[🌎 Universal GB] General Discussion

[QTXAdsy]

Great news all around, these construction updates will be something to watch over the next few years.

 

[SeeSharpy]

If you are referring to MPs or national figures, I would suggest that silence does not necessarily equal consent, nor does it render a project "non-contentious".

It is easy to be broadly supportive of a hypothetical headline promising investment and jobs. It is significantly harder to scrutinise the minutiae of Green Belt development, environmental impact, and over half a billion pounds of state aid when the details are buried in a Statutory Instrument laid just as everyone is packing up for the holidays. The opposition hasn't formed because, until this morning, there wasn't a piece of legislation to actually oppose.

To classify a project that necessitates half a billion pounds of taxpayer funding, significant Green Belt development, and the executive overriding of local democratic planning controls as "non-contentious" is stretching the definition to its absolute limit.

The reason you haven't seen formal opposition from the relevant local elected body (Bedford Borough Council) is precisely because the SDO mechanism removes their ability to determine the application. They have been relegated to the status of a consultee. It is easy to claim a proposal is non-contentious when you remove the primary mechanism for contention.

I fear you've overlooked the specific constitutional hazard created by the "made vs laid" gap during a recess.

Yes, the 40 day prayer period clock pauses during the recess. This means the window for objection stays open longer on the calendar. However, the implementation date of January 12th does not pause.

When Parliament returns on January 5th, the clock for the SDO becoming active law will have nearly run out. The SDO will come into force on January 12th. The 40 day prayer period will effectively run until February.

This creates a scenario where the legislation becomes active law, and Universal can legally begin work, weeks before Parliament has finished its statutory period to object to it. If an MP tables a motion to annul in late January, they are trying to annul a law that is already in force and acting upon the real world. That is significantly harder, politically and legally, than blocking a law that hasn't started yet.

It turns the "fail safe" into a retrospective complaint box. It is a calculated move to ensure that by the time anyone gets around to objecting, the concrete mixers have already started pouring.

Looks like Universal will wait until the review period ends before starting

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has approved our request for planning permission to be granted by way of making a Special Development Order (SDO).

While there are still further steps to complete, including a statutory parliamentary review period, this decision represents another important milestone for the project. Our on-site activity will now gradually start to increase and we will share more information about project activity and construction in the new year.

 

[xtpower]

I think they'll continue prep works and ramp it up and then when Jan 12th or the review period ends they'll go full steam ahead.

 

[Dave]

It seems the Civil Service clerks have worked overtime to get the Statutory Instrument laid just 48 hours before the House rises for recess. That is impressively efficient, or desperate, depending on your view of the government's growth agenda.

There is a bit of a constitutional sleight of hand going on though.

An SDO is subject to the Negative Resolution Procedure. Convention dictates that a Statutory Instrument should be laid at least 21 days before it comes into force. With a laid date of 16th December and an in force date of 12th January, they have technically met that 21 day minimum.

However, the 40-day "praying time" (the window MPs have to table a motion to annul the order) pauses during recess (when the House is adjourned for more than four days).

Laying the SDO two days before Christmas recess, the "coming into force" clock keeps ticking (27 days total), but the "objection" clock freezes on Thursday. This means the SDO will become active law on January 12th, long before Parliament has had its full statutory 40 days to object.

Universal will legally have planning permission before MPs have even had a realistic chance to read the document, let alone debate it. It is executive railroading at its finest.

This creates a fait accompli. If an MP raises an objection in late January, the Order is already in force. The diggers could theoretically already be on site. It reduces Parliamentary sovereignty to a rubber stamping exercise, ensuring that a decision involving a heck of a lot of taxpayers' money and massive environmental impact bypasses both local democracy (via the SDO mechanism) and effective national scrutiny (via the timing).

Universal Great Britain is essentially being slipped under the door as everyone is looking at the Christmas tree. Whilst this will not be a problem for the vast majority of community members here, the lack of following proper conventional procedure leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

I feel as though I may need to set the record straight here a little, as some of you may believe that I am bitterly against this development. I am not.

I welcome the Universal UK project and relish its reality, but I also value due process, scrutiny and democratic accountability. To rush through a decision of this magnitude, involving significant public infrastructure spending and environmental impact, via a Statutory Instrument laid just 48 hours before Parliament rises for Christmas, feels less like efficient governance and more like executive evasion.

I know there is a general consensus political parties don’t talk to each other but they do, I suspect the government knows this has broad support. For a start I believe the consensus is that MP’s that don’t neighbour the development don’t object (unless they feel the plan could impact business in their constituency). I would hazard a guess that the local MP’s have all been consulted and indicate that they are in favour.

I think it’s more likely they are confident in the support and didn’t see a need to delay, rather than a tactic to push this through, if it was the latter an MP would just table a motion of objection regardless (like Peter Bone who always created a division on all bills and amendments before Parliament to cause a vote). Just because they tabled the motion doesn’t mean it would fail, it would just force a vote.

 

[The_bup]

Just received this email:

“Good afternoon,

Today, we can share an important update on our plans to bring a new entertainment resort complex featuring a world-class theme park to Bedford. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has approved our request for planning permission to be granted by way of making a Special Development Order (SDO) and we would like to extend our thanks to them.

While there are still further steps to complete, including a statutory parliamentary review period, this decision represents another important milestone for the project. On behalf of the company, we want to express our sincere appreciation for the continued engagement from Bedford and the various communities surrounding our site, as well as the many other national and local stakeholders who have provided feedback and expressed such enthusiasm on the transformative nature of our project.

In the months ahead, we are committed to sharing progress as well as what to expect including job opportunities and how local businesses and suppliers can potentially work with us. The interest and support we’ve already seen from both local companies and residents has been incredibly encouraging.

In the meantime, please do continue to visit universalukproject.co.uk for relevant updates.

Kind regards,

The Universal UK Project Team”

Well, feels good to get the first scoop in doesn’t it! But please. Decipher for me.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I know there is a general consensus political parties don’t talk to each other but they do, I suspect the government knows this has broad support. For a start I believe the consensus is that MP’s that don’t neighbour the development don’t object (unless they feel the plan could impact business in their constituency). I would hazard a guess that the local MP’s have all been consulted and indicate that they are in favour.

I think it’s more likely they are confident in the support and didn’t see a need to delay, rather than a tactic to push this through, if it was the latter an MP would just table a motion of objection regardless (like Peter Bone who always created a division on all bills and amendments before Parliament to cause a vote). Just because they tabled the motion doesn’t mean it would fail, it would just force a vote.

Whilst I appreciate that I may have over attributed a level of strategic brilliance to the government's scheduling, which could simply be a case of the Civil Service frantically trying to clear their desks before the Christmas party, the outcome of the scheduling remains the same and makes me uneasy.

Because the SDO comes into force just a week after Parliament returns, any debate or vote triggered by an objection will almost certainly take place after the legislation has already become active law.

Debating whether to approve a plan is very different from debating whether to cancel a law that is already in force. It shifts the burden from "Should we allow this?" to "Do we dare stop this thing that has already legally started?". It makes an objection significantly harder to carry politically.

Given the SDO status, the development has escalated from a mere local level of importance to a national one. I would imagine that the MPs for Staffordshire Moorlands, Kingston and Surbiton, Windsor, Runnymede and Weybridge, Tamworth, and Blackpool South (among others) would appreciate the full and proper window for proper parliamentary scrutiny, to analyse how the project could affect businesses in their constituencies.

By truncating the effective prayer period via the recess, the government has denied these representatives the opportunity to entertain a debate on whether such significant state aid constitutes fair competition before the legislative cement has set. They are being presented with a done deal, rather than a proposal.

I appreciate that Universal have since suggested that they will not begin any construction work until the prayer period is over, which does give the opportunity for the legislation to have the proper time for scrutiny, but legally they are not bound to.

 

[dave___]

Whilst I appreciate that I may have over attributed a level of strategic brilliance to the government's scheduling, which could simply be a case of the Civil Service frantically trying to clear their desks before the Christmas party, the outcome of the scheduling remains the same and makes me uneasy.

Because the SDO comes into force just a week after Parliament returns, any debate or vote triggered by an objection will almost certainly take place after the legislation has already become active law.

Debating whether to approve a plan is very different from debating whether to cancel a law that is already in force. It shifts the burden from "Should we allow this?" to "Do we dare stop this thing that has already legally started?". It makes an objection significantly harder to carry politically.

Given the SDO status, the development has escalated from a mere local level of importance to a national one. I would imagine that the MPs for Staffordshire Moorlands, Kingston and Surbiton, Windsor, Runnymede and Weybridge, Tamworth, and Blackpool South (among others) would appreciate the full and proper window for proper parliamentary scrutiny, to analyse how the project could affect businesses in their constituencies.

By truncating the effective prayer period via the recess, the government has denied these representatives the opportunity to entertain a debate on whether such significant state aid constitutes fair competition before the legislative cement has set. They are being presented with a done deal, rather than a proposal.

I appreciate that Universal have since suggested that they will not begin any construction work until the prayer period is over, which does give the opportunity for the legislation to have the proper time for scrutiny, but legally they are not bound to.

The MP for the constituency where the park is going to be actually raised a point of order about the notification today in parliament because he wasn’t told, but found out it was approved from the Facebook post of the Labour MP in the constituency next door.

He’s supporting of it all anyway but party politics already in play it seems.

 

[BSwiss]

…but found out it was approved from the Facebook post of the Labour MP in the constituency next door.

Sanbrooke in the mud.

 

[Matt N]

I have a question; how is it that when the London Resort wanted a similar development order, they were claiming 18 months to 2 years to get one, yet this seems to have breezed through in a matter of 8 months?

Had Universal done a lot of the work behind the scenes, do we think?

 

[xtpower]

I have a question; how is it that when the London Resort wanted a similar development order, they were claiming 18 months to 2 years to get one, yet this seems to have breezed through in a matter of 8 months?

Had Universal done a lot of the work behind the scenes, do we think?

Universal have been working with both the local government and the National Government since day one. London Resort did none of that 'prep work'.

 

[rob@rar]

Given the SDO status, the development has escalated from a mere local level of importance to a national one. I would imagine that the MPs for Staffordshire Moorlands, Kingston and Surbiton, Windsor, Runnymede and Weybridge, Tamworth, and Blackpool South (among others) would appreciate the full and proper window for proper parliamentary scrutiny, to analyse how the project could affect businesses in their constituencies.

Surely those MPs would have done exactly the same as they would have done if a traditional planning permission application had been pursued: they would have examined the planning application documents and then made their representations to the democratically elected body responsible for the planning decision. Those MPs, and everyone else, had two months to examine the extremely detailed planning application and make their representations to the government, it wasn’t difficult, I submitted a few comments. There has been no shortage of engagement between Universal and local and national governments, as I’m sure you’re aware of. It might be an unusual planning process, but due process has been followed within well established legislation. There’s no democratic deficit, IMO.

 

[SeeSharpy]

Wonder when the Bedford Landgrab for Hotels / Shops / Restaurants etc will start.

 

[rob@rar]

I have a question; how is it that when the London Resort wanted a similar development order, they were claiming 18 months to 2 years to get one, yet this seems to have breezed through in a matter of 8 months?

Had Universal done a lot of the work behind the scenes, do we think?

They didn't follow a Special Development Order process, their proposal was considered by the Planning Inspectorate as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (which it didn't actually qualify as). That's a much slower process. And the London Resort never really did a lot of work on detailed plans as they never had any money. Compare that to Universal who spend a quarter of a billion dollars out of the gate, and then continued to do extensive work behind the scenes.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Surely those MPs would have done exactly the same as they would have done if a traditional planning permission application had been pursued: they would have examined the planning application documents and then made their representations to the democratically elected body responsible for the planning decision. Those MPs, and everyone else, had two months to examine the extremely detailed planning application and make their representations to the government, it wasn’t difficult, I submitted a few comments. There has been no shortage of engagement between Universal and local and national governments, as I’m sure you’re aware of. It might be an unusual planning process, but due process has been followed within well established legislation. There’s no democratic deficit, IMO.

I concede that in a traditional planning sense you are correct. The opportunity to make representations has passed and was open to all.

However, there is a distinct difference between an MP submitting a comment to a consultation (which the Minister can choose to ignore) and an MP exercising their right to annul Secondary Legislation in the House of Commons.

The MPs I listed, those representing the constituencies of major competitors, aren't just interested in the traffic flow around Wixams. They are interested in the precedent of state aid and market distortion. Their mechanism to challenge that isn't a planning objection letter; it is a prayer motion to annul the Statutory Instrument.

Scheduling the made and coming into force dates over the recess means that the government has severely curtailed the effectiveness of that specific parliamentary check. They have ensured the law is active before the challenge can be properly mounted.

Whilst planning due process may have been followed, the parliamentary due process has been rendered performative by the calendar.

 

[rob@rar]

Unlike everyone else, those MPs representing competing theme parks, as well as all the other MPs, now have a procedure available to them to annul the legislation. They had the opportunity to respond to the consultation (which undoubtedly would have been weighted more highly than my comments). They also had the opportunity over the last couple of years to raise this matter on the floor of the Commons and directly with the responsible Ministers over any concerns they had, or indeed any support they wanted to offer. They also have public platforms on which they could have made known any concerns, or support, they have about Universal's proposal while these plans were being developed. None of that is performative, and the government have not conducted the planning application in secret. Suggestions that MPs, or anyone else for that matter, haven't had the opportunity to influence this process simply don't stand scrutiny.

I think it's great that these proposals have been considered in a timely fashion, which isn't something the UK always seems to manage. But just because it's been done quickly, doesn't mean it hasn't received the level of scrutiny it would normally be subject to..

I know you have concerns about the level of public subsidy, but that is a political decision which would never be a part of the planning permission process. It is a decision taken solely by the government of the day. In this particular case initial discussions about public subsidy were undertaken by the previous government, not least when the then Chancellor Jeremy Hunt met with senior Universal executives when he visited them in LA.

 

[rob@rar]

Scheduling the made and coming into force dates over the recess means that the government has severely curtailed the effectiveness of that specific parliamentary check. They have ensured the law is active before the challenge can be properly mounted.

On this specific parliamentary procedural point, Made Negative SIs almost always come in to force before the period of objection expires, there's absolutely nothing unusual about the SI concerning Universal's planning application. It would make no difference to a debate in the Commons on a prayer motion if the SI has come in to force. If it was voted down within the objection period the government would have no alternative but to annul the legislation, and the planning permission would be withdrawn.

For context, annulling a SI as a result of losing a prayer motion almost never happens, just four or fives times since the SI legislation come in to force in 1945. The last time a government lost a SI in the Commons was in 1979.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Unlike everyone else, those MPs representing competing theme parks, as well as all the other MPs, now have a procedure available to them to annul the legislation. They had the opportunity to respond to the consultation (which undoubtedly would have been weighted more highly than my comments). They also had the opportunity over the last couple of years to raise this matter on the floor of the Commons and directly with the responsible Ministers over any concerns they had, or indeed any support they wanted to offer. They also have public platforms on which they could have made known any concerns, or support, they have about Universal's proposal while these plans were being developed. None of that is performative, and the government have not conducted the planning application in secret. Suggestions that MPs, or anyone else for that matter, haven't had the opportunity to influence this process simply don't stand scrutiny.

I think it's great that these proposals have been considered in a timely fashion, which isn't something the UK always seems to manage. But just because it's been done quickly, doesn't mean it hasn't received the level of scrutiny it would normally be subject to..

I know you have concerns about the level of public subsidy, but that is a political decision which would never be a part of the planning permission process. It is a decision taken solely by the government of the day. In this particular case initial discussions about public subsidy were undertaken by the previous government, not least when the then Chancellor Jeremy Hunt met with senior Universal executives when he visited them in LA.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the definition of effective scrutiny.

You view the ability to table a motion to annul a Statutory Instrument after it has come into force as a robust democratic check. I view it as closing the stable door after the Velocicoaster has bolted.

Whilst, MPs technically have the procedure available to them, the political capital required to annul an active piece of legislation, one which has already legally unleashed diggers onto a site in Bedfordshire, is astronomically higher than blocking a proposal. Scheduling this over recess, means that the government has ensured that the path of least resistance is the only path available.

On your point regarding the "timely fashion" of the decision; it is easy to be timely when you mark your own homework.

The reason this has moved faster than other major infrastructure projects isn't because of newfound efficiency in the Civil Service. It is because they opted for an SDO (Ministerial fiat) rather than a DCO (Planning Inspectorate examination). They bypassed the years of examination required for a DCO, and the local democratic accountability of a Town and Country Planning Act application. It is less a case of the system working well, and more a case of the system being bypassed entirely to facilitate a specific outcome.

As for the subsidy, you are quite right that it is a political decision, and one initiated by Jeremy Hunt. It seems that when it comes to courting American media giants, the desperation for "growth" is the one thing that unites both sides of the House.

On this specific parliamentary procedural point, Made Negative SIs almost always come in to force before the period of objection expires, there's absolutely nothing unusual about the SI concerning Universal's planning application. It would make no difference to a debate in the Commons on a prayer motion if the SI has come in to force. If it was voted down within the objection period the government would have no alternative but to annul the legislation, and the planning permission would be withdrawn.

For context, annulling a SI as a result of losing a prayer motion almost never happens, just four or fives times since the SI legislation come in to force in 1945. The last time a government lost a SI in the Commons was in 1979.

You are conflating legal possibility with political reality.

Whilst you are correct that the Negative procedure allows for retrospective annulment, consider the practical chaos of that scenario.

If the SDO comes into force on January 12th, Universal has legal planning permission from that second. They can sign construction contracts, discharge conditions, and commit capital based on that legal certainty.

If Parliament were to then vote to annul the Order in February, they wouldn't just be rejecting a proposal. They would be stripping a multinational investor of a legal right they had already been granted and begun acting upon. That opens the door to compensation claims, judicial reviews of the annulment, and a diplomatic incident regarding investor confidence.

The government knows this. They know that MPs are far less likely to vote against a project that is already "live" because the consequences of unscrambling the egg are significantly messier than stopping it from being cracked in the first place.

Allowing the SDO to come into force before the debate can be had raises the stakes of objection from "political disagreement" to "commercial disaster". That is why the timing matters.

 

[Osaka12]

I have officially just eaten my red and white hat!! (Cat in the hat). Let's goooooo Universal! Get employing, building infrastructure and inviting tourists in to be happy!! Come on!!

 

[QTXAdsy]

Off topic @GooseOnTheLoose but with all your notes on how things work from planning permission and such which is all detailed from what you've all said, I want you as my lawyer haha!

 

[rob@rar]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the definition of effective scrutiny.

Yes, I think that's true. My final point, there is nothing unusual about the timetable for this SI, it's the same as the majority of Made Negative SIs. If the Opposition wanted to challenge the government I think it would make not one jot of difference that the SI had come in to force, nor if diggers were already digging.