Re: Specific Consultation Bodies - Who do you contact? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Matthew When I first read your question back in October, I thought "Great, somebody else has asked a question that's been troubling me for a long time - I look forward to reading the responses". However, 2 months have gone by and nobody has responded. There's a message here - nobody really knows the answer to the question. We all muddle along notifying bodies as best as we can. I recently tried to get the correct postal and/or email address for a company responsible for distributing electricity in my local planning authority area (because the company we had previously notified had been taken-over/reorganised), but it was impossible. They had lots of different postal addresses, "customer contact" email addresses etc, but when I contacted them to explain about LDF consultations, I drew a blank. In my opinion, if CLG really wants to help LPAs to improve their plan-making, they could step in here. They should instruct all the bodies caught by the descriptive terms given in the Regulations to notify every LPA within the geographic area that they operate in, of the postal and/or email adress to which statutory LDF consultations should be sent. In that way, the onus would be placed on those bodies to overcome this little problem, rather than every LPA in the country having to struggle with tracking down the correct companies and the correct addresses. Come on PAS, can you try to influence CLG on this one!

I always like a challenge, but I'm doubtful you'll get what you're after. Local government will try to respond to new statutory duties but forcing electricity suppliers to get involved by fining them if they don't ? Doesn't sound like an idea with legs. So, to turn your post on its head I would suggest we need to find a way of explaining to notifying bodies what's in it for them. If we say "your shareholders should spend money helping us make a better plan" then we can expect minimum return. Instead, if we can set out why getting involved in the plan-making process saves time / money / risk then we might have a chance. Is there a killer argument here ?

The PAS offering above appears to have been to some other post than the one from Mr Heath-Brown, who does not as far as I can see suggest that notifying bodies be fined for non-cooperation. More importantly though Richard completely misses the critical point - which is the mind-numbing and ultimately futile task of tracking down contact details and addresses. If we had those then maybe we could try trotting out the patronising 'killer argument', but for the time being many of us are just whistling in the wind.

It's a badly worded requirement. At one level anyone who has a phone or computer in the District has electronic communications apparatus. Going through MOA is the obvious approach. The main broadcasters are easily identifiable as are the Police and Emergency Services and the MOD but what about small local broadcasters, hospital, school and university radio, internet radio stations or even CB radio enthusiasts. Just one of a million examples of how whoever designed the LDF system failed to think through the practicalities or listen to practitioners who might have been able to help.

It would be very useful if someone was able to maintain a register of such 'statutory undertakers', with email and postal addresses, but no-one seems willing to do so, perhaps worrying that they may be at fault if the list is incomplete and it is then relied upon. I've done a little digging and the Ofcom website has a list of directions it has issued under s106 of the 1989 Act here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/policy/electronic-comm-code/106-directions/actual/grants/ Not sure how up to date it is. On gas and electricity suppliers, a useful guide is the practice ot the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which has to consult the same bodies on nationally significant infrastructure projects. The IPC interprets the last two categories to include the following companies: Gas licence holders British Gas Pipelines Limited Energetics Electricity Limited Energetics Gas Limited ES Pipelines Ltd ESP Connections Ltd ESP Networks Ltd ESP Pipelines Ltd Fulcrum Pipelines Limited Greenpark Energy Transportation Limited GTC Pipelines Limited Independent Pipelines Limited Intoto Utilities Limited LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited National Grid Gas Plc (NTS) National Grid Gas Plc (RDN) Northern Gas Networks Limited Quadrant Pipelines Limited Scotland Gas Networks Plc Southern Gas Networks Plc SP Gas Transportation Cockenzie Limited SP Gas Transportation Hatfield Limited SSE Pipelines Ltd The Gas Transportation Company Limited Utility Grid Installations Limited Electricity licence holders Wales and West Utilities Ltd ECG (Distribution) Limited UK Power Networks (IDNO) Limited Electricity North West Limited Energetics Electricity Limited ESP Electricity Limited Independent Power Networks Limited The Electricity Network Company Limited National Grid It has to be said that the IPC takes a fairly precautionary approach (i.e. it tends to include rather than exclude), and many of these undertakers reply to say that they have no equipment near the project in question when consulted upon it. Hope that helps Angus Walker

Thanks, Angus. @Mike: Fair enough to call me out- I was even more tangential than usual. This is a risk when someone posts a question that neatly illustrates some of the more general thinking we might be doing at PAS. The point I was attempting to make is simply this: - in the old days, when faced with a plan-making process difficulty our response would be "improve the process" - now, when faced with a process difficulty, our initial response is "cease" (unless there is value) The fact that you are struggling with poorly framed regs attempting to involve people who don't want to be involved *is* something PAS can attempt to do something about - if this really is the collective will of you practitioners. And our starting point would be "cease".

I would like to 'cease' doing this, having recieved another tranche of 'please stop telling us about your planning document' letters/emails. This experience has now been extended to Duty to Cooperate bodies and their lack of awareness about the requirements in the new legislation and regulations...

I eventually found a list of the # any person to whom the electronic communications code applies by virtue of a direction given under Section 106 (3)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 - but yes not easy to slim down to a list - and how do we know who/what is in our area if they haven't contacted us? We do our best, and those organisation's rarely send us anything back anyway..however, for the infrastructure work we do go out of our way to reach them, and have face to face conversation's with them. I have always thought the 'do our best' approach for consultation on documents which they might not be interested in is the best approach, but I can understand people wanting PAS to find a list...wouldn't they need to do that for each region though...and keep it reguarly updated? Maybe in the next Government!

After trying to find a definitive answer myself, I stumbled across the Energy Networks Association (http://www.energynetworks.org/) which does provide some useful mapping and contact information for gas and electricity distribution and transmission. This is a useful link - http://www.energynetworks.org/info/faqs/who-is-my-network-operator.html

Has everyone spotted the latest change to specific consultation bodies (regarding health)? It's buried away in the succinctly titled "The National Treatment Agency (Abolition) and the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2013" - S.I. 2013 No 235. Basically, it removes the Primary Care Trusts from the list of specific consultation bodies and replaces them with the new local clinical commissioning goup(s) for the area and the National Health Service Commissioning Board (i.e. NHS England). It makes a similar change regarding Duty to Co-operate bodies and consultation bodies for neighbourhood planning. The need to consult with the clinical commissioning group covering the area of the local plan (or neighbourhood plan) makes good sense, but I just wonder how the National Health Service Commissioning Board is going to react when it gets inundated with consultations from every LPA in England that is preparing a plan, and (in due course) parish councils and neighbourhood forums preparing neighbourhood plans and orders. As far as I can see from their website, there is just one postal address (in Redditch) and one email address, so those are the ones we will all use!