. “Strong project management is important because at the pre-­application stage there’s a great deal that has to be done, in the right order, and at the right level of resources. That’s been a piece of learning. Also, the critical importance of strong legal advice for applicants from the earliest stages and the right calibre of consultants supporting the application.”
He adds: “There is still a tendency for schemes to slip, but now that we can see more schemes coming towards us as applications we should be very encouraged that most of the applicants have got to grips with the new planning regime and there is much higher levels of confidence over what’s required in preparing applications. There’s a lot of learning going on.”
One thing that has changed significantly since the early days of the new regime is the involvement of the IPC in almost a mentoring role as developers have grappled with the arrangements. Initially, companies were left to fend for themselves, but it soon became clear that a much more hands-on approach was needed. “We’ve now got much more heavily engaged with the pre-­application stage,” says Sir Michael.
He remains concerned that the arrangements are very testing for local authorities. “It is very challenging for some relatively small local authorities to handle an almost once-in-a-lifetime project and gear themselves up technically. What’s been interesting is the extent to which local authorities have collaborated both locally around the particular application and nationally where a number have faced similar kinds of application. There’s been a tendency for local authorities to share information. The feedback from promoters is that local authorities have been effective in negotiating changes to a proposal. It does seem they are performing well.”
Sir Michael says ministers, particularly energy ministers, have been keen to see how schemes are progressing, but he is adamant there has been no interference. There has been a welcome intervention by planning minister Bob Neill over the vexed question of how to deal with variations to a scheme and at what point this means the scheme has in effect become a new one.
“What we now have is the potential for a regime which leaves the judgment in the hands of the commissioners and the application of commonsense,” Sir Michael says. “Is the variation so great that it is a new scheme or so minor that the scheme isn’t changed appreciably? I’m confident we’ve got the right framework to operate. It takes care of a very reasonable argument that as a scheme unfolds there will be a need for design alterations.”
Sir Michael is a stickler for meeting the deadline. The open-ended nature of the previous planning regime was always a major source of dissatisfaction for promoters. Major inquiries could go on for years.
Speaking at an industry conference last year, Sir Michael said that should not happen on his watch.”The one thing that you can be sure of is that once we have accepted the application, the timescale is firm. I think it’s very highly valued. We are a bit like a Swiss railway: once we get going, we stick to our timescales, it’s an absolute commitment. I do have the right to prolong the timescale if I have good reason, but I then have the embarrassing obligation of writing to the secretary of state to explain why, so it’s something that I’m determined to avoid if I possibly can.”

So is the new regime fit for purpose? Sir Michael is not claiming that just yet. “The real test of the regime is going to be Hinkley. It is a massive case. The steps we have to take at the beginning of this process have worked very well indeed, but it will be another six or nine months before we will be able to say it has been successful.” A panel of five commissioners has been assigned to it. They have their work cut out. The nuclear power station proposal runs to 26,000 pages and contains 800 plans.
Does Sir Michael get involved in any of the projects? Definitely not. “I very consciously stand away from the detail. The way the Act is phrased leaves the decision to the designated commissioners, so it would be inappropriate for me to exercise any influence. What I ensure is that the machinery is firmly in place, that inspectors are well trained and that the process is properly conducted. I’m looking at the regime as a whole and its integrity. Dealing with individual casework is a matter for the designated commissioners.”
Sir Michael is full of praise for these commissioners. “The Planning Act and its requirements are very complex and it has required the commissioners to train themselves up to learn the new system. I’ve been delighted with the speed with which they’ve picked up the regulations.”
Sir Michael has always acknowledged that an IPC decision can be legally challenged. There has been one trip to the High Court over a Compulsory Purchase Order. The commission won, but he is under no illusion that that is the end of the story. “This is a new Act and these projects are very high profile. We have to be prepared for legal challenges. We’ve been successful so far.”

The life of the IPC

Since it was established in 2010, the Infrastructure Planning Commission IPC) has been notified of 69 projects. The lion’s share has been energy schemes. IPC case teams are currently processing nine applications that have been accepted for determination, with more applications expected to be submitted before April when the commission is abolished as an independent entity and is integrated into the Planning Inspectorate.
Covanta’s energy-from-waste project in the Bedfordshire brick fields remains the sole nationally significant infrastructure project that has navigated the complete course. It was approved by the commission last year. At present, the IPC is considering EDF Energy’s huge Hinkley C nuclear power plant proposal. Also being scrutinised is the Preesall gas storage project and the Galloper offshore windfarm scheme.
IPC chair Sir Michael Pitt insists: “The Planning Inspectorate and the IPC continue to prepare for the seamless changeover that will take place when the IPC is abolished and its functions transfer to the Planning Inspectorate at the end of March. A national infrastructure directorate has been created within a restructured Planning Inspectorate to support the examination of major infrastructure applications.
“On the date of transfer, individuals and organisations who
are working currently with the IPC are unlikely to notice any major changes. I would like to echo the promise made by government ministers by also giving my personal assurance that there will be
no disruption to any projects already notified to the IPC under the Planning Act 2008 process when these changes take effect. No project will have to start the process again.”

This article first appeared in Utility Week’s print edition of 10 February 2012.
Get Utility Week’s expert news and comment – unique and indispensible – direct to your desk. Sign up for a trial subscription here:  http://bit.ly/zzxQxx