By Alex Klaushofer
The chair-designate of the government’s new planning quango has warned that decisions made by the body are likely to be challenged in the courts.
The chair-designate of the government’s new planning quango has warned that decisions made by the body are likely to be challenged in the courts.In a pre-appointment hearing at the communities and local government select committee, Sir Michael Pitt – the government’s preferred candidate to head the Infrastructure Planning Commission – told MPs that the commission would need to prepare carefully for dealing with controversial planning applications.
‘Given the importance and scale of some of the applications, there is a real risk that judicial review could get in the way,’ he said. ‘Therefore I think the commission must think and act very carefully indeed.’
‘I don’t think we can prevent the risk of judicial review, but we can take steps to minimise it,’ he added.
One way of doing so was to ensure that the Whitehall-generated national policy statements, which will direct much of the infrastructure development in England, were very clearly drafted, he said.
The IPC was established under the Planning Act 2008 to decide on planning applications for infrastructure projects of national importance, such as transport schemes and power plants.
The organisation will operate in shadow form from June this year, advising developers before ruling on planning applications in 2010.
The decision to set up a national planning body has proved controversial in some quarters, with environmental groups threatening civil disobedience and the Conservatives questioning its independence.
Pitt defended the commission, saying that the existing system was unsatisfactory, and often placed ministers in the uncomfortable position of both submitting and ruling on planning applications.
But he added: ‘I feel very strongly that the commission can function only if it is regarded as independent.’
Asked about his own views, he said: ‘I can say without hesitation that I am totally agnostic when it comes to individual political parties,’ adding that he had no strong views on issues related to major planning applications.
‘I would like to think that within a few years there is a wide body of acceptance that the legislation has been successful and the commission is truly independent, and that we are getting the right decisions in the right places at the right times,’ he said.
The IPC will have around 35 commissioners and a secretariat when fully up and running. It will cost £5m to set up with annual running costs of £9.3m.
Pitt said that the organisation’s resources should be adapted to its workload, according to the number of planning applications.
‘I think we should be growing and shrinking according to the economic situation,’ he said. ‘I think it’s important that the commission is adaptive, elastic.’
He recommended that the IPC’s commissioners and secretariat staff should be employed on short-term contracts. ‘We should try and keep them to the bare minimum, perhaps bringing in temps, consultants, from time to time.’
If appointed to the five-year post, Pitt would receive a salary of £184,000 a year for the four-day-a-week role.
‘It feels to me that this is probably the right kind of salary for a job of this scale,’ he said, when asked to justify the amount.
