Universal Studios Bedford: Whitehall sets out safeguards for resort complex

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) yesterday (Thursday) published the administrative arrangements designed to ensure a fair, open, and impartial decision-making process for Universal Destinations and Experiences’ proposed Entertainment Resort Complex in Kempston Hardwick.

The core of these arrangements addresses the challenge presented by the involvement of several government departments in supporting the promoter to advance the development.

These include the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS), responsible for the visitor economy; the Office for Investment (OfI), which aims to attract investment into the UK; the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), supporting DCMS and OfI; and the Department for Transport (DfT), which has provided pre-proposal advice and supports the promoter on transport options.

To uphold objectivity, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (SSHCLG) has officially recused herself from planning decision-making regarding the Proposal due to a “potential or perceived conflict of interest”.

Responsibility for these crucial planning decisions has been delegated to the minister for housing and planning, who will be referred to as the ‘planning minister’.

This delegation is a direct measure to ensure functional separation, aligning with Regulation 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, which mandates that duties are performed objectively and without conflicts of interest.

Under the new guidelines, ministers and officials from DCMS, OfI, DBT, and DfT with any role in promoting or assisting the development are explicitly excluded from the planning decision-making process.

This broad exclusion extends to senior figures such as the secretary of states for culture, media and sport, for transport, for business and trade, and for investment.

Also included are their private offices, permanent secretaries, and specific project and policy directors and teams.

Only a controlled group of individuals within MHCLG are authorised to be involved in the planning decision-making.

This group includes the planning minister, the director general for regeneration, housing and planning, the chief planner, the deputy director for Project Nectarine [the development], the deputy director for planning casework, and officials within the Planning Response Unit (PRU) and Planning Casework Unit (PCU) Corporate Team.

Legal advisors from the Government Legal Department and Dentons UK and Middle East LLP are also part of this restricted advisory team.

The arrangements further detail strict protocols for information handling and ministerial engagement.

For example, the planning minister will not attend meetings where the Proposal is discussed with departments or individuals involved in its promotion or assistance.

Should the proposal arise in other meetings concerning wider MHCLG policy, the planning minister and relevant officials will recuse themselves from that discussion.

Information related to the planning merits and decision-making within MHCLG is restricted to authorised personnel to preserve this essential functional separation, with clear markings on documents and restricted access on shared file spaces.

While the Ministry has confirmed that while its Planning Response Unit (PRU) provided early pre-proposal advice to the Promoter, this advice was explicitly stated as not a formal decision and was without prejudice to the final consideration of the Proposal.

During this pre-application phase, PRU was prohibited from discussing the merits of the proposed development.

These administrative safeguards are designed to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the UK’s planning system for this significant national project.