On the subject of what needs a
DCO▸ -
Currently this is as defined in the Planning Act 2008 c.29 section 25:
25 Railways
(1)Construction of a railway is within section 14(1)(k) only if—
(a)the railway will (when constructed) be wholly in England,
(b)the railway will (when constructed) be part of a network operated by an approved operator, and
(c)the construction of the railway is not permitted development.
(2)Alteration of a railway is within section 14(1)(k) only if—
(a)the part of the railway to be altered is wholly in England,
(b)the railway is part of a network operated by an approved operator, and
(c)the alteration of the railway is not permitted development.
(3)Construction or alteration of a railway is not within section 14(1)(k) to the extent that the railway forms part (or will when constructed form part) of a rail freight interchange
etc...
That means that anything not covered by permitted development needs a DCO - irrespective of length and whether it's new or an alteration (though that is usually permitted development).
In 2013,
DfT» proposed to amend that so that smaller rail (and road) projects could use ther TWA route again. I found
an impact assessment of the amendment, but nothing to say why it never happened, while several other changes did. This was the issue:
What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?
The definitions of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) in the Planning Act 2008 are insufficiently clear and too widely drafted. A consequence is that most local authority road schemes which connect with the Strategic Road Network, some small Network Rail projects and minor works, and all Highways Agency schemes currently fall within the definition of NSIPs regardless of their scale or scope. These requirements place disproportionate costs and timescales on promoters and give rise to uncertainty in the development process. These problems mean project efficiency is sub-optimal. As the definitions of NSIPs are set in primary legislation, the definition can only be changed by drafting an amending set of regulations.
The proposal would introduce new thresholds for DCOs to be compulsory:
The threshold for railway schemes will be set so that the construction or alteration of the railway will only require authorisation under the Act where it consists of or includes the construction or alteration of more than 2 continuous route kilometres of railway track (whether this consists of a single or multiple pathways) outside existing operational land.
This would mean that development not including railway track (such as station platforms, bridges etc) or being or including less than 2 continuous route kilometres of track would not require authorisation by a Development Consent Order. Development under permitted development rights will continue to be outside the Planning Act regime.
That would mean that the Ipswich Chord, for example (1.4 km of new double-track route) would no longer need a DCO. But it appears to have been dropped within a few months, for some reason.
