Skip to main content
Find a National Infrastructure Project

Beta This is a beta service - your feedback will help us to improve it

Advice to Daniel Greene

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Daniel Greene
Date advice given
7 January 2011
Enquiry type
Email

I am currently doing a project on the IPC and am interested in the topic and just wondered if you could answer some quick questions for me? I was just wondering how 'accountable' the IPC is, and the methods in place that keep a check on its actions, as well as who it is that oversees the IPC to make sure they are acting correctly and the repercussions if they were to not do so e.g if they acted contrary to National Policy Statements? In my research i have come across several sources that highlight the reason for abolishing the IPC being that it is undemocratic as it is unelected and seemingly unaccountable and just wondered if this is the truth?

Advice given

The IPC is currently a Non Departmental Public Body that is sponsored by CLG. The details below set out some of the key stages in where organisations with elected representatives are involved in the process for preparing and examining a proposal for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)

The application process for proposed NSIPs contains six distinct stages: Pre-application - Acceptance - Pre-examination - Examination - Decision - Post Decision. The IPC must publish all advice it gives on the process for applying for development consent and has a policy of openess and transparancy. All advice we give is published on our website.

At pre-application, the applicant has statutory duties to consult a range of statutory bodies, including parish councils and relevant local authorities, as well as the local community, and to show how it has taken those views into account in preparing its application.

At acceptance, the IPC must have regard to any views expressed by relevant local authorities on the adequacy of community consultation.

At pre-examination, anyone can register as an interested party and make initial representations, with statutory consultees and relevant local authorities automatically being interested parties.

During examination any interested party can attend the pre-examination meeting, request an open floor hearing, make further representations. Local authorities are also invited to submit local impact reports to assist the examination.

In terms of decision making, the IPC grants or refuses an order for development consent if the relevant National Policy Statement (NPS) has been designated by the Secretary of State, with the decision being made either by a panel of commissioners, or by the Council within the IPC following a report from an appointed commissioner.

If a relevant NPS has not been designated then the IPC makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State. In terms of a desicion in relation to the NPSs, where relevant NPSs are in place, the Panel of commissioners or the Council will have to explain its decision in accordance with section 104 of the Planning Act 2008.

The relevant Secretary of State has power of intervention in IPC examination under circumstances set out in Chapter 7 sections 109 - 113 of the 2008 Planning Act (the Act), and please refer to these sections for more detailed information.

Post decision, under Chapter 9 section 118 of the Act, a request for judicial review can be made during the 6 weeks after a decision has been made. A request for judicial review can also be made against a decision by the Commission under section 55 of the Act not to accpt and application.