Experts call for better balance between detail and flexibility when planning major infrastructure

Research commissioned by the National Infrastructure Planning Association (NIPA) (57-page / 1.2MB PDF) has called for a better balance between detail and the need for flexibility later in the project delivery process. The report, by a research team from the Bartlett School of Planning at University College London, makes a number of recommendations to improve this balance through enhancements to the planning process.

The report concluded that there were "clear and legitimate reasons" for requiring some level of detail of project promoters; in order to understand what is being consented, its impact on stakeholders and local communities and how to mitigate those impacts. Shifting the initial focus to project delivery, rather than simply fulfilling the requirements to obtain a development consent order (DCO), would help to ascertain where there is a need for detailed assessment and specification and where there is not, according to the report.

"What matters is that the level of detail assessed through examination and specified in the DCO itself needs to be carefully balanced against the potential need for flexibility to meet the particular circumstances of the project at the delivery stage, whilst ensuring that the interests of stakeholders and local communities are protected," the report said.

"Engagement with stakeholders about infrastructure delivery and what is needed to support this, from the start, will help to build confidence that the right balance has been achieved," it said.

"This is an important piece of work given the growing feeling by many DCO participants that there has been an undue focus on detail at the DCO stage, particularly in examinations, which is not only to the detriment of future project design development, including value engineering, but also of affected parties such as landowners, communities and local authorities," said Robbie Owen of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, an expert on major infrastructure planning and a member of the research team behind the report.

"At the heart of it seems to be a misunderstanding as to the nature of the development consent process: it was never intended to produce an inflexible form of planning permission but, instead, a statutory authorisation for a project to be further developed in detail and then constructed and operated within set parameters. Putting the DCO process in this wider context is important," he said.

NSIPs are infrastructure projects of a type and scale defined by the 2008 Planning Act relating to energy, transport, water, waste water and waste. The regime has since been extended to allow certain business and commercial projects to opt in, while the 2016 Housing and Planning Act introduced a provision allowing developers to include plans for up to 500 related homes as part of an NSIP.

The researchers said that it was difficult to quantify the impact and consequences potentially arising from unnecessary levels of detail, and any subsequent constraints on flexibility. However, of the 50 NSIPs consented by September 2016, only seven have been fully constructed while work is yet to begin in 18 cases. The report also cited an estimate by Arcadis, the construction consultancy, that UK GDP would have been £6 billion higher in 2015 had it not been for £4.6bn worth of infrastructure spending delays and cancellations.

The recommendations of the report are predominantly aimed at encouraging an earlier focus on project delivery. They include amendments to the National Policy Statements (NPS) that underpin the NSIP regime to incorporate sector-specific needs for flexibility, and the circumstances requiring detail; and a recommendation that the government produce more relevant guidance and advice on flexibility and deliverability within the NSIP process.

For scheme promoters, the report recommends earlier and more meaningful engagement with statutory consultees, local authorities and communities likely to be impacted by the project. Promoters should also consider early contractor involvement (ECI) in the development and pre-application stages, and adopt a 'whole project' approach to project management, from initial inception and scoping through to pre-application, examination and implementation.

The report also recommends that the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) reviews advice on drafting of DCOs to more explicitly address flexibility and deliverability. Examiners should explicitly consider flexibility for deliverability during the examination stage. The report also recommends a programme of continuous learning and dissemination, led by NIPA.