Friday, 8 April 2016

Manston update DCO v CPO update

This may be of interest because of the highly unusual situation where a private company are attempting to acquire the Manston site via DCO while the district council are also trying to find an indemnity partner so they can acquire the site via CPO and the areas largest employer own he site and are about to submit plans to create considerably more employment locally.

Only in Thanet springs to mind, anyway here is the proposed S51 advice:-  


Manson Airport Enquiry – 17 February 2016

Questions and Proposed S51 advice


Question 1 - In thinking about the interaction or relationship between different regimes (particularly the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA)), what would happen to a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) application if Thanet District Council progressed with finding a suitable indemnity partner to pursue a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the airfield site?

Proposed answer - A Development Consent Order can include powers of Compulsory Acquisition in much the same way as a Compulsory Purchase Order can. In both cases, this is a considerable power which has an effect on the rights of other people. It is necessary to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest to acquire interests and rights compulsorily. The justification for including such powers in a Development Consent Order under the PA2008 is normally that the proposed scheme has a compelling public benefit which could not be delivered without those powers. It is very rare that there are competing proposals to compulsorily acquire land, but if this were to occur the likelihood and desirably of the alternative uses for the land, and their relative public benefits, are likely to be put forward in submissions and would be carefully taken into account by the relevant Secretary of State before deciding whether or not to grant powers of Compulsory Purchase or Acquisition.

Question 2 - Has it been decided that the RiverOak proposals are a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and that an application will go to The Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State rather than to Thanet District Council, and if this decision has not been made, what scrutiny of the application will occur and when will that decision be made?

Proposed answer 2 Airports are a category of development that is capable of being a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), but since no application has yet been made by RiverOak, it is impossible to be sure whether or not any proposal they might make meets the tests in the Planning Act 2008 to be considered an NSIP. If an application is made it will not be accepted for examination unless the Secretary of State is confident that it is an NSIP. The applicant could alternatively apply to the Secretary of State for a direction to the effect that a future application should be considered as an NSIP. (This is called a ‘Section 35 Direction’.) This is possible if the proposal is within one of the categories in the Planning Act (such as transport) but might not meet the tests otherwise. Again, the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied that the scheme was of national importance and justified being considered as an NSIP before a Section 35 Direction could be made. The applicant would have to supply sufficient information about the proposal to demonstrate this. The Planning Inspectorate is aware of the RiverOak proposals, which are not yet developed to the point where an application could be made. We will continue to offer procedural advice when requested to do so, including to the applicant. All the advice that we give is published on our website at http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk Also on our website is a guide to the different stages of the process should a formal application be made to the Planning Inspectorate and other sources of information in respect of the Planning Act 2008 process and how to get involved: http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/Advice-note-8-1v4.pdf

Question 3 - What would be the implications for an NSIP application, if a separate company bought the site and recommenced operational activity at Manston. Could RiverOak still apply for DCO and Compulsory Acquisition powers?


Proposed answer 3 There is nothing to prevent an application being made to use land in a similar way to the way it is being used at the moment; whether or not the proposal was an NSIP would be determined against the tests in the Planning Act 2008, and if it were, that any application should be made for a Development Consent Order. However, Compulsory Acquisition is a considerable power which has an effect on the rights of other people, and for any powers of Compulsory Acquisition to be included in the DCO (even if the DCO is otherwise made as requested) a compelling case in the public interest for the powers to be included would have to be made. The justification for including powers of Compulsory Acquisition in a DCO is normally that the proposed scheme has a compelling public benefit which could not be delivered without those powers. Any consideration of the public benefit of a proposal is likely to include a consideration of the way the land is already being used.

This info is also on the council’s website although it went down just after I copied it here is the link 

Here is the link to the same information on the DOT website 

7 comments:

  1. Are you proposing to post Q2 and the answer in SMA as they believe the application has been made

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael is this your questions to the PI and are those their replies? There seems to be some confusion as to asked what of whom?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Barry I copied it from the council's website, it's one of those pdf files that sometimes opens and sometimes doesn't, I have now put a link to it at the bottom of the post and I think whether you can open it will depend on what browser and pdf reader you have installed on the technology you use to try and look at it. Why they can't put important documents like this up as ordinary web pages defeats me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Michael, thanks for adding the link, apparently to the TDC website. This doesn't seem to help establish the source of the document, which is I think what Barry was enquiring about. The link in fact appears to go to the Planning Inspectorate site. Furthermore, there is nothing on the document as to i) where the questions originally came from, ii) who has given this so-called "Proposed S51 Advice" and iii) who has published the document.
    If we are to be factually correct, and particularly when quoting from elsewhere, then I believe it is important to be quite clear about the original source of the information.
    Otherwise, as we all know, rumour and speculation quickly becomes 'fact'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the Infrastruture web site under Manston pre application it says that the three questions submitted by TDC were raised by members of the public. Presumable TDC holds the names and addresses of the members of the public.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry about this I am fairly busy at the moment, been buying books in the North Kent towns all day.

    My understanding is that the questions would have been put to the council and then written into Gov Speak by the council officer and put to the planning inspectorate.

    The S51 advice would have been the official advice of The Department of Transport, and last night it appeared on their website, which said:-

    “Enquiry

    Queries raised by members of the public were brought to The Planning Inspectorate’s attention by Thanet District Council.

    Advice given

    Our advice in response to these queries is attached.”
    Now I can’t get the page to open.

    I will add the DOT link to the post too

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks very much, Michael, for this clarification.
      Much appreciated!!

      Delete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.