Introduction

Planning for major infrastructure is considered essential to economic growth, particularly in meeting energy demands that drives this. In a time of economic crisis, as long as wealth creation remains the conventional orthodox, a fast and efficient process for national infrastructure will be a key priority. Local environmental interests and community concerns are clearly vulnerable to the expediencies of the growth imperative; but planning law provides an important means of addressing the conflicts between the need for national infrastructure and the representation of local considerations. Land use planning is quintessentially a political process which restricts the rights of property owners to develop land in the public interest. Traditionally, the planning system derives its democratic mandate from the fact that decision-makers are elected members of government. In line with its common law tradition, the UK adopts a discretionary system that places significant power in the hands of these decision makers, albeit subject to a process of review by the courts. More recently, however, there has been increasing attention to participatory rights in planning; but together, the discretionary nature of the planning system and opportunities for participation may be seen to counter efficiency aims. A problem that is seen nowhere more acutely than in the context of planning for major infrastructure.

This contribution will consider how these challenges have been met, in England, by the introduction of a new system for the planning of nationally significant infrastructure under the Planning Act 2008. Under this regime, National Planning Policy Statements (NPPSs) are followed unless the adverse impacts of the proposed development on the local community would outweigh its benefits. The procedure allows participation on NPPSs and requires the developer to enter into a pre-application process of consultation. ‘Front-loading’ opportunities for participation in planning was intended to provide a means to avoid objections at a later stage and enable applications to be determined more quickly. However, there has been a trade-off in the form of a reduction of participatory rights in the decision-making process on the final application. Thus, the familiar public inquiry, which has been the essential means of considering conflicting views on development in England, has been replaced by an ‘examination in public’ which is more narrowly focused. Furthermore, significant barriers exist to bringing a judicial review claim.