Head of Infrastructure Planning and Government Affairs Policy and planning processes for delivering the Commission's recommendations: Scene-setting & process Robbie Owen Head of Infrastructure Planning and Government Affairs Pinsent Masons LLP

Introduction What is the recommended wider package – “key supporting policies”? What needs to be done to deliver it? For the development consenting aspects, the part to be played by: a Hybrid Bill; or a Development Consent Order Key differences between those two consenting routes Deciding factors?

Recommended wider package (1) Congestion or access charge? Tie-in to progress on EU air quality targets UK aviation ‘noise levy’ Independent aviation noise authority Ban on night flights Legal commitment - No 4th Runway Legally binding ‘noise envelope’

Recommended wider package (2) Wider community package Joint Oversight Board Dedicated delivery body Surface access improvements Airspace change Community Engagement Board Public service obligations on an airport-to-airport basis

Delivering a wider package….. HMG and HAL discussions and negotiations Role of other bodies (local authorities, GLA, TfL, CAA, airlines, Highways England, Network Rail, environmental regulators) Initial House of Commons vote/motion? Green, White and Command Papers DfT consultation before any decision? Paving Bill? Civil Aviation Bill (‘Programme Bill’)? Non-hybrid (i.e. public) aspects in a Hybrid Bill?

Two consenting options (1) Development Consent Order (DCO) Hybrid Bill Order made under Planning Act 2008 Primary legislation Most major infrastructure projects, e.g. TTT, Hinkley Point C, Swansea Tidal Lagoon Used less often: HS2, Crossrail 1, HS1 – suited to big projects Promoter in control Government in control PINS examines; Secretary of State decides Select Committees review; Parliament decides but capacity issues? Heavily proscribed and very onerous statutory process (e.g. consultation and examination) More flexible and less onerous; more of a one stop shop Definitive, shorter timeline No programme certainty Easier for public to engage? Easier for public to obtain changes? Less politicised Immunity from legal challenge

Two consenting options (2) Both options need the Government to take action: DCO ideally supported by an Airports National Policy Statement (NPS) - to be prepared, consulted on and ‘designated’ A Hybrid Bill needs: to be promoted by the Government Parliamentary time and support

Consent is a statutory instrument called an ‘Order’ Consenting for major infrastructure identified in Planning Act 2008 (including airports) Consent is a statutory instrument called an ‘Order’ Can authorise more than one piece of major infrastructure in a single DCO Streamlined consenting process (planning, land acquisition, licences, permits in one place) Guaranteed timelines after submission = Decision by SoS 16-18 months from submission of application Promoter prepares application  Detailed public review by Planning Inspectorate (PINS) DCO

DCO process Front loaded Extensive consultation & notice requirements Examination: Extremely intensive 6 months! Written process, supplemented by hearings Decision-making period is 3 months + 3 months max Pre-submission c.9 months – 3 years Post-Submission: -acceptance -initial assessment c. 4-5 months Examination 6 months PINS Reporting and SoS Decision 6 months Preliminary Meeting

DCO timelines Source: Planning Inspectorate, July 2015

Possible R3 DCO timeline Source: Heathrow Airport Limited, July 2015

DCOs – key considerations Promoter leads –in control but can be ‘lonely’ Less political – PINS are independent body, focussed on planning merits (but NPS still cornerstone) Extensive consultation and pre-application steps are statutory obligations Process has limited flexibility: after application made; and once consent has been given. Certainty of delivery timelines the key advantage

Mix of ‘Public’ and ‘Private’ Bill characteristics and process Details reviewed by Select Committee Those specially and directly affected can ‘petition’ against and be heard Promoted by Government Department Principle debated and then approved Flexible process (changes via Additional Provisions) and flexible consent No minimum or maximum timelines Output = Primary legislation cannot be challenged (except on EU grounds) Contains everything needed to deliver project (and more? e.g. regeneration power in HS2 Bill) Hybrid Bills

Hybrid Bill process Bill deposit (Bill, Plans & Sections, Environmental Statement, etc.) 1st reading (i.e. publication) in the House of Commons Public consultation on environmental impact assessment 2nd reading (i.e. debate on general principle) “Petitioning” period between 2nd Reading and Select Committee Petitions heard by Select Committee Public Bill Committee (line by line review) Report stage (i.e. report of Committee stage to whole House) 3rd Reading (i.e. final debate on final version of Bill) House of Lords – petitioning and Select Committee Any further amendments approved by the Commons Royal Assent

Example Timeline – HS2 Bill so far 29 November 2013 Consultation on ES Independent Assessor’s Report 9 April 2014 28 & 29 April 2014 Second Reading Petitioning Deadline 23 May 2015 Committee sat first 6 May 2014 26 March 2015 Interim Report

Hybrid Bills – current and recent statistics Crossrail Act 2008 HS2 Bill (to 23 June 2015) 10 MPs on Select Committee 5 MPs (previously 6) 457 petitions deposited in Commons 1,918 petitions deposited 84 public sessions 80 public sessions 205 petitioners heard in Commons More than 400 petitioners heard 7 site visits from Commons Committee 9 site visits from Commons Committee 4 series of amendments to the Bill were recommended and accepted 2 APs so far – more to come 40 months in total 19 months and counting… Anticipated Royal Assent Q1 2017

Hybrid Bills – key considerations Political support – need Government backing and wider parliamentary support Different policy basis – no NPS required Flexibility – in process and final consent, more suited to an outline or hybrid design Limited scope for legal challenge – as Act is primary legislation Ability to incorporate supporting & wide ranging measures Timelines are uncertain – Crossrail took 40 months, HS2 is 19 months and counting… Parliamentary capacity

Deciding factors? Cost Certainty & Speed Flexibility of Consent Political Support Risk of legal challenge Consultation Obligations Flexibility of Consent Certainty & Speed Promoter Control vs. Government Support Transparency & Public Engagement Multi-Agency Coordination Cost

Pinsent Masons LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales (registered number: OC333653) authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and by the appropriate regulatory body in the other jurisdictions in which it operates. The word ‘partner’, used in relation to the LLP, refers to a member of the LLP or an employee or consultant of the LLP or any affiliated firm of equivalent standing. A list of the members of the LLP, and of those non-members who are designated as partners, is displayed at the LLP’s registered office: 30 Crown Place, London EC2A 4ES, United Kingdom. We use 'Pinsent Masons' to refer to Pinsent Masons LLP, its subsidiaries and any affiliates which it or its partners operate as separate businesses for regulatory or other reasons. Reference to 'Pinsent Masons' is to Pinsent Masons LLP and/or one or more of those subsidiaries or affiliates as the context requires. © Pinsent Masons LLP 2015 For a full list of our locations around the globe please visit our websites: www.pinsentmasons.com www.Out-Law.com