• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

  • ⚠️ Online Safety Act Changes

    We've made some changes to the forum as a result of the Online Safety Act. Please check the post in guest services for further information.

[🌎 Universal GB] General Discussion

GooseOnTheLoose said:
Given that MHCLG now has a new Minister, you can expect a further minor delay whilst they get up to speed and the public interest documents are updated.
Click to expand...
I believe the planning decision is being taken by Matthew Pennycook, Minister of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government rather than the Secretary of State, so Angela Rayner's resignation shouldn't affect the timetable.
 
rob@rar said:
I believe the planning decision is being taken by Matthew Pennycook, Minister of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government rather than the Secretary of State, so Angela Rayner's resignation shouldn't affect the timetable.
Click to expand...
Whilst you're correct that the Secretary of State is specifically excluded from the decision making process (with regards to Universal's planning application), a small delay is likely due to internal changes within the department, brought on by the resignation of the previous position holder.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
Whilst you're correct that the Secretary of State is specifically excluded from the decision making process (with regards to Universal's planning application), a small delay is likely due to internal changes within the department, brought on by the resignation of the previous position holder.
Click to expand...
I suspect the delay will be so small as to not affect the timetable. I think having a Minister excluded from the planning decision, in this case the Secretary of State, allows for the government to rule on any appeal that the applicant might make if they are unhappy with the decision by having a Minister unconnected with the initial decision conduct the appeal process. If that's the case, the new Secretary of State can't be involved with the decision on the planning application as that would compromise their independence in the event they have to decide on an appeal.

I think it's likely that the next major step in the process, assuming the planning application is approved (perhaps subject to some reassurance around the objections), will for for the government to table the Statutory Instrument that contains the Special Development Order. I think it's very likely that this will be done using the "made negative" procedure, so it won't involve any scheduled debates in the Lords or the Commons, and the SI is assumed to become law on the day it is tabled. Parliament will then have a certain period of time to suspend the SI, I think this might be up to 41 days, but the chance of this happening is so vanishingly small that I think we can discount it. The government might want to avoid tabling the SI during the Parliamentary recess for party conference season (16 September - 13 October), so I think the earliest we are likely to see the Statutory Instrument tabled will be in the second half of next month. That should be the final step in the planning process, and Universal will have final authority to move forwards with major work on the site.
 
rob@rar said:
I think having a Minister excluded from the planning decision, in this case the Secretary of State, allows for the government to rule on any appeal that the applicant might make if they are unhappy with the decision by having a Minister unconnected with the initial decision conduct the appeal process. If that's the case, the new Secretary of State can't be involved with the decision on the planning application as that would compromise their independence in the event they have to decide on an appeal.
Click to expand...
According to the Planning Permission Arrangement document, the Secretary of State is specifically excluded due to potential or perceived conflict of interest, because they may have had a role in the promotion of the development.

The approval of the planning permission has to be solely on the merits of the application, that is paramount. As the government have thrown their backing behind this development, they cannot be seen to be marking their own homework and pushing it through no matter what; which is why it's been passed along to the civil servants.

The Secretary of State for Business and Trade is similarly excluded for the same reasons.

In the event of an appeal, the Secretary of State would still, more than likely, not be able to rule as they have been explicitly recused due to the conflict of interest.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
According to the Planning Permission Arrangement document, the Secretary of State is specifically excluded due to potential or perceived conflict of interest, because they may have had a role in the promotion of the development.
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember reading that and thinking it was odd, as Matthew Pennycook was closely involved in the government side of the negotiations with Universal, and could easily be described as having a role in promoting the project within government. But whatever the case, I think the chance of the government declining the planning application is so infinitesimally small as to be not worth considering. The government is going to say yes, even if they ask for a few tweaks and place a few restrictions around construction traffic. Universal know this, and their work continues as they prepare for the first stages of construction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top