If
DfT» genuinely are making granting the
DCO▸ conditional on full funding being in place, I think they may have got the law wrong.
There was a funding statement in the application, which was considered by the ExA. But this was a requirement only for the compulsory land acquisitions, and for no other reason. Thats is made clear in the ExA's
final recommendations, in
the funding statement itself, and even in the document index for the project.
The funding statement explains its existence by:
This statement explains the current and future funding position for MetroWest Phase 1 as required by Regulation 5(2)(h) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009.
1.2 This statement also explains the background to and sources of funding for MetroWest Phase 1 and explains why the Applicant is satisfied that funding will be available to:
•meet all liabilities for land assembly; and
•allow the DCO Scheme (and the wider MetroWest Phase 1 scheme) to beconstructed
as required by paragraphs 9, 17 and 18 of the Guidance entitled "Planning Act 2008: Procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land", dated 3 September 2013 (CA Guidance). In preparing this Statement the Applicant has had full regard to the CA Guidance.
Regulation 5(2)(h) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 says:
(h)if the proposed order would authorise the compulsory acquisition of land or an interest in land or right over land, a statement of reasons and a statement to indicate how an order that contains the authorisation of compulsory acquisition is proposed to be funded;
Paragraphs 9, 17 and 18 of the Guidance entitled "Planning Act 2008: Procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land", dated 3 September 2013 (CA Guidance) say:
9.
The applicant must have a clear idea of how they intend to use the land which it is proposed to acquire. They should also be able to demonstrate that there is a reasonable prospect of the requisite funds for acquisition becoming available. Otherwise, it will be difficult to show conclusively that the compulsory acquisition of land meets the two conditions in section 122 (see paragraphs 11-13 below).
17.
Any application for a consent order authorising compulsory acquisition must be accompanied by a statement explaining how it will be funded. This statement should provide as much information as possible about the resource implications of both acquiring the land and implementing the project for which the land is required. It may be that the project is not intended to be independently financially viable, or that the details cannot be finalised until there is certainty about the assembly of the necessary land. In such instances, the applicant should provide an indication of how any potential shortfalls are intended to be met. This should include the degree to which other bodies (public or private sector) have agreed to make financial contributions or to underwrite the scheme, and on what basis such contributions or underwriting is to be made.
18.
The timing of the availability of the funding is also likely to be a relevant factor. Regulation 3(2) of the Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010 allows for five years within which any notice to treat must be served, beginning on the date on which the order granting development consent is made, though the Secretary of State does have the discretion to make a different provision in an order granting development consent. Applicants should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the compulsory acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.
Note that the there is no requirement to demonstrate funding is in place for the full development cost. The compulsory acquisitions are given by the ExA as costing £5M, out of more than £100M in total. You'd have thought that even North Somerset's credit was good for that amount.
But then, if you read what's said on the Inspectorate's project page, they are asking NSDC for yet more details about something (not yet specified), and there will be responses following that.