Advice to Ben Porte
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Ben Porte
- Date advice given
- 7 December 2010
- Enquiry type
Further to our telephone conversation on 26 November 2010 I thought it prudent to seek clarity on the issues that have since arisen.
My client has recently discovered that an existing power line (suspended from a pylon) breaches the clearance standards set in statutory policy. In short, a house owner has extended his property to within 3.6 metres of the suspended power cable. The adjacent property has done the same, albeit illegally. Some research has revealed that the illegal extension was completed in 2004 and is therefore exempt from planning enforcement.
My client has since undertaken the necessary steps to remedy the situation by applying to the LPA for the necessary wayleave and an appropriate planning application. This consisted of proposals to extend an existing pylon upwards and provide the necessary mitigation and screening measures at nil cost to the local residents. The requisite public consultation was undertaken but the house owner in question drummed up local opposition – though it is his actions that have lead to this situation. His view is that the electricity cable can be run successfully underground – through an existing residential area.
The LPA recommended approval but the level of opposition saw it being referred to the SoS with the public inquiry due to start in earnest in the new year.
Accordingly, we are undertaking the necessary steps to ensure that all nationally significant policies are considered and put before the inspector at the inquiry. My query therefore concerns the existing policy framework for energy infrastructure – specifically electricity. I note that EN1 and EN5 are immediately relevant. Both documents are still under consultation until January. The question is wish to raise is what weight is afforded to these documents and what direction is MIPU able to provide under such circumstances? Would I be correct in saying that under the current provisions MIPU are only able to make recommendations pending the formal adoption?
My view is that the policies (NIPS) are quite relevant and will provide a significant steer – linking both planning and legal policy.
Your thoughts on this issue are most welcome.
Advice given
The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), determines, or makes recommendations to the Secretary of State, in repsect of development consent applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). Where a relevant National Policy Statement has been adopted, the IPC will determine NSIP applications having regard to it. Where it has not, it will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State.
NSIPs are defined in the 2008 Act, and our role is limited to matters relating to them. The IPC cannot and would not comment on local development control issues, which are a matter for other consenting bodies; normally the local planning authority in the first instance, or the Secretary of State. It would be inappropriate and outside our role for us to take a view or make any directions on how much weight those consenting bodies might attach to specific publications when reaching their decisions.
In general, when considering the weight to be attached to draft planning policy documents a number of factors will have a bearing. For example, the level of public consultation afforded to the document and the maturity of the emerging document within the context of that consultation programme. NPSs can be considered accoprding to the same principle.
I also note that you refer to the IPC as “MIPU”. The government plans to abolish the IPC and pass some of its responsibilities to an as yet unconstituted Major Infrastructure Planning Unit (MIPU) in the future. New primary legislation will be required to achieve this, and the change is hoped to be in place by April 2012. Until then, the IPC continues to perform its functions.