Planning White Paper
The Planning White Paper set out detailed Government proposals to reform the planning system, building on Kate Barker’s recommendations for improving the speed, responsiveness and efficiency in land use planning, and taking forward Kate Barker’s and Rod Eddington’s proposals for reform of major infrastructure planning.
The White Paper proposed reforms to the way decisions are taken on nationally significant infrastructure projects including: energy, waste, waste-water and transport – responding to the challenges of economic globalisation and climate change. It also proposed further reforms to the Town and Country Planning System.
The Planning Bill took forward a number of the Planning White Paper proposals, resulting in the Planning Act 2008, which introduced a new system aiming to speed up the nationally significant infrastructure planning. The Act also contained enabling powers to empower local councils to apply the Community Infrastructure Levy on new developments in their areas to support infrastructure delivery. The Levy on private developers will increase investment in infrastructure for growing communities, with the new resolutions coming into force no earlier than October 2009.
Infrastructure Planning Commission
An Infrastructure Planning Commission is also being established under the Act, as the new authority granting development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects.
The IPC will be the body that will make decisions on applications for development consent for infrastructure proposals that are of national significance, based on clear statements of national policy set out by the Government.
In March 2009, Sir Michael Pitt was announced as Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which will be based in Bristol. Sir Michael will take up the role on May 1st with the IPC expected to begin to exercise some of its functions from 1st October 2009. Once the Commission is up and running the Chair is likely to be overseeing around 45 major cases a year and a larger number of less complex cases.
Funding - Government finance arrangement
In March 2009 the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Yvette Cooper, announced Government action to ensure vital PFI infrastructure projects go forward as planned despite the current financial market conditions.
Under the rescue arrangement, HM Treasury will lend to PFI projects alongside commercial lenders and the European Investment Bank – or where required may act as sole lender. Future projects expecting to go to market soon will also be eligible for funding, provided they meet certain criteria and subject to Treasury approval.
PFI Project Performance
A survey of operational projects published by IpsosMORI in February 2009 indicated that PFI continues to perform well delivering high levels of user satisfaction in vital areas of public services delivery. The survey, undertaken for Partnerships UK and HM Treasury, was conducted through an online quantitative survey of contract managers of PFI projects across England. In total 151 contract managers responded to the survey (a 36% response rate). It found that:
• 96% of contract managers rate overall performance as satisfactory or better of which 73% of contract managers rate overall performance as good or very good.
• 94% of contract managers report that contract service levels are always or almost always achieved; and
• 92% of contract managers who have carried out a user assessment found services were being delivered to an acceptable standard.
Major Projects Review Group
MPRG is a scrutiny panel for major central government projects, established by HM Treasury in January 2007. Its aim is to deliver better value for the taxpayer by challenging projects on deliverability, affordability and value for money.
Following government policy approval, projects will generally be subject to review by MPRG at the following stages:
a) When the business case is being developed – where there is maximum scope to influence the project’s outcome
b) Before the project goes to tender – to test if the specification of the requirement is clear and unambiguous, all procurement options have been explored, and there is a realistic prospect of success.
c) Following receipt of bids but before award of the contract – to check that the contract decision is likely to delivery what is needed on time, within budget, and giving value for money.