Ms Phoebe Duvall:

We naturally welcomed the concept of a review of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the publication of a draft Bill which promised clarity, consistency and certainty in how planning decisions are made; and a planning system which was more coherent and user-friendly for the public and planning practitioners. A key rationale for this overhaul is the need to support the urgent delivery of hundreds of thousands of homes and critical infrastructure, including for energy and transport. We are concerned that in many respects we see conflict, dysfunction and delay resulting from this draft legislation, rather than the much-needed coherence, efficiency and speed. We welcome the Bill’s objectives around a plan-led approach, as well as coherence and integration in land-use planning and policy hierarchies. These are fundamental principles underpinning key EU directives governing our approach to land-use planning and policies, including the strategic environmental assessment, SEA, directive and its hierarchical relationship to project level assessments under, for example, the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive.

However, we are concerned at a further fundamental erosion of local government democracy and the further centralisation of power without adequate legislative safeguards on assessment, consultation and participation obligations or on democratic oversight and controls. This is particularly the case in Part 3 of the Bill on the overarching plan and policy framework, as well as in Part 4. It is then compounded by the erosion of environmental democracy and the rights of the public to information, participation and to hold public authorities to account before the courts, through rights of access to justice. As drafted, the Bill risks simply moving the battlefield upstream in the planning system, from applications to higher level plans and policies, if it does not seek to fairly and lawfully resolve all these issues. As it stands, the Bill fails to ensure compliance with environmental assessments or with effective participation obligations in forward planning and the realignment of plans, while the effects of central Government plans and policies cascade through the planning system. In addition, the untrammelled power of the Minister proposed under section 22 to perpetuate current section 28 guidelines is of serious concern. Ultimately, to address the crises in housing, energy, climate, biodiversity loss and so on, we must ensure lawfulness across the board, from individual planning decisions all the way through the hierarchy of plans. Otherwise we will end up with multiple Derrybriens. As many of the plans and policies will be controversial, it is all the more important to ensure they are compliant.