Planning Bill

Public Bill Committee, 5 February 2008.

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

Clause 172

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move amendment No. 589, in clause 172, page 97, line 10, after ‘obligations)’, insert ‘subject to the requirements that—

(i) in any development where a contribution to affordable housing is secured by the charging authority, such contribution is calculated without regard to such CIL as may be payable;

(ii) in cases where sub-paragraph (i) applies, the payment of CIL may be reduced if the return on the investment in the development as a whole can be shown by the applicant to fall below a specified threshold; and

(iii) the method for calculating that threshold and the level of residual CIL payment referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) shall be specified in CIL regulations;’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 617, in clause 172, page 97, line 14, after ‘CIL’, insert

‘, and about how to ensure that developers do not pay for the same infrastructure under two different powers’.

No. 610, in clause 172, page 97, line 14, at end add—

‘(3) Powers under section 106 of TCPA 1990 and section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 shall not be exercised to secure obligations to pay for and contribute towards infrastructure of a class included within any CIL calculation except—

(a) where the developer has elected to off-set an element of CIL liability against a section 106 agreement, provided for under section 168(4), or

(b) where the infrastructure is needed to access the site bound by the obligation and the need for that infrastructure is wholly or mainly a consequence of the development site.’.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, as we continue our deliberations into the final straight.

The amendments tabled in my name are fairly straightforward. We touched on whether the affordable proportion of housing developments should be subject to community infrastructure levy in earlier debates. This is a related but separate matter.

Gains have been made in affordable housing and in local authorities strengthening their arm in negotiations with developers; they are getting better at it and securing more affordable housing as part of delivery. We do not want to see a conflict between CIL and the affordable housing element of a scheme, in terms of what the developer can afford to fund.

If there is such a conflict, the amendment seeks to ensure that the affordable housing element is handled first, so that as much affordable housing is delivered as possible, and the CIL element is considered after that. I hope that the Minister will support that principle. He might tell me that that is fine, and that as far as he is concerned the Bill will do that anyway, but I will be interested to hear his justification for that.

The amendment is therefore aimed at securing that progress towards achieving the affordable housing rate that we all want, to ensure that we at least begin to tackle the country’s affordable housing crisis.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I can pretty quickly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. He might recall that, on Thursday, on the back of a Government amendment, the Committee discussed the nature of affordable housing.

Ultimately, one of the principal drivers of the levy is to create a way in which we can support and unlock housing growth, rather than hold it back or prevent it. That was the reason that, last Thursday, we introduced the Government amendment that would allow infrastructure to have an incorporated definition of affordable housing. However, I also made it clear that the Government intend that affordable housing will continue to be secured through agreements, rather than through the obligation process and the levy. That is our preferred way of operating. Clearly, it makes sense to have that back-stop, should we require it, if the fears of some that affordable housing might be choked off or reduced as a result of the levy are realised.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

May I briefly clarify one point? Obviously, we are entering a period of negotiations as to how CIL will work and be constituted, but it is not clear to me what powers are available to individual local authorities in that regard. For example, perhaps years in advance of a negotiation, local authorities might have set what CIL means to them, including its level and the types of infrastructure that it would fund. If they were at risk of not delivering through a separate section 106 agreement, would they then able to revisit it, to ensure the affordable housing element? If the benefit of CIL is that it is clear to all developers in the local authority in advance what the levy will be, how could they vary it in an individual circumstance if the section 106 negotiations were not delivering the affordable housing element?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

If the hon. Gentleman and others have further concerns about this matter, they would be properly dealt with when we move from the primary legislation to the process of production and the settling of charging schedules. However, he has registered his concerns clearly this morning and I have taken note of them.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I apologise for being slightly wrong-footed, but I was expecting another group of amendments to be called before this one. My concerns are very similar to those of the hon. Member for North Cornwall. However, mine go a little further than just affordable housing. I am concerned about ensuring that section 106 agreements can continue more or less as they are, not just for affordable housing, but in other areas because of the impact that the community infrastructure levy could have on the willingness of developers to contribute to section 106 agreements.

Sometimes, a properly agreed and managed section 106 agreement will be more effective for local communities than CIL. If there is a real need for something in a local community, a section 106 agreement might be more acceptable to that community than an infrastructure levy that is used to develop infrastructure outside the community that is not of immediate benefit to it. Amendment No. 610 would deal with concerns of that nature. If the Minister could reassure us on those points, I would be grateful.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I think that I can reassure the hon. Lady in two areas. First, I will reflect on her further concerns about the interaction between section 106 agreements and CIL. There is an implicit flex in the intention of the amendment that would make the levy reflect contributions to affordable housing. She will appreciate that there is difficulty in that because it would take us back to one of the principal criticisms of the planning gain supplement, with its site-specific arguments and evaluations. To adjust levy liability for individual developments to reflect the level of affordable housing would take us into the territory of greater uncertainty, lengthy negotiations and inevitable disputes—particularly under the terms of the amendment—over rates of return on investment and how to define and establish such matters.

Secondly, I understand the hon. Lady’s concern that developers should not pay twice for infrastructure, through section 106 agreements and through the levy. Does that issue underpin her concerns?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

The impact could be that developers pay twice, but my concern is about which method has primacy. If a local community wants a health centre more than it wants the replacement of a road junction, could it insist on the use of section 106 rather than CIL to ensure that it gets the health centre?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I think that the hon. Lady will find the document that we published nearly two weeks ago helpful on this matter, particularly paragraphs 64 to 66. Essentially, we suggest that section 106 agreements are appropriate in three areas: on technical matters such as restrictions on the use of land; on site-specific impacts, which are prerequisites for planning permission; and on affordable housing. Those are the matters to which section 106 agreements are best suited.

Amendment No. 610 would establish a boundary between section 106 agreements and the levy by using classes of infrastructure, whereby local planning authorities could seek funding for certain types of infrastructure from only one source: either from section 106 agreements or from the levy. The associated amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to provide guidance on how that might work.

In our discussion paper, we specifically asked what approach should be taken to that question, which I hope reassures the hon. Lady and members of the Committee that we are working for the best solution. Through the discussion document, I want to seek views and then formally consult. Those are the two stages that I intend to go through on that. In fact, the document floats an option that is stronger than guidance: a statutory boundary between the two. That might not be the answer, but it is one of the options that we have flagged up in the discussion document, and that underlines the importance of the area.

Given that I have tried to explain how important that set of concerns is, how seriously we are taking it and the work that we have got in train to sort out the best solution, I hope that the hon. Members who tabled the amendments will feel that they have been useful probing amendments and will not press them to a vote.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. My hon. Friend the Minister was just dealing with amendment No. 617, which stands in my name. Certainly, the issue raised is in the minds of organisations such as the British Property Federation. In a debate last week, I asked whether a developer who paid for affordable housing on a particular site under section 106—negotiable with the local authority, as all section 106 agreements are—would be subject at the same time to CIL, particularly if CIL was on a fairly rigid formula. That relates to some of our discussions last week on how to measure CIL, and I accept that there are still a lot of discussions and negotiations to be had on whether it is a rigid formula.

A developer could come along who wants to negotiate 106 but feels that, despite giving away more on 106, he will still end up paying the same amount of CIL. Alternatively, will CIL, in practice, be more of a negotiation between the developer and the local authority? Although I accept that it would reduce the certainty that developers look for in some cases, it might also allow precisely that bit of leeway for a developer to come along and ask, “Well, I would like a little more work on highways on site, but will agreeing to that under 106 reduce the CIL I pay, or will CIL be fixed in any case? Should I really give nothing away on 106 because I will not get the benefit when CIL is calculated?” Will the Minister assure me that there is still room for negotiation between the various parties that he and his officials are talking to before a final scheme is determined?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I shall not go over all the points that I made before my hon. Friend joined us, but the short answer is that there is plenty of scope and a process for detailed further discussion. I remind him, however, as we have said at several stages of our discussions, that our principal intent is to set out the levy in a charging schedule and, where possible, to avoid uncertainty, site-specific negotiation and a lack of predictability and openness about the process, as in the situation that he cited. In such a situation, there could be disputes about the right and realistic expectation of a developer’s contribution on a site-by-site basis. In relation to his concerns, I am anxious that we are not dragged back to that sort of situation.

Clearly, there is plenty of discussion still to be had on how the proposal might work in practice, but my hon. Friend generally underlines the case that I made to the Committee last week for affordable housing principally being best suited to 106 agreements and not to specification as an eligible type of infrastructure that could be paid for under the levy. We made the amendment last week as a back-stop. If the level of affordable housing that the country badly needs, and that the Government badly want to see, starts to dry up as a result of the proposal, we would have the capacity in primary legislation to designate affordable housing as an allowable form of infrastructure to be supported by the levy. That is not our intention, however, as we believe that affordable housing is, as now, best dealt with through section 106 agreements.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe has hit on the point that I was trying to make, although not very clearly or eloquently, in my intervention on the Minister about the conflict between a process of negotiation under 106 and something that is fixed in advance. One of the benefits of CIL is that it is transparent. Everyone will know what is expected of them before they bring their development to the table. If a problem comes to light in relation to the implementation of CIL, that will impact on negotiations under 106.

While I am pleased to hear that CIL can be revisited to take account of the amendment we discussed last week, it would be too late for many developments that might already have taken place. As I have mentioned previously, I have 70 parishes in my constituency, and some are very small—if one development has happened, that will be it for the next 10 years. That is the cause of my concern. I will not press the amendment to a vote but further examination is needed so that we do not lock the stable door after the horse has bolted and lose out on an opportunity to get affordable housing in some areas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Abolition of planning contributions

‘Sections 46 (planning contribution), 47 (planning contribution: regulations), and 48 (planning contribution: Wales) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 are omitted.’.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

This will be brief as the new clause is intended to elicit information from the Minister. Clause 172 is commonsensical and we do not have any problems with it, but the new clause relates to planning contributions under the 2004 Act. Given that we are talking about CIL and section 106, we would be grateful if the Minister could advise us on the role of planning contributions under that Act. We might have a third stream of contribution that could clobber developers, particular in a market where land properties and values are going down, and it would make it increasingly difficult to get the developments that he is looking forward to seeing.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I am glad that the hon. Lady sees the clause as commonsensical.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Well, given—

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Shall we leave it at that?

Given that the planning contribution system was designed to replace section 106, the repeal was not included in the 2004 Act. However, now that we are moving to introduce the levy, I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady’s argument. I will look further at her proposal and return to the matter on Report.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to Report, because we can chalk that up as the No. 1 possibility.

Clause 174

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move amendment No. 577, in clause 174, page 97, leave out lines 36 and 37.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 578, in clause 174, page 98, line 11, leave out paragraph (e).

No. 579, in clause 174, page 98, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I confess that I may be thinking more parochially about this clause than others, as it defines how Crown land is to be interpreted in the Bill. We have already discussed Crown land exemptions and I accept that there are occasions when such land is vital to the nation.

It is no reflection on the present Duke of Cornwall, for whom I have the utmost regard, but the history of the Duchy is that at times it seeks to define itself in terms of its constitutional role. People may not be familiar with the constitutional peculiarities of the Duchy of Cornwall. Various provisions apply to the foreshore, mineral rights and so on, and if one dies intestate in Cornwall the estate goes not to the Crown but to the Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy has a constitutional significance that it has defended through the courts.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The estate goes to the Duchy if a person without relatives dies intestate.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that piece of legal education as I am obviously sadly lacking in that respect.

The Duchy has a constitutional position that at times it seeks to emphasise and at other times it seeks not to do so and defines itself as a private estate. It cannot have it both ways. If it is a private estate, and I would say that it is because it exists to supply an income for the heir to the throne, why is it exempt from provisions to which other citizens must have regard?

I understand the argument for the Crown’s position in respect of Government land used, for example, by the Ministry of Defence, but I struggle to see why Duchy of Cornwall farms should be treated any differently from other farms, such as county council-tenanted farms. I hastily backtrack and say that the amendment implies no criticism of the current incumbent; it seeks to discover how the Government view the Duchy of Cornwall and why it is included with other Crown land, which is more understandable in this context. What is the Government’s opinion on the matter?

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

It is nice to be back and serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley, as we head towards the twilight phase of the Committee sittings.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

We are not going that way.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

Who knows?

I will not accuse the hon. Gentleman of tabling a republican amendment, but clause 173, which we skipped over, applies the Bill specifically to the Crown, including the Duchy. He raised concerns about the Duchy of Cornwall receiving special treatment under the Bill, but the clause is consistent with the commitment to remove Crown immunity on planning matters implemented by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which amended section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The definition of Crown land, which included land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, was unchanged. It is consistent with other legislation that applies to the Crown, as all Crown interests are treated the same. It would be improper to treat one interest—in this case, the Duchy of Cornwall— differently from another, as he suggested we do.

The drafting reflects the special position of the sovereign and her heirs in our constitution. That is the nub of it, which is where the hon. Gentleman’s complications and difficulties arise. That special place within our constitution is written into every measure, and it is difficult to start unpicking it in any Bill, including this one.

As I said, the Bill applies to the Crown, but whereas in part 8 enforcement would refer to an appellant, in this case it would refer to an individual who is appointed by the heirs to the Crown. It is still relevant but at the same time it has to be written in a way that observes our constitution. The Crown, as Head of State, cannot enforce measures on the Crown, which is why the provisions are so drafted. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I listened with interest to what the Minister said. There is not much justification for the proposal, except that it is what has always been done, but that is a debate for another time and place so I will not detain the Committee. The answer to my question was not forthcoming, but on the basis that I may wish to pursue the issue elsewhere, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 176

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move amendment No. 580, in clause 176, page 98, line 44, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 581, in clause 176, page 98, line 44, leave out ‘either’.

No. 582, in clause 176, page 99, line 2, at end insert ‘and’.

No. 583, in clause 176, page 99, line 5, at end insert ‘and’.

No. 584, in clause 176, page 99, line 9, at end insert—

‘(1A) A notice or other document required or authorised to be served or given under this Act may additionally be served by the following methods—’.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

My concern is that the clause as drafted refers to notice being given “either” and then lists a number of ways in which that can be done. For example, it mentions service using electronic communications. Notices might be issued solely by that means, and therefore would not reach certain people, as we have discussed. Also, people who have an interest in, or own, land but do not reside there and do not visit it on a frequent basis may not see notices posted there.

The amendment would encourage the Government to ensure that all notices are delivered by as many means as possible so that people have ample opportunity to consider matters that may be relevant to them and to their interests. I hope that they will accept the amendment—I suspect that they will not—or reassure me on the record that the spirit of the Bill is that every opportunity will be taken to contact people to ensure that they have the relevant information and can act accordingly, in full knowledge of what is being proposed.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

The hon. Gentleman wishes to amend the clause to ensure that any person on whom a notice is served will receive it in at least three different ways. That would be excessive and rather inflexible, and we are trying to introduce a quicker and more flexible system. However, I do not disagree that it is important that a notice is received by the person on whom it is served and the clause has been constructed to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility for the person serving the notice to choose the best way of doing so. For instance, a person may be domiciled abroad, but have an interest in a particular parcel of land. That would make hand delivery difficult and expensive. In such situations, it would not be inconceivable that a person would prefer to receive information via e-mail, as he suggests. Requiring a person to serve a notice multiple times would, therefore, make it extremely difficult for such people to comply with the legislative requirement, if, for example, it was difficult to deliver it by hand. That is not to mention the excessive related costs.

Taking that on board and the fact that, if a person has registered an interest in an application, they would provide an address to which they would wish correspondence to be sent, which could be an electronic or a postal address, whether domestic or abroad, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am slightly suspicious of the words “speed” and flexibility”. It is fairly subjective to talk of something being quick and flexible, and it might be from the point of view of someone who wants an application to go forward.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I hope that it will reassure the hon. Gentleman when I tell him that, if a person is deliberately excluded, which is probably his underlying concern, they would also be able to challenge the IPC’s decisions under the Bill.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

That is a key point, which I am grateful to the Minister for making. As long as regard will be given to some form of proof that every opportunity has been taken to notify an interested person of a relevant application, and that they have the opportunity to participate in that application’s progress at every stage, I am reassured. However, I want to put it on the record once again that if someone is not present in the area, they may not see local advertising or even be aware that something is taking place. It is key that every method is pursued to ensure that everyone with an interest in that application has the opportunity to be consulted.

I will not seek to press the amendment to a vote. But it is an important point, as we are looking to changes in the planning system, that any consultation or interaction with the various interested parties must be opened and done in as thorough a way as possible. I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 182

Clause 183

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

As one of only two Scottish voices on the Committee, I would like to discuss clause 183 and, with your permission, Mr. Illsley, clause 187. If I read the Bill correctly, both clauses refer to powers being handed to Scotland. If we discuss both clauses now, we will not have to reiterate the arguments when we get to clause 187. The clause is entitled “Application of Act to Scotland”. Clause 187 is entitled “Extent”, and lists those provisions that apply to England and Wales and those that apply to Scotland, in a number of areas.

Scotland has devolved power over planning issues, but the UK retains its power over issues such as energy policy. The clause refers to various parts of the Bill under which there are modifications for Scotland. It omits provisions relating to various development consent orders, in particular paragraphs (e) and (f) of clause 105(4), which relate to electricity generation. The question is whether that affects merely the planning implications of the development consent orders or whether it will allow the Scottish Parliament to take authority over the provision and, hence, the policy. By allowing the clauses to pass, will we allow the Scottish Parliament to take power over the policy for the provision of energy, as opposed to the planning?

The Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the previous coalition that ran the Scottish Parliament have all set their faces against rebuilding nuclear power stations on the sites in Scotland where there is already planning consent. Scotland has historically been a net exporter of power to England. If those three nuclear power stations are not rebuilt, England and Wales will start being a net exporter of power to Scotland. That would be a shift in policy. Has this UK Parliament agreed that there should be such a shift or are we, under the Bill, allowing that shift in energy policy to be made?

If my reading of clause 187 is correct—as I have always said, I am no lawyer—it leaves only pipelines as an issue that is across Scottish and English borders. We understand the need for that provision, but in essence, are we not potentially handing control over pipelines for gas, electricity and water to Scotland? Are we inadvertently doing that by agreeing to these clauses? If the Minister can reassure me that we are not and that we do not have any constitutional arguments over this matter, I will be quite happy not to press my concerns further. If I am left with any concern about the quiet handing over to Scotland of control of UK policy, I will certainly return to the issue on another occasion.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

Clause 183 requires that when considering the Bill’s extent to Scotland, which is only in relation to cross-border oil and gas country pipelines, certain modifications must be made to particular provisions to ensure that they give the proper effect with regard to Scottish legislation. This is a basic clause to reflect the fact that Scotland is a separate jurisdiction from England and Wales. Clause 187 defines how the Bill extends to England, Scotland and Wales.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Yes, Scotland is a separate jurisdiction for planning. It is not a separate jurisdiction for energy policy. I should have thought that pipelines were part of energy policy.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

Neither clause 183 nor clause 187 refer to powers in Scotland. They are specifically related to planning issues. I hope that that helps to clarify the issue for the hon. Lady. I could not make it any clearer than that. Clause 187 has been drafted in such a way as to ensure that the devolution settlement is respected. I commend both clauses to the Committee.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I accept the Minister’s assurance that the provision applies only to planning. On that basis, I will not press the matter to a vote, although we might have to return to it on Report.

Schedule 6

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I beg to move amendment No. 614, in schedule 6, page 129, line 4, column 2, at beginning insert—

‘Section 61A(1).’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 615, in schedule 6, page 129, line 10, at end insert—

‘In Schedule 4A, paragraph 2(4) and (5).’.

No. 611, in clause 188, page 106, line 2, after ‘154,’ insert

‘[local development orders: removal of requirement to implement policies],’.

Government new clause 29—Local development orders: removal of requirement to implement policies.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

Government amendments Nos. 614, 615, 611 and new clause 29 make a change to the requirements for the making by local planning authorities of local development orders. An LDO grants planning permission for the type of development which it specifies. It can apply to a specific site, an area or across the whole of a local authority area. It thereby removes the need to make an application for planning permission, in almost the opposite way to the article 4 direction that we discussed under part 9.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 sets the national baseline for permitted development. The Government have made clear their desire to extend the scope of permitted development generally. However, alongside this aim, Ministers also want to make it easier for permitted development rights to be amended at the local level to reflect local circumstances, either extending them through the use of an LDO or restricting them by the making of an article 4 direction.

The power to make an LDO came into force on 10 May 2006 and as yet no LDOs have been made. There may be a number of reasons for this, including the national reviews of householder permitted development that we have already carried out. However, we believe that other changes can be made that might help streamline the process of making an LDO. One change is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State’s approval before the LDO is made. That mirrors what we also propose for article 4 directions, and we intend to amend secondary legislation to achieve that.

The second change relates to the current restriction whereby a local planning authority can only make an LDO to implement a policy contained in a development plan document, or a local development plan in Wales. We believe that making that a prerequisite can cause unnecessary delay in the making of an LDO, given the time and resources that would be needed to see one adopted in the relevant development plan. As we want to facilitate the use of LDOs, we propose to simplify the process by removing that requirement.

New clause 29(2) therefore removes the requirement, laid out in section 61A of the 1990 Act, that LDOs can only be made to implement policies in a development plan document or local development plan. Subsections (3) and (4) make consequential amendments to the 1990 Act. The existing requirement to consult all those likely to be affected by the making of an LDO and to take into account representations made before it comes into force are sufficient safeguards to ensure the appropriate use of the power. Amendment Nos. 611, 614 and 615 are consequential amendments to the commencement provisions in clause 188 and the repeal provisions in schedule 6.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining new clause 29 and the consequential amendments in greater detail, but will he reassure me on some of the issues that have been raised, particularly by the Campaign to Protect Rural England? He said that the Government have been in negotiations, and I wonder what the outcome of those negotiations with the CPRE have been. It has certainly indicated to me that it believes the clause to be fundamentally flawed because it would prejudge the detailed and controlled development planning process and the public consultation that underlines it. That is, of course, a theme that has emerged from the Opposition Benches throughout our debates. If consultation is curtailed and local people do not feel that they have an adequate opportunity to register their concerns and objections, planning and development will risk not being acceptable to or accepted by local communities.

The CPRE also thinks that that could undermine the “plan, monitor and manage” approach to housing site allocation and release greenfield land for development, which the Opposition are not in favour of. A consequence of that could be that housing is in the wrong place at the wrong time. The CPRE is also concerned about damage to the ability to protect designated landscapes such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which follows on from the previous point.

The CPRE believes that the environmental impact assessment could be made on the basis of inadequate information and would be unable to take account of the likely cumulative effect of development, as we can see when one development follows another, either creeping along roads or extending a village into a town without anyone really wishing it to happen—although they would certainly notice it happen. All of that can be open to our old friend, legal challenge. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure us on all of those points and confirm that the Government are still in consultation with the CPRE and other bodies that will inevitably have similar concerns.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making the point about the CPRE, because it is important that we consult it when taking those steps and, as I understand it, that has been ongoing within the Department. The key thing for her to consider is that the measure is about flexibility and enabling local authorities to use the power as they see fit, through proper consultation at a local level. I do not envisage the threats to greenfield land arising from the way in which local planning authorities make the small-scale changes that we are talking about. I am quite happy to put that on the record. It is important that such things are done through local authorities so that there is democratic accountability.

The Government’s approach is the right way to proceed. Hopefully, we will have continued discussion and consultation with the CPRE and will be able to reassure it. I am happy to give such reassurances on the record. However, we must also provide local government with the flexibility that it has in article 4 directions, where certain planning rights can be taken away to allow for small-scale developments.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, from which I take it that he can assure me that discussions with the CPRE and other bodies with similar concerns will continue. Perhaps the outcome of such discussions will be reflected in amendments on Report.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

The only further thing to add is that there will be a further round of consultation, of which I am sure the CPRE and others will want to be part.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 217, in schedule 6, page 129, line 4, column 2, at beginning insert ‘Section 74(1)(b)’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 218, in schedule 6, page 129, line 4, column 2, at beginning insert ‘Section 101’.

No. 220, in schedule 6, page 129, line 8, at end insert ‘Section 302’.

No. 219, in schedule 6, page 129, line 10, at end insert ‘Schedule 8’.

No. 221, in schedule 6, page 129, line 10, at end insert ‘Schedule 15’.

No. 222, in schedule 6, page 129, line 20, at end insert—

‘Section 43(1) in so far as it relates to section 70B of the TCPA, 43(2), 43(3) in so far as it relates to section 81B of the Listed Buildings Act, and 43(4) in so far as it relates to section 81B.

Sections 45 to 48.

Section 50.’.

No. 223, in schedule 6, page 129, line 21, at end insert—

‘Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007 (c. 2)

The whole Act.’.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

From our point of view, amendment No. 223 is the most important in the group because it would repeal the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007 and take it firmly off the statute book. Throughout our discussions on the community infrastructure levy, we made it clear that while the planning gain supplement remains on the statute book, people will be concerned that at some point the Government will bring it back. Their commitment to CIL is suspect until the 2007 Act is repealed. We fought very hard against that Act while it was going through the House and are concerned that it is still on the statute book. There is a broader philosophical debate that to make CIL work properly, it would be an act of good faith for the Government to repeal PGS. We are therefore helping them down a road that I am sure they want to take.

On amendment No. 217, we do not believe that the Secretary of State needs to make a direction because the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does not otherwise prevent planning permission from being granted that is inconsistent with the development plan. The provision is unnecessary and we recommended its removal.

The amendments are complex and I shall outline the reasons behind them. The revocation of section 101 and schedule 8 of the 1990 Act would remove the power of the Secretary of State to appoint a planning inquiry commission to inquire into proposed development. I referred to this in our earlier debates on the infrastructure planning commission, which, equally, we do not like. The planning inquiry commission was first mentioned in legislation in 1968, but the provision to establish it was never used. The provision was repeated in legislation in 1990, but it was never used. Again, we are trying to get the statute book into better order and wish to repeal the power to establish the planning inquiry commission because it is redundant.

Amendments Nos. 220 to 221 relate to section 302 and schedule 15, for the enforcement against breaches of planning control carried out during the second world war. I do not think that any of us in this room remember the second world war. We can understand potentially why that provision was included when the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 came into force—[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to intervene?

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I will explain in a moment.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I look forward to it.

When the 1947 Act first came into force, obviously there was a need to repair the damage caused by the second world war. Possibly, we have moved on sufficiently and can remove those provisions from the statute book. I look forward to hearing any reasons as to why not.

Amendment No. 222 would repeal various development control provisions in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which have not been brought into force, including those that we originally talked about on planning contributions. Sections 45 and 50 of that Act are relevant.

The amendment would tidy up legislation on the statute book which is not being implemented. I would have thought that it would be a demonstration of good governance by the Government, to which they maintain that they are committed, if they were to clear out some of the redundant provisions in various pieces of legislation. Primarily, we want to see the 2007 Act repealed in full.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

We are dealing with the Banquo’s ghost of the planning-gain supplement. It is a spectre that has flickered in and out of our planning law for many years. It has been tried on a number of occasions and has failed each time, first, because it is a daft idea and, secondly, because the parties that were in opposition then made it clear that they would not put up with it when they got into government. Therefore, everyone has had a good interest in ensuring that it will not work. In fact, the PGS has had a deleterious effect.

My hon. Friend is right in that we should help the Government to clear out the debris in the attic. It is said that the two most painful things that can happen are to be divorced and to have to move house. I am no expert in the former; as to the latter, turning out the attic is the main traumatic event. We would like to help the Government clear out this particular attic.

In the attic, I still think that there is a rule that I must go and practise archery in the churchyard every Sunday afternoon, although no doubt the rules of the Health and Safety Executive would get in the way if I ever attempted to put that into practice. In fact, the executive’s motto seems to be, “Go and find out what they are doing and tell them to stop it.” That is rather like the experience of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, who said in his autobiography that his nanny used to be given instructions by his mother to go and find out what Bernard was doing and tell him to stop it. The Health and Safety Executive has clearly adopted the same motto.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had time to read The Times this morning, which reported that the annual pancake race in Ripon was now off the agenda because of health and safety issues.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I did know about that because Ripon is in my constituency. Apparently, the first reason is that the insurance companies demand a huge amount of money to insure anyone who trips on the cobbles. People have been running on the cobbles in Ripon, as the second oldest incorporated city in Britain, for millennia, without any need for the Health and Safety Executive or an insurance company to intervene. Secondly, the police demand a huge sum to police it. Remembrance day parades are not possible in my constituency now because the police say they are not prepared to deploy the people to—Mr. Illsley, I can see that you are fascinated by this. You may wish to continue the discussion over a cup of something at a later stage. I merely use that example to illuminate the problem with PGS.

When the Minister was at the Treasury he had a certain paternity for the Bill. No doubt he has an attachment to it, having acted as sort of “midhusband” during his time there. The other thing about this wretched measure is that it featured in the Barker report. The Government are prone to commissioning reports and then regarding them as a form of holy writ to which they constantly refer. The Barker report contained some sensible things but some pretty daft things too. The sage of Thaxted did not get it right on every occasion and Kate Barker did not get it right on this one.

The real question is why the provision should remain on the statute book. What do the Government want to do by keeping it? What is the purpose of that? It has been overtaken by a much more sensible measure which, subject to the way it operates, we all agree is a sensible way forward. We do not want this ghost lurking in the woodshed.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I do not want to mix analogies here, but at the public evidence hearing with the Minister, it was not so much Banquo’s ghost, but a sword of Damocles that the Government threatened to hang over us if we did not support CIL. It is retained as a threat.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I suppose that must be the case, but the Government consulted the industry. They have set out in the explanatory document how the levy would work. It lists how the concept of CIL is already functioning in a number of places. For once we have a measure that has been tested and been shown to yield benefits. We do not need to think that CIL is going to fail. It is voluntary and does not need to be applied. Why do we have this embryonic measure in reserve? If the Government are going to keep it, what on earth is it for?

Are the woods of Dunsinane going to march on communities that fail to apply CIL and threaten them with the PGS? I hope that the Minister will say that they have put it there pour encourager les autres, as the French might say. They want to encourage the industry to engage in real consultations about a more sensible way forward, but they have a more sensible way forward. It works and therefore we can put Banquo’s ghost safely back to bed. I hope that the Minister will conspire with us in doing that. Then the Committee can share one heroic achievement.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I am afraid that I cannot promise everything that the right hon. Gentleman would like, even on pancake day in Ripon, and I commiserate with him on that loss.

Amendment No. 217 is specifically about going against one’s own local development plan by sticking a supermarket in an out-of-town location, for example. As things stand, the Secretary of State can call it in. That would not be the case with the amendment. Whether it was deliberate or consequential, I hope that the hon. Lady withdraws it.

Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 would repeal section 101 and schedule 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which provide for the constitution of planning inquiry commissions, as the hon. Lady suggested. I accept that there has never been a planning inquiry commission. Indeed, there is no prospect of one either. I sympathise with the thrust of the amendment, although we would have to check whether any consequential changes were needed before considering it further. As the provision in the 1990 Act is effectively harmless, its removal is not a priority and there are other pressures on parliamentary time.

Amendments Nos. 220 and 221, which hark back to the second world war, would repeal section 302 of the 1990 Act and its associated procedural schedule 15. Section 302 enables local planning authorities to enforce against wartime breaches of planning control by the Crown for five years after the land has been sold, and although we know of only two or three cases in the past 30 years, the provision is not entirely dead. For example, it could have been used as a consequence of the Government’s deciding to build an airfield without planning permission during the war years. It could also have occurred if garages, for example, had been built without permission at the time. However, if a developer were to purchase that land now they may well apply for planning permission on the wider footprint of the area because of that development. The clause allows us enforcement to prevent that from happening for up to five years after the purchase.

Although I accept that the likelihood of any further cases arising is increasingly remote, we should not dismiss the possibility and close the door on potentially legitimate enforcement. The Department had not received any representations on section 302 prior to amendments Nos. 220 and 221 being tabled, which suggests that the continued existence of section 302 is not a significant cause of concern among local authorities or practitioners.

Amendment No. 222 would repeal provisions in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that have yet to come fully into force—section 43(1) in so far as it relates to section 70B of the 1990 Act and section 81B of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990—which allow a local planning authority to decline to determine an application for planning permission, listed building consent or conservation area consent where an identical or similar application is already under consideration.

The practice, known as twin-tracking, is a device sometimes used by developers so that if a planning authority fails to make a decision within the statutory determination period of eight weeks for minor applications and 13 weeks for major applications, they can appeal on one application while leaving the other application to continue to be considered by the local planning authority. We recognise that that can be a waste of local resources, but we have not yet commenced the provision because, as we indicated during the passage of the measure, the power should not come into force until the performance of local planning authorities has improved. Given the significant improvement in their performance in recent years, twin-tracking can only reduce, but we cannot accept the amendments as we want to see a continued improvement in the eight and 13-week targets.

I cannot accept the proposal in amendment No. 222 to repeal section 25 of the 2004 Act. It relates to simplified planning zones and would require them to be identified in regional spatial strategies. As the hon. Lady pointed out, that provision has not been commenced. Repealing the provision has some attractions with regard to tidying up the planning zones, but the amendment is not the most appropriate means of doing so in this case; nor is it the right time to do so, because we are seeking to look more widely at simplified planning zones, their role and relevance now that local authorities can make use of local development orders to achieve the same ends.

To that end, we published a consultation draft of “Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development” in December, which includes a specific question on whether we need a separate policy on simplified planning zones. The consultation period on draft PPS 4 is open until mid-March, and that will allow local authorities, industry and the public an opportunity to give their considered views on the merits of that policy area. It is right and proper that we allow that time before making any decisions on it. To act now would be premature, so I cannot accept the repeal of section 45.

The amendment would also repeal the provisions in the 2004 Act that allow for the creation by regulations of a system of planning contributions. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government mentioned that in connection with new clause 5, which would have the same effect, and we cannot accept the amendment for the reasons that he gave.

The amendment would repeal the provision in section 50 of the 2004 Act and thereby allow a local planning authority, for a limited period of time, to share jurisdiction over the determination of a planning application alongside the Planning Inspectorate in cases where there has been an appeal on the grounds of non-determination. That measure would provide extra flexibility for authorities to decide cases that were originally put to them, which might be helpful when the reason for non-determination might simply be the cyclical nature of Committee meetings, for example. We have not yet implemented that provision because we are engaged in a programme of reform of the appeals system, which we would like to complete before considering any further changes of that sort.

Amendment No. 223 would repeal the planning gain supplement. It is important to recall that the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007 is a short, straightforward, three-section Act that cannot be used to introduce PGS. It only allows certain authorities to incur preparatory expenditure in getting ready for PGS, does not permit the Government to introduce the PGS, and would require new primary legislation, as was made clear during its passage.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

So what is its point?

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I shall come to that.

The Act had nothing to say about the specific policy, nature or operation of PGS, and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Government decided not to introduce the Bill to establish PGS in this parliamentary Session. We have instead made provisions in the Bill which have been well discussed in relation to the community infrastructure levy.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

How much of that expenditure has actually been made?

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

As I said, it is a short, three-section Act, and that is as far as we have got with regard to PGS. There is no need to repeal the preparations Act, as it is only a narrow, preparatory measure designed to ensure the regulation and probity of Government expenditure in accordance with Government accounting rules. It is important that the preparations Act cannot be used to impose PGS, and further primary legislation would be needed to do so. That in itself is a strong enough commitment from the Government, and one that hon. Members should accept. It would require further primary legislation to progress with the PGS.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

The Minister has demonstrated that there is no earthly use for the legislation on the PGS. Nothing can be done with it and nothing has been done because of it. It is there because it is there because it is there. Why not get rid of it? Why should it sit there like a barnacle on the hull of the planning system, having no earthly use, being totally inedible and slowing things down? It is a pointless piece of legislation. The Minister’s only case is that the Government passed it, but it can do nothing. It is sitting there, dead in the water and all that it can do is impede the passing traffic.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

There is a danger of there being a little paranoia on the Opposition Benches about the existence of an Act that requires further primary legislation to go through this House before it takes effect. Hon. Members should accept the Government’s commitments on the PGS. It is not unusual for measures to exist that have gone through the House and have not been withdrawn. That is consistent with many other measures that we have seen, not least those that I talked about when discussing this string of amendments.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

It is surely not a matter of pride for the Government to have legislation on the statute book that they do not expect to implement, that requires other primary legislation for it to be used, that they have not spent any money on and that they are not defending, but replacing. It should be a matter of pride for them to get rid of unnecessary legislation.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Would not a Government obsessed with recycling feel that this legislation should be disposed of in a hygienic manner? The Government seem to be putting it into landfill.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

An advert that I hear from time to time on my car radio says that it is composed of reused soundbites. I am afraid that the Minister sounds like he is recycling his and his Government’s soundbites.

As you have probably gathered, Mr. Illsley, the Opposition cannot understand why it is so difficult for the Government to do anything other than repeal the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007. According to the Government themselves, it is going nowhere and is cluttering the statute book. We wish to see them repeal that Act as an earnest of good intent. To give them time to reflect on that, I hope that I have the support of my hon. Friends in not pressing amendment No. 223 to a vote. However, we will return to this matter on another occasion.

I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that I have put forward for the other amendments. We have received a glimmer of hope on some of them, such as the commitment made by the Minister for Local Government. We will go away and think about them. However, on many of these issues the Government have said, “It is our legislation and we dare not repeal it because it will show that we are weak.” They would actually be strong if they were to repeal things. It would show that they have every intention of cleaning up the statute book.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The Under-Secretary’s last remarks were that it is commonplace to have redundant legislation. Will he give examples of where that has happened, by giving examples not of Acts that have become redundant over time, but of recent pieces of legislation that have been put on the statute book for no earthly reason at all?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I have great sympathy with that request. I, too, would like to see such a list. However, I suspect that the Minister, with the best will in the world, could not produce it off the top of his head, although many of us probably could. Perhaps we can put a request to him that by Report stage he comes back to us with that list. Meanwhile, on the grounds that we will go away and think about these matters, we press the Government to think very clearly about introducing—

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

A confidence-building measure.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

As my right hon. Friend says, the Government should have sufficient confidence in themselves to repeal redundant legislation. That would send a good signal to all of us who feel weighed down by unnecessary legislation. On the grounds that we are giving them the opportunity to do the right thing and on the basis that we can return to these matters on another occasion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 362, in schedule 6, page 129, line 4, column 2, at beginning insert ‘Section 2B(6)(b)’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 363, in schedule 6, page 129, line 10, at end insert—

‘Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c.9)

Sections 74 and 75.

In sections 81A and 81B, subsections (5) and (8).

In section 82F, the words “or conservation area consent”.

In section 91, the words ““conservation area consent” has the meaning given in section 74(1);”.

In Schedule 4, paragraph 4, the words “and 74”.

In Schedule 4, paragraph 6, the words “or conservation area consent”.

In Schedule 4, paragraph 7, the words “74 and 75”.’.

Amendment No. 364, in schedule 6, page 129, line 21, at end insert ‘Section 59(4)(f)’.

New clause 10—Abolition of conservation area consent

‘(1) After section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there is inserted—

“179A Demolition in conservation areas

(1) A person commits an offence if the person executes or causes to be executed any works of demolition of a building in a conservation area which constitute the carrying out of development without the required planning permission.

(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), if a person executing or causing to be executed any works of demolition of a building in a conservation area fails to comply with any condition relating to the demolition works and attached to a planning permission, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) In proceeding for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove the following matters—

(a) that works to the building were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building;

(b) that it was not practicable to secure safety or health or, as the case may be, the preservation of the building by works of repair or works for affording temporary support or shelter;

(c) that the works carried out were limited to the minimum measures immediately necessary; and

(d) that notice in writing justifying in detail the carrying out of works was given to the local planning authority as soon as reasonably practicable.

(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000, or both; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

(5) In determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to the person in consequence of the offence.”

(2) In sections 81A and 81B of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 references to “a relevant consent” or “relevant consent” shall be replaced by “listed building consent”.

(3) In paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 for the words “to 75” there is substituted “to 73”.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make transitional provision consequent upon the abolition of conservation area consent.

(5) The regulations made under subsection (4) may in particular—

(a) make provision in respect of conservation area consents and planning permissions granted before subsection (1) comes into force;

(b) make provision in respect of applications for conservation area consents and planning permission made before subsection (1) comes into force.’.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

New clause 10 is the key, as the other amendments are consequential upon it. I am sure that many of us have encountered constituency cases in which buildings outside listed areas, but which are precious to the community, have been demolished without consent. We are trying to protect those buildings, so that planning permission must be granted to demolish them. Many towns and villages have cherished buildings that are part of the townscape or of the village that people love, which are sometimes demolished without permission.

Sadly, in my constituency there is now only a site where once there was Lavender cottage. I saw it being knocked down on a Saturday morning, which made me suspicious. I got hold of the planning department, but, by the time the bureaucracy had ground into action, the building was unreplaceable. Needless to say, there has subsequently been a planning application for multiple dwelling units on that site. Meanwhile, the street in which the house existed is altered fundamentally because of the demolition. Although I have personal experience of that, I know that I am not alone in wishing that there were greater controls over demolition of buildings. That is why I have tabled the new clause.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I hope that I have some better news for the hon. Lady, although I am resisting new clause 10.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is planning to publish a draft heritage protection Bill in the spring. It will contain provisions to abolish conservation area consent as a separate consent and merge it with planning permission. What does that mean? It is intended that, at the same time as the Bill comes into force, amendments will be made to the demolition direction and the general permitted development order to provide that demolition and partial demolition in a conservation area, to which the hon. Lady alludes, is development and will require planning permission. It will not be permitted development simply to knock down those buildings in conservation areas. We therefore believe that any changes in new clause 10 would be better sited and considered within the DCMS Bill.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but there is more than one form of conservation area. There are local conservation areas as well as nationally recognised ones. Will the provision apply to a local conservation area?

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I apologise to the hon. Lady for not having the details of the draft Bill to hand, but all this discussion will be pertinent to that Bill and to consideration of it in Committee. Rather than rushing to try to include something in this Bill, I hope that she will go away and consider that and take a closer look at what is happening in the legislation proposed by the DCMS.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am grateful to the Minister for those reassurances. We look forward to the DCMS Bill. I hope that that Department will hear what we are saying. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 365, in schedule 6, page 129, line 4, column 2, at beginning insert ‘In section 193(3)(a) the word “and”’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 612 and 613.

Government new clause 30—Appeals: miscellaneous amendments.

New clause 9—Lawful development certificates—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 193(3) (certificates under sections 191 and 192: supplementary provisions), at the end of paragraph (a) “and” shall be omitted, and there shall be inserted after paragraph (b)—

“(c) not to determine an application for a certificate under section 191 or 192 before the end of such period as may be prescribed;

(d) to publicise the application or require the applicant to publicise the application in such manner as may be prescribed;

(e) to take into account in determining such an application such representations, made within such period, as may be prescribed; and

(f) to give to any person whose representations have been taken into account such notice as may be prescribed of their decision.”

(3) In section 195 (appeals against refusal or failure to give decision on application) there shall be inserted after subsection (1)—

“(1A) Any appeal under this section shall be made by notice served within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order.

(1B) The time prescribed for the service of such a notice must not be less than—

(a) 28 days from the date of notification of the decision; or

(b) in the case of an appeal under subsection (1)(b), 28 days from the end of the period prescribed as mentioned in subsection (b) or, as the case may be, the extended period mentioned in that subsection.”.’.

Government new schedule 1—‘Appeals: miscellaneous amendments.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

This is a friendly agreement between us and those on the Government Front Bench because we are trying to do exactly the same thing but are using different formats to do it. If the Minister disagrees with that, I look forward to hearing why, but my reading of the proposals is that the Government are trying to do the same as us.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I congratulate the hon. Lady on wishing to introduce time limits for making an appeal against a local planning authority’s refusal to issue a lawful development certificate, and to set the minimum time limits that may be prescribed for making an appeal. It is gratifying that we are on the same wavelength in that respect. As Opposition Members will be aware, paragraph 3 of new schedule 1 will make similar amendments to section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, together with other changes that I shall come to in a moment. However, we do not agree with the proposed amendments to section 193, because there is no need for those requirements.

As the Committee may be aware, there are two types of lawful development certificate. The first applies where the applicant asks whether development that has taken place is lawful development—essentially, whether it is immune from enforcement action or benefits from permitted development rights. There is no reason for that to receive publicity, because the development already exists, so why would we want to advertise it in a local newspaper or otherwise? Whether the development is or is not lawful is a matter between the applicant and the local planning authority.

In the second case, the applicant asks whether proposed development can be done without planning permission—generally, whether it benefits from permitted development rights. Again, there is no need for publicity, because the development in question by definition will be minor. Requiring publicity for lawful development certificates would be entirely disproportionate. If development does not need planning permission, third parties need not be involved.

If hon. Members are concerned that applicants for lawful development certificates might not be telling the truth, I remind them that the burden of proof is on the applicant. It is therefore for the applicant to back up their claim—for example, by saying that the development in question was undertaken so long ago that it is immune from enforcement action. An example might be an extension to a house that was put up several years ago. We are saying that there is no need to publicise or advertise that, but it would be incumbent on the applicant to prove that the development had been there for a sufficient period.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I understand the logic of what the Minister is saying, but may I put this example to him? The farming community often have permitted development rights to put up, for example, a byre or something similar. What if a farmer decided to put up a large byre next to a housing estate and to keep thousands of pigs in it? How, if at all, would the occupiers of the adjoining estate express their views?

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I am not sure that I quite understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I shall say it again. A farmer will often have permitted development rights to put up an agricultural building. Let us say that he or she decides to put up an extensive byre next to a council estate or other housing estate and to fill it with thousands of pigs. What procedure would there be for the people living nearby to express their opinion about the propriety or otherwise of permitting that development?

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

My understanding is that such developments are not minor, but very significant. The detail of our proposals will obviously have to be laid out in regulations, but the case that the hon. Gentleman raises is completely different. People would not be able to do such things without planning permission and the publicity associated with that.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I can assist the Minister. The sensible reaction of the people on the council estate would be to wait, because anybody trying to raise pigs intensively in Wales would fail within a few months given the price of pig meat and grain at the moment.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

The right hon. Gentleman is on good form. We have had pig meat and pancakes, and I put that down to his trendy new haircut, which has obviously helped his thinking and concentration.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Just to be thoroughly boring and technical, my understanding is that the general development order, which is what I think the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is referring to, contains a proximity clause. I believe that the farmer would not be permitted to undertake such a development within a certain distance of the estate, although my memory of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is fading.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

That is a helpful intervention. As I said, however, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is talking about something significant but different from what we are talking about on this set of provisions.

Hon. Members are concerned that applicants for lawful development certificates might not be telling the truth, so it is important to remind the Committee that the burden of proof is on the applicant. It is for the applicant to back up their claim that the development in question was, for example, undertaken so long ago that it is immune to enforcement action. If the local planning authority has any doubts, it can approach neighbours to see whether they can verify what the applicant says. If it cannot establish that the development is lawful, a certificate would be refused. Guidance is available to local planning authorities in circular 10/97 on enforcement planning control.

It is entirely right that there should be consultation on determinations of planning applications. If a lawful development certificate is not forthcoming and planning permission is required, the subsequent application will receive publicity in the normal way. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Beckenham not to press the amendment to a Division.

On Government amendments Nos. 612 and 613, new clause 30 and new schedule 1, I shall address my main remarks to the substantive provisions in the new schedule, but first let me deal briefly with the other provisions. The amendments insert references to new clause 30 and new schedule 1 into clause 188(3) so that the provisions in them can be brought into force separately in England and Wales. New clause 30 introduces new schedule 1.

The substantive provisions start at paragraph 2 of new schedule 1, which provides that a notice of appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

“must be accompanied by such information as may be prescribed”.

The power to prescribe is exercisable by the Secretary of State in England and by Welsh Ministers in Wales. The provision relates to clause 160, which requires the Secretary of State to determine the appeal method. We want to give appellants the opportunity to state in their appeal notice their preferred method of appeal and why. That is to ensure that any circumstances that may have a bearing on the appropriateness of an appeal method may be brought to the attention to the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate acting on her behalf.

When determining the appeal method, the fact that clause 160 and schedule 5 apply only in England must be taken into account. However, the Welsh Assembly Government wish the provision to apply in Wales and to be commenced there by Welsh Ministers. It is therefore more appropriate for the provision to be included in a separate schedule. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of new schedule 1 make similar provision to paragraph 2 for other types of appeal. Paragraph 3 on lawful development certificate appeals has two additional elements that were covered on the debate on new clause 9.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

My only thought is that any pig farmer who wished to build a farm for thousands of pigs close to a residential area must hate the residents, because the smell is not the most pleasant.

As indicated before, I am not inclined to press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 187

Clause 188

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I beg to move amendment No. 513, in clause 188, page 106, line 10, at end insert—

‘(4A) Section [Powers of National Assembly for Wales] comes into force at the end of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 22—Powers of National Assembly for Wales

‘In Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Assembly measures: matters within Assembly’s legislative competence), after the heading “Field 18: town and country planning” insert—

“Matter 18.1

Provision for and in connection with—

(a) plans of the Welsh Ministers in relation to the development and use of land in Wales, and

(b) removing requirements for any such plans.

This does not include provision about the status to be given to any such plans in connection with the decision on an application for an order granting development consent under the Planning Act 2008.

Matter 18.2

Provision for and in connection with the review by local planning authorities of matters which may be expected to affect—

(a) the development of the authorities’ areas, or

(b) the planning of the development of the authorities’ areas.

Matter 18.3

Provision for and in connection with—

(a) plans of local planning authorities in relation to the development and use of land in their areas, and

(b) removing requirements for any such plans.

This does not include provision about the status to be given to any such plans in connection with the decision on an application for an order granting development consent under the Planning Act 2008.

Interpretation of this field

In this field—

“local planning authority” in relation to an area means—

(a) a National Park authority, in relation to a National Park in Wales;

(b) a county council in Wales or a county borough council, in any other case;

“Wales” has the meaning given by Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978.”’.

And the following amendments thereto: (a), leave out from ‘Matter 18.2’to ‘Planning Act 2008’, and (b), leave out from ‘“local planning authority’” to ‘in any other case;’.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I apologise to members of the Committee for the delay in tabling the new clause. The framework powers that it contains have been the subject of detailed negotiations to ensure their scope, and that their content is right. It did not prove possible to finalise the new clause as early as we would have liked. The Government of Wales Act 2006 provides powers for the National Assembly for Wales to pass legislation known as Assembly Measures. In relation to matters set out in schedule 5 to the 2006 Act and in line with the principles of the devolution settlement, new clause 22 inserts three new matters into the town and country planning field in schedule 5. That will allow the Assembly to make its own legislation in relation to the plans made by Welsh Ministers and local planning authorities on the development and use of land in Wales. Those powers are subject to an exception that prohibits the National Assembly from making provision about the status of plans in relation to development consents for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

The Assembly may also pass measures about the matters that local planning authorities should keep under review that affect the area’s development. For example, a measure could prescribe a list of specific matters that authorities must keep under review, such as population, housing and other key cross-boundary issues. A memorandum setting out the detail of those powers has been published alongside the Bill. New clause 22 has been included at the specific request of Welsh Ministers. The Assembly Government believe that the power to make their own legislation in those areas would enable them to respond quickly and positively to the needs and challenges faced by the Welsh planning system in the future.

The development plan system in Wales is distinctive. Each local planning authority must prepare a single local development plan for its area. In doing so, it must have regard to a number of things, including the Wales spatial plan, which is prepared by Welsh Ministers. Proposed new matter 18.1 would enable the Assembly to change the status of the Wales spatial plan in relation to local development plans. It would also enable the Assembly to make provision in relation to the plan’s content and its preparations and review requirements. The new development plan system in Wales is in its infancy and no local planning authority in Wales has yet gone beyond the early stages of local development plan preparation. As the new system beds in, the Welsh Assembly Government will consider the plan requirements and any legislative changes. They will use the framework powers when appropriate, following consultation and in accordance with Welsh priorities and time scales—although the times scales are the same.

Amendment No. 513 is consequential and provides for the powers to come into force two months after Royal Assent. Amendments (a) and (b) would enable the National Assembly to legislate only in relation to plans about the development and use of land in Wales prepared by Welsh Ministers. It would not be able to legislate for local development plans. The Assembly Government are responsible for overseeing the operation of the town and country planning system in Wales, so the effect of the amendment would be to enable the National Assembly to legislate only in relation to part of that system. We consider that to be inconsistent and to risk an incoherent and, as I have said, inconsistent approach between national and local tiers of plan-making in Wales. That is clearly not acceptable. Wales has its own distinctive development plan system that is still in its infancy. It is entirely appropriate for the National Assembly to have powers to enable it to respond positively to the needs and challenges faced by the Welsh planning system in the future. Key stakeholders, including the Welsh Local Government Association, support these proposals. Therefore, I strongly resist the amendments.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Just as the Minister commenced his speech with an apology, may I also tender my apology to you, Mr. Illsley, for raising a sequence of long points of order on the non-production of this new clause? I know that I have tried your patience, but frankly my own patience and that of other Committee members was severely tried when a matter of some constitutional significance was not tabled until 24 January. Remarkably enough, that was the very same day that the previous incumbent of Gwydyr house decided to relinquish his position. I am not sure whether the events were linked, but it was a happy coincidence.

This group is of constitutional significance. It will grant law-making powers—primary legislative powers—to the Welsh Assembly. I understand that the powers were applied for by the Welsh Assembly Government as long ago as last summer, but the draft clause was not tabled until two weeks ago. It is clear that even in the early stages of the Committee stage, the Government were not wholly aware of the nature of the powers that were sought. I put the issue to the Minister for Local Government very early on in proceedings when I asked why such important powers did not appear in the Bill at that stage. He indicated that the powers were for Welsh Ministers in the areas for which they already have devolved competence. That is not the case. As we have heard from the Under-Secretary, these are new legislative powers, not for Welsh Ministers, but for the Welsh Assembly.

The new clause will insert three new matters in part 1 of schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. By any standard, the 2006 Act is a remarkably convoluted piece of legislation. It sets up a framework by which primary legislative powers may be devolved to the Welsh Assembly, but there is no one route for doing that. At the last count, there were no fewer than 13 routes by which such powers can be devolved to the Assembly, although I believe that academics are still counting. The two most—I hesitate to use the word popular—common routes appear to be by framework powers, such as we are considering, and by legislative competence orders.

It is instructive to draw a distinction between those two procedures. Under the legislative competence order procedure there is a considerable level of scrutiny by the Welsh Assembly and by Parliament. In Parliament, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs conducts evidence sessions and inquires very closely into the reasons for the application for the legislative powers and the likely effects of granting such powers. Remarkably, there appears to be a considerably lower degree of scrutiny for framework powers, such as those that we are considering. The only scrutiny that I can perceive in Parliament so far is this sitting of a half-empty Committee for what will probably be an hour’s debate.

As a minimum level of scrutiny, the Government should have contrived for the new clause to be available for debate by the whole House on Second Reading. I would suggest that future framework powers should be in the Bill at a far earlier stage.

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I would hate Hansard to report something that is inaccurate. It seems to me that this is a quite well-attended Committee and other hon. Members and I are following what the hon. Gentleman is saying with interest.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is following what I am saying with interest, but I can see empty places. I am sure that he will agree that they are empty.

The only evidence that we have seen so far of the need for the measures that the Welsh Assembly Government appear to want is in a memorandum prepared by them, which I first saw on 9 January. I do not know whether other members of the Committee have seen that memorandum, but it merits reading.

Also, there was an evidence session with the relevant Welsh Minister in a Committee Room here on the same date. I understand that only Members representing Welsh constituencies were invited to that evidence session, and I dare say that Members from other parts of the United Kingdom did not receive such an invitation. Notwithstanding the fact that this Committee had been formed at that stage, I would have thought that it would have been extremely informative if all its members could have attended that evidence session. The memorandum that the Minister has quoted from in part is of some assistance in understanding why the powers are sought, but frankly it is not of a great deal of assistance.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but I have a copy of the statement from the Secretary of State for Wales that explains fully why those powers are required, and I shall refer to them later to educate some members of the Committee.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the top of the memorandum, he will see that it was prepared by the Welsh Assembly Government and circularised by the Secretary of State for Wales.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

But it is not the memorandum to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

It is the memorandum to which I am referring, although I do not know to which memorandum the hon. Gentleman refers.

The Welsh development plan system was set out comprehensively, as the Minister said, in a recent piece of legislation: part 6 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. That includes 19 detailed sections setting out not only the Welsh spatial plan system, but the local development plan system, which is unique to Wales and the UK, as he also said.

Part 6 requires Welsh Minister to produce a national spatial plan for Wales, to which local authorities must have regard when preparing their own local development plans. That spatial plan sets out the policies that Welsh Ministers think appropriate in relation to the development and use of land in Wales. As the Minister said, the proposed new matter 18.1 would confer primary legislative competence on the Welsh Assembly, enabling it to pass measures in relation to the development and use of land in Wales. I have no violent objection either to the devolution of legislative competence in that regard or to Welsh Ministers moving the furniture around with regard to the Welsh spatial plan through primary legislation. However, I observe that section 60 of the 2004 Act already contains detailed powers and obligations for the Welsh Minister to review and revise the plan. Those are two aspects that Welsh Ministers say that they need to address by means of primary legislation.

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Gentleman goes on at some length and appears to be making a bit of a meal out of a biscuit, to be perfectly honest. If he does not object to the powers that he has just described, which is an interesting contribution to make, what is his point, because the responsibility for preparing the national spatial plan lies with the Ministers of the Welsh Assembly, and surely what we are discussing is in relation to what follows from that?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I am not entirely sure what the right hon. Gentleman’s point is. I have just said that I have not objected to that, but if he had cared to have regard to my amendments, he would see that they relate to matters 18.2 and 18.3, not 18.1.

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Gentleman, in his uniquely humourless way, does not see the point. He is contributing at some length to tell us what he does not object to, but will he tell us what he does object to?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Frankly, it is hard to show much of a sense of humour when dealing with the dog’s breakfast that is the Government of Wales Act 2006. Nevertheless, I shall press on and enlighten the right hon. Gentleman on my concerns about proposed matters 18.2 and 18.3 of the 2006 Act.

Proposed matter 18.2 will give the Assembly legislative competence

“in connection with the review by local planning authorities of matters which may be expected to affect...the development of the authorities’ areas, or...the planning of the development”

of such areas. Proposed matter 18.3 will give the Assembly competence to make provision in connection with local development plans and the removal of

“requirements for any such plans”.

However, the fact that Welsh Ministers have made an application for primary legislative competence does not necessarily mean that such competence should be granted. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a biscuit of which I am making a meal, but I should remind him that we are talking about the devolution of primary legislative powers from Parliament to the Assembly.

I should also remind the right hon. Gentleman of what the new Secretary of State for Wales said about the issue in his speech to the Welsh Grand Committee:

“I do not believe for one second that we should be rubber-stamping LCOs or legislation for devolution, because we would not be doing our job as Members of this Parliament. We must scrutinise such matters properly for the purpose of correctness, certainly, but also to establish whether we think that there is a case to be made for the particular powers, whatever they might be, to be devolved to the National Assembly.”—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 12 December 2007; c. 27.]

That speech was made before he was appointed to his new position, but I would not expect that he has changed his mind since he became the incumbent at Gwydyr house. To that extent, the Secretary of State and I are in full agreement, and I hope that all members of the Committee share our view. My point is that, so far as I can see, no compelling case has been made for the devolution of primary competence in respect of proposed matters 18.2 and 18.3.

All of the issues that the Welsh Assembly Government identified in their memorandum relate to powers that are already devolved to Assembly Ministers. Given that this is a matter of some significance, I shall analyse the various powers that Welsh Ministers seek and allow the Committee to make its mind up on whether they require additional powers.

The memorandum indicates that the Welsh Assembly Government are seeking primary competence in respect of the matters that local planning authorities must keep under review, being matters that might be expected to affect the development of their area or the planning of its development, but section 69 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already provides for the review of local development plans.

The memorandum refers to the content of local development plans—that is, prescription of what the local development plan must set out—but section 62(4) of the 2004 Act already states:

“Regulations under this section may prescribe the form and content of the”

LDP.

The memorandum refers to matters to which local planning authorities are to have regard when preparing LDPs. Section 62(5) sets those out in great detail, and includes the expression,

“such other matters as the Assembly prescribes”.

It is hard to think of a wider power residing with the Assembly.

The memorandum refers to the prescription of provisions relating to sustainability appraisal, but section 62(6) states explicitly that the planning

“authority must...carry out an appraisal of the”

LDP and

“prepare a report of the findings of the appraisal”.

The Assembly Government are seeking primary powers in respect of the preparation requirements in relation to LDPs, but section 63 sets out those requirements in great detail. What additional powers do the Assembly Government require?

The memorandum refers to the independent examination of LDPs by persons appointed by Welsh Ministers, but that is provided for comprehensively in section 64. The memorandum refers to powers for Welsh Ministers to intervene in the event that they consider an LDP to be unsatisfactory, but that is specifically provided for by section 65. The memorandum refers to the withdrawal, adoption, revocation, review and revision of LDPs, which sections 66 to 70 of the 2004 Act already provide for comprehensively and explicitly .

The memorandum refers to the possible revision of part only of an LDP. Section 70(2) provides that the Assembly may direct the LPA to revise an LDP. It goes on to refer to powers for the Welsh Ministers to prepare, revise or approve an LDP if it believes the LPA is failing properly to carry out the function itself. Those matters are already specifically and comprehensively provided for in section 71. Finally, the memorandum refers to powers to make provision in relation to joint LDPs and annual monitoring reports. Again, those are specifically provided for in sections 72 and 76 of the 2004 Act.

Why do the Welsh Assembly Government seek primary law-making powers? Where is the compelling case made out? Perhaps one clue is that the memorandum indicates that Welsh Ministers are seeking legislative competence in respect of the content, status and procedures relating to supplementary planning guidance issued by local planning authorities. That is the nub of the application for primary powers made by the Welsh Ministers. They do not say why they want any such powers.

I understand from the Minister that the Welsh Local Government Association is supportive, but I have yet to find a member of that body who is. I believe that what we have now is an application by Welsh Ministers to hoover up further legislative competence from this place, to hoover up discretion from local planning authorities in terms of the preparation of the local development plan, and to deposit those powers on the desk of Ministers in Cardiff bay.

The Welsh Assembly Government have shown themselves over the years to be both acquisitive in terms of power and highly centralising. I am concerned that the powers that they seek under the clause will enable them to operate in an even more highly interventionist manner as far as local planning authorities are concerned. I do not believe that it is a function of this Parliament simply to hand over primary powers to the Welsh Assembly unless a strong and compelling case has been made.

Welsh Ministers have seen the Bill coming up on the horizon and thought it a useful vehicle for acquiring more powers for the Assembly. They have decided to do so without any real powers in mind. They have given utterly spurious reasons as to why those powers should be sought. As I have illustrated, the powers that they ostensibly seek are already in their hands under the 2004 Act. If they seek such powers, they will have to do considerably better.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The hon. Gentleman referred to hoovering. I have never heard so much rubbish in all my life. The National Assembly for Wales is a democratic body to represent the whole of Wales. His party leader in the National Assembly is very much in favour of these powers. I do not know whether he has conferred with his colleagues in the National Assembly—

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party at national level, Welsh Assembly level and at local government level is fully supportive of the amendments that I seek to make.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Well, that is news to me and to many members of the Committee, but there we are. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. As a matter of correction, however, he said that the only paperwork about the clause was the statement that came to us via the Secretary of State for Wales, from which the hon. Gentleman read exhaustively. There was a written Cabinet statement on 14 December by Ms Davidson, who attended a meeting in this place to which all Members who represent Welsh constituencies were invited. Some of us took the trouble to attend. [Interruption.] There we are. If the hon. Gentleman attended too, he misled the Committee earlier.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

If I may remind the hon. Gentleman, I said that Welsh Members were invited to attend that meeting. I went on to say that it would have been extremely helpful if members of the Committee, which had already been established at that stage, had also been invited.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Very well. My point is that planning is a devolved matter; it has been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. If it is to improve the current planning system it needs these powers. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says; he was reading verbatim from that memorandum about the various sections that he says already apply. The whole point of the exercise is to ensure that Ministers are empowered to deal with this matter in its entirety in Cardiff rather than having to come through this place. That is the gist of it.

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the planning system is not just devolved but, under the Welsh legislation, different in a number of material characteristics already? The measures are being applied to a different system of planning.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Indeed. The right hon. Gentleman speaks with experience, having been an Executive Member of that body. The planning system in Wales is different; for example, we lay great emphasis on the Wales spatial plan and on local development plans. The proposed change in the law will enable matters, especially those not transacted in the same manner as in England, to be brought forward without having to come through the conduit of this House.

In opening the debate, the Minister was perhaps too kind to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West, who tabled wrecking amendments. If amendments (a) and (b) to new clause 22 were accepted, they would wreck this part of the Bill in its entirety. In effect, Ministers in Wales would have to attempt to carry out their responsibilities for planning and the economy with one hand behind their back. I would find it extraordinary if the Committee were minded to allow that in any shape or form.

On the gestation period of the new clause, I, too, was rather concerned that it was late coming forward, but at least we have it now, along with a memorandum that is more detailed than that which applies to any other clause and from which the hon. Member for Clwyd, West has read exhaustively. There are important reasons to accept new clause 22 and the Government amendment.

As I have said, planning is inextricably linked with the economy and if we are serious about allowing the National Assembly for Wales to do a proper job on behalf of the people of Wales, it must have the tools. That is exactly what new clause 22 will provide. I reject utterly virtually everything that has been said in support of the amendments to it, (a) and (b). I fully support the new clause and the Government amendment.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

It appears that even a great rugby triumph cannot unite all Welsh members of this Committee. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West made an interesting point when he said that he had no violent objection to the proposal, but the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is right that accepting the amendments would wreck what we are trying to do. It is entirely consistent to have a synergy between the Wales spatial plan and the local development plans and for them to line up.

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

In the course of explaining the proposals, will my hon. Friend kindly tell us whether he believes that the Conservatives have set their face against the proposition before us, in the Assembly as well as in this place? The Conservatives in Cardiff bay want to give the impression of pursuing and supporting devolution, proper decision making and the rest of it, whereas there seems to be a more luddite tendency. It is important for the Committee to know what is going on.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Conservatives in Cardiff may well be saying that they want powers to amend the system governing the spatial strategy and local development plans and that they want independent examination of that system, but that is in complete contradiction to the amendments before us.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

On what basis is the Minister saying that Conservatives in Cardiff bay are of that opinion?

Mr. Dhanda rose—

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. I was going to let the point go, in the hope that it would slip away without my needing to intervene. The Minister is not responsible for what the Conservative party does in Cardiff bay, or anywhere else for that matter, and he should return to the provisions before us. We are not debating the Welsh Assembly.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West has posed a question, but we should probably leave it there, rather than get involved in a debate about it.

I commend Government amendment No. 513 and new clause 22 to the Committee and urge Opposition Members not to press amendments (a) and (b) to the vote.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

It hardly needs saying that I am extremely dissatisfied with the Minister’s remarks, but I shall not press my amendments. I shall, however, return to them later.

New Clause 1

New Clause 2

New Clause 7

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

We now come to new clause 11.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. With the leave of the Committee, may I put a question to the Minister on new clause 11?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

For the benefit of hon. Members, perhaps I should have explained that the first group of new clauses was debated earlier in the Committee. Eventually we will come to the new clauses that have not been debated, which we will then debate in the normal manner. However, new clauses 2, 7, 11 and 12 have been debated earlier in the Committee, and they are simply being moved formally.

New Clause 11

New Clause 12

New Clause 18

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Briefly, the purpose of this new clause is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the applicant or landowner before issuing a formal notice correcting an error in an appeal decision, provided that the error is not part of the reasoning on which the decision is based. This new clause applies in England. The errors that could be corrected under this power are those that would not change the substance of the decision. Therefore, no party would be at a disadvantage.

New Clause 19

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The purpose of this new clause is to correct inconsistencies within the town and country planning legislation in the provisions for challenge of decisions by the Secretary of State. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 empowered the Secretary of State to call in planning applications for major infrastructure projects. Some applications for major infrastructure projects, such as inland waterways and quarries, will still be determined under those provisions rather than under the new provisions for applications determined by the infrastructure planning commission.

Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows persons aggrieved by certain decisions of the Secretary of State to make an application to the High Court. Any such application must be made within six weeks of the decision. The list of decisions to which section 288 and the six-week challenge period applies was modified by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The 2004 Act omitted to include decisions on major infrastructure projects. Therefore, the effect of that omission is that, at present, a person aggrieved by a decision of the Secretary of State on a call-in of a major infrastructure application would have to challenge through judicial review. Applications for judicial review must be brought within three months of the decision. That anomaly will be corrected by inserting paragraph (za) into section 284(3) of the 1990 Act. The proposals will therefore ensure consistency in the treatment of challenge periods.

None

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would ensure that those called-in planning applications and appeals that relate to statutory undertakers’ operational land in England would only need to be decided jointly by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and the Secretary of State responsible for sponsoring the relevant statutory undertaker, when that is justified by the scale and significance of the proposals under consideration.

As well as significant reconstruction proposals, appeals affecting statutory undertakers’ operational land can relate to very minor matters, for which the need for two separate Secretaries of State to consider inspectors’ recommendations is an excessive burden leading to unnecessary delay. The proposed new clause would remove the need for such duplication of efforts, unless one or other of the Secretaries of State considers it appropriate to issue a direction requiring a joint decision, thereby also making it possible to make regulations enabling such cases to be determined by inspectors, as with the vast majority of other planning appeals.

New Clause 21

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would provide a power to make regulations enabling the transfer to inspectors of appeals under schedule 2 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, following the initial review of old mining permissions. It would, therefore, provide consistency in the handling of this type of appeal and all other types of planning and enforcement appeals. Transferring appeals to inspectors saves unnecessary duplication of effort and the attendant delay, as only those appeals that raise significant policy issues of more than local importance are then recovered for determination by the Secretary of State.

The new clause relates to reviews of permissions for mineral development, authorised under interim development orders made between 1943 and 1948 in response to wartime needs with few, if any, working and restoration conditions. Most initial reviews have been completed, but those powers, including the provision for appeals, will continue to be used by operators wishing to revive work at long-dormant mining sites. However, given that such appeals are concerned solely with securing modern operating conditions on sites, for which permission has already been granted, it would be disproportionate for them to remain as the only category of appeals that cannot be transferred for determination by inspectors.

New Clause 22

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

New Clause 28

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I welcome you back to the Chair, Sir John, for our latest, and perhaps last, sitting. The purpose of the new clause is to allow regional assemblies to work with regional development agencies on regional planning issues during the period of transition towards a new set of arrangements at a regional level, which we set out in July in the sub-national review of economic development and regeneration. The arrangements proposed in that plan will require separate, new primary legislation, and we propose to consult as a step towards that before long.

The new clause might be the subject of some misapprehension, so I shall start in the negative by explaining what it will not do and what it is not for. First, it will not allow regional planning powers to be transferred to the regional development agency. If Parliament agrees to such a transfer, it would be under the new legislation we propose and certainly would not be until at least 2010. Secondly, it does not allow the regional development agency to grab those powers because the initiative remains with the national assembly as the regional planning body. Thirdly, it does not undermine the regional assembly, which remains responsible as the regional planning body for the regional spatial strategy. Finally, it does not change the exceptional—some might say extreme—circumstances in which the Secretary of State may take regional planning functions back from a regional assembly as the regional planning body, as was set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

However, it is important that the work that regional assemblies undertake as regional planning bodies in their area is not undermined by a reduction of capacity or a growing uncertainty over their future. That is particularly relevant in trying to maintain the commitment that we set out in the housing Green Paper to earlier revisions of the housing provisions in the regional spatial strategies.

The new clause is designed to encourage what in some regions is already close working between the regional assembly, the regional development agency, local authorities and some of the other agencies and interests in the region, and we want to allow regional development agencies to carry out some of the regional assembly functions on their behalf where that is wanted by the assembly and agreed by the agency.

Currently, there are limits on what regional development agencies can do in relation to planning, and that is where the barrier that the new clause is designed to overcome lies. For example, they cannot employ staff to carry out or be involved in functions that are currently assigned to regional assemblies. In some regions, such as the west midlands, the regional assembly and the regional development agency are keen to pursue early staff exchanges and do more on a joint basis. Therefore, the new clause is designed to try to remove the problems and barriers that are present in this period of temporary transition.

We do not propose to transfer regional planning powers to the regional development agencies in this new clause. We will not propose to transfer those powers until we bring further, more comprehensive legislation that we plan following consultation shortly.

I hope that that is helpful and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I welcome you back, Sir John, to what I am almost certain will be our final session.

The Minister has made as good a fist as he can on this new clause 28, given that Conservative Members are against this transfer of planning powers to the RDAs. The parallel, I suppose, is our attempt to repeal the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007, because this paves the way towards this transfer of powers to the RDAs.

It is kind of the Minister to indicate that some of the RDAs are very keen to take on the regional assemblies’ planning powers. As far as I am aware local authorities would much prefer to take on these planning powers and get rid of the RDAs, quite apart from getting rid of the regional assemblies. I do not wish to advise my hon. Friends to support this new clause—

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I have heard many Opposition Members criticise the lack of effectiveness of regional assemblies. Is it the hon. Lady’s argument that these powers should not be transferred; that we should simply keep the regional assemblies as they are and let them carry on?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Heaven forfend that we should keep the regional assemblies. The Opposition do not believe in regionalised government. If the hon. Gentleman has not picked that up by now I do not know where he has been for the last 10 years.

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Would the hon. Lady give way?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Is the right hon. Gentleman about to tell me that Wales is a region?

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am about to tell the hon. Lady, who does not need reinforcing in any aspects of ignorance she might possess, that the Conservatives would appear to be making a considerable U-turn. She may have forgotten that they set up urban development corporations and under the last Labour Government they were given planning powers. I remember it very well because, although we had a Conservative Secretary of State he agreed not to pass those on to urban development corporations but to keep them with local government. It seems there is a bit of a conversion going on here—in England.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not be lured down this particular alleyway, as it has no relevance at all to the matter under discussion.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Sir John, you are spoiling a jolly good argument.

The Opposition have been against the regional assemblies from their inception and we believe that local authorities can carry out many of the RDAs’ functions, certainly on planning and housing. We should be moving towards that format for the transfer of powers not giving further powers to the undemocratic RDAs. We are against their housing powers, we are against their planning powers and we are against the transfer of resources. In fact, one of our concerns is the lack of reassurance that we have had from the Minister that the community infrastructure levy will not be levied by RDAs, thereby reinforcing their undemocratic and yet tax-raising nature. This may indeed be the first step—

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

The hon. Lady seems to be making Conservative policy up as she goes along this afternoon. I understand her position to be that the Conservative party is not in favour of the regional assemblies, is quite happy to see them go and does not believe that their power should be transferred to the regional development agencies. I think that her words were that some of what they do could be done by local councils, which seems to imply that some of what they do would not be done at local level. There would not be any regional bodies, so presumably she is going to transfer the power up to national government.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

The hon. Gentleman is having a jolly good try at diverting attention from the purpose of this new clause brought forward by his own Government which, of course, presages the end of regional assemblies. Given that he was elected at several elections on the retention of regional assemblies, the ground is shifting under his feet as well.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

As we are into our 14th session of scrutiny on this Bill, will the hon. Lady not accept that what she said a little earlier was mistaken? There is no power in this Bill for an RDA to raise the community infrastructure levy.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Order. It is time that we dealt with the new clause rather than being lured into discussions about what may or may not be the Conservative party’s policies towards either regional assemblies or RDAs.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I accept your guidance, Sir John. Perhaps we can have some discussions in the corridors outside afterwards, or in other forums. However, we come back to the fact that this new clause paves the way for the RDAs to have planning powers that we do not believe the RDAs should have. Moreover, the Minister mentioned that the Government were expecting to have discussions on the transfer of those powers, but the Local Government Association, in particular, is exceedingly affronted about their taking place before discussion on the consultation document has been completed. We are back to the lack of consultation on the community infrastructure levy.

It is inappropriate for this House to agree to the potential for discussions between the regional assemblies and the RDAs under a legislative framework before the final structure has been worked out between the Local Government Association and the Government and indeed others who have an interest in this area. I seem to remember that not very long ago there was a bit of excitement when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government signed a concordat with the leader of the Local Government Association indicating that local government initiatives should go forward only after consultation. The Local Government Association does not believe that the new clause complies with that concordat. We want to ensure that local government and the local authorities are not excluded from their rightful place in deciding where planning powers should go and what is appropriate for the regional development authorities, which, in my view, with regard to planning, is very little. As I understand it, many of the regional development agencies would much prefer not to be involved in the Government’s top-down direction of planning and housing. These powers should in fact be transferred to the local authorities.

I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that we are very unhappy about the new clause. There has been insufficient time to think these matters through in great detail as it has come forward so late, and we will consider returning to it at a later stage.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I welcome you back to the Chair for this final session, Sir John, as others have already done. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Beckenham has just said, but there is certainly a difference of opinion between our parties on the potential for doing things at a regional level. I am sure we would agree, however, that the Government’s policy over the past 10 years has been a bit of a mess, and that any positives that might have come from it have been lost and we are left flailing around, trying to determine what the future should be.

The Minister has announced that there will be a major consultation on the way forward, at which point all sorts of organisations will express an opinion, not least the local authorities, who lost a lot of their planning influence when these matters were last addressed. Therefore, to bring forward this new clause now is a little premature. Just because an RDA is willing to work towards taking over some planning responsibility, and just because a regional assembly has a very limited life span anyway, does not necessarily mean that the policy is in line with what the people of the region would like to see. Neither the RDAs nor the regional assemblies as constituted are the most democratic of bodies, so for them to stitch up a deal between them in a particular region is not necessarily putting an especially good gloss on the way forward.

Hon. Members will have heard from organisations such as the wildlife trusts, who have great concerns about what the RDAs are set up to do. They are set up to deal with economic development matters, but planning is a much wider issue. Sustainable development and environmental concerns come a long way down their list of responsibilities and core functions. So to transfer powers from a body that at least, while not democratically elected in its current form, has a view to all sorts of policy issues, and hand them over to a body that has an important but fairly limited focus is not necessarily the right thing to do.

I am concerned that we could be moving into the territory that we discussed earlier on with regard to the planning gains supplement when we paved the way for something that might never happen. If it is not likely to happen and we were later to have legislation—

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

Has the hon. Gentleman ever spoken to a Liberal Democrat member of a regional assembly or a regional development agency? I ask that because, having been a member of an RDA and having now been joined in this House by an hon. Member for one of the Croydon seats who is on the London Development Agency, I have spoken to plenty of people who welcome the opportunity to be accountable for their decisions. We must remember that a large proportion of the regional assemblies are elected councillors themselves and are designed to bring in other interests as well. So if there is to be strategic planning, the hon. Gentleman needs to tell us how he would do that if not in the way in which it is currently done.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

The Liberal Democrats believe that there is scope for regions, where those regions are bottom-up, and where there is agreement on what those regions should be. I am a somewhat parochial Member of Parliament representing Cornwall, and there has never been any consensus within the south-west region that it represents a natural region. In an e-mail conversation with Councillor Chris White, with whom the Committee is familiar, he said that he was concerned about regional assembly staff and their future, which is a very touchy issue. However, I fear that I am getting away from the issue at hand.

This is a paving measure for something that might not be needed. If we are to have a proper consultation on the way forward, hopefully the ideas that that will generate will lead to something that is more accountable and fitting for the needs of sub-regional areas. Let us wait for that and not add this clause to the Bill.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Having been told by the Minister this morning that, unlike Sampson, I had actually gained power by having my locks shorn, I would like to say my pennyworth.

The RDAs are hugely variable. Some are known to be pretty grim. Yorkshire Forward—the one I have to deal with—started off very well. It had a very strong strategic focus, but a lot of that has been dissipated in too many micro-actions as it has been asked to do too many things. That may be a general criticism. If I could make one recommendation it would be for it to stop coming down to the House of Commons to give enormously expensive tea parties at which three MPs and sundry Peers from the House of Lords with nothing better to do turn up, accompanied by a large number of their own staff. The RDA can much better do it in Leeds, where it is based.

Will the Minister clarify what is going to happen? He said that new legislation will ensure the formal transfer of planning powers to the RDAs. Fair enough; that is clean. He said that the RDAs cannot “grab” the powers. That is understood. However, where does the boundary lie between the powers that the regional assembly may decide to invite the RDA to take, and the formal powers with which they will be endowed under the new legislation? That is not clear to me. To what extent could the incremental transfer of competence amount to something very close to a full exercise of powers in anticipation of the legislation that will make that formal transfer? I do not like messy legislation; we have got to ensure that we know where the boundary lies.

The RDAs are not accountable. When the Government unveiled the sub-regional strategy before the summer break, they said that with the regional assemblies disappearing, mechanisms of accountability would have to be introduced for the RDAs. However, we still do not know what those mechanisms of accountability are going to be. At the moment, there is a vacuum. I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions over the course of these deliberations whether the Government are still intending to establish regional Select Committees. Each time he has studiously avoided referring to the question in his response, so I ask him again: are the Government still intending to institute regional Select Committees?

Finally, when the Government unveiled their sub-regional strategy, I was rather enthusiastic about it. City regions have a great deal of potential. The Leeds city region, in my part of the world, would incorporate what used to be the old west riding part of the north riding and that would make a great deal of sense. However, I would like the other instrument engineered to that geometry. In other words, the regional development agency would conform to the Leeds city region, just as if the south Yorkshire cities—and the Minister represents one of them—were to form their own city region, there would be a case for them having the development agency functions. I would not wish to create too much of a monolith in the RDAs if it makes sense later to try to re-engineer the situation, if the idea of a city region takes off.

We need to do some thinking about what the constitution of a city region might be—how would it actually work? The European Union, if I dare say so, gives some good indication of how big countries and small countries can get by with voting systems with which they can all live. However, there is a lot of work to be done before we get to that stage. Meanwhile, we should be a little cautious before we introduce what may well be seen as pragmatic measures that would leave very untidy edges. I would prefer to wait for the Minister to come forward with his formal consultations and legislation to complete the transfer, whether or not we think it is a good idea. If it is going to be carried out, I would like it to be done cleanly so that I can see what is happening. We are left with a very murky period in the middle of ill-defined boundaries. I would like to have as many landing lights as possible on the runway so that I know where I am going.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Let me try to deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, because they were precise and direct, although he did more generally welcome the direction of the sub-national review, which goes well beyond the bounds of the new clause. I welcome that, but will not dwell on it.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s desire for clean-cut legislation. That is why I am at pains to draw a distinction between what is proposed in the new clause and what may follow in consultation to put into practice the plan in the sub-national review, which will then be legislated for. I shall try to answer his questions as directly and clearly as I can. There is a distinction between what we want to see in practice during the interim period and what the arrangements might be after subsequent legislation. The first distinction concerns the functions relating to planning which a regional assembly can choose to delegate to a regional development agency. Future legislation might assume or bestow planning powers on a regional development agency. The sort of planning functions that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are thinking about might include monitoring developments against a particular plan, producing analytical reports to help develop a plan and managing events as part of a planning process, such as consultation events. Those functions are part of the planning responsibility. However, the responsibility will remain with the regional assembly.

The question of assuming or bestowing planning powers on a regional development agency would change the nature and the location of the regional planning body by changing who or what it is. Under the new clause, the regional planning body is and will remain the regional assembly. In other words, responsibility for planning will remain with the regional planning body, which is the regional assembly. Responsibility for the regional spatial strategy, even though some contributory functions may be delegated to the RDA, will remain with the regional planning body, which is the regional assembly. Responsibility for submitting the regional spatial strategy to the Secretary of State for final approval will remain with the regional planning body, which is the regional assembly.

The new clause will promote a relatively modest change. I hope that it will be regarded by members of the Committee as a pragmatic one. Essentially, it will give RDAs the scope to play a part in the planning activities and functions of their region. They will be able to benefit the region in a way that they cannot at the moment because they are not allowed to do so. For instance, they might be able to employ officers related to functions that are not currently within their statute. That is what the new clause is designed to do. It is not a Trojan horse that will somehow subvert the proper process of consultation which we will go through before making significant and separate subsequent legislation. I hope that that explanation gives the cleanliness that the right hon. Gentleman talked about. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members accept the new clause.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I am grateful to the Minister for what has been a sensible conversation. If the regional assembly were to invite the RDA to act as an agency for it to carry out certain functions, would the RDA need its own staff? Would it not make sense for the staff who are currently attached to the regional assembly to carry out those functions to be attached to the RDA for those purposes?

John Healey rose—

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

The answer seems to be coming from behind the Minister.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I am looking solely and straight at the right hon. Gentleman. The answer is that it may well be. If it were sensible to transfer that sort of function and personnel, there is currently a barrier to doing so. The new clause is designed to remove that.

New Clause 29

New Clause 30

New Clause 3

New Clause 4

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is another attempt to tidy up the statute book in relation to planning issues. The new clause would remove from planning control the exemption to repair war damage caused in the second world war and the completion of basement works that were begun before 5 December 1968. I understand why there was an exemption for war damaged buildings when the Town and Country Planning Act was first introduced in 1947. We were keen to repair the infrastructure, provide people with houses and buildings in which they could work, and to generally repair the economy. However, as I said when we discussed a similar issue, it is now more than 60 years on. Have there been any planning applications to repair war damage in the past 10 or 15 years under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990? After 60 years, should there still be an exemption for second world war damage? The only possibility of such an exemption being needed is that in the process of developing a new building in or around London or other big cities such as Coventry, an unexploded bomb is found which has a consequential effect on planning permission.

As to the completion of

“basement works begun before 5 December 1968”,

if people are still waiting to complete them after 40 years, I have serious fears for the state of the building above the basement. If the Minister can explain why the provision is still on the statute book, I would have some sympathy with the proposal. Otherwise, my feeling is that after all these years we should be tidying up the statute book and getting rid of legislation whose time has passed.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

Having read the new clause many times and having tried to get my head around it, I have some sympathy for the proposal. However, as the new clause refers to basements and whether they need development consent post-1968, I must resist it, first, because it would not do what the hon. Lady hopes it will and, secondly, because, as she rightly says, it will be better to have clarity across the board in respect of developments and basements. We will consult on the matter per se during the summer and thus be able to provide more clarity about what is a permitted development. I hope that having considered those two points, she will withdraw the motion.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

If the Government want to take up an Opposition amendment, except in rare circumstances, they are always happy to change the wording, so the barrier to their accepting the new clause would be removed immediately. May I assume that the summer consultation to which the Minister refers is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s consultation on heritage buildings, or can we look forward to a separate consultation? Will it also include the war damage and the basement issues, or do they remain as two separate issues in his mind?

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

To my mind, the consultation will take war damage into account. The hon. Lady makes a personal point about clarity. Reading the new clause brings to life the fact that the area is much more complex than most people probably realise. I hope that that answers her question.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I accept the Minister’s assurances and look forward to the result of the consultation. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 14

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would bring the conservation business into the 21st century. It proposes that publicity for applications affecting listed buildings should be online on a website, and if the Minister will accept it we can move on very quickly.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I will take just 30 seconds. I mentioned this earlier. My local authority calculates that the cost of giving publicity to applications is around £63,000 on an annual basis. Multiplied across England and Wales, the change would save £10 million in public money. It would be welcomed by many small local authorities which are strapped for cash at the moment.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

New clause 14 would amend section 67 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 relating to the publicity requirements for planning applications affecting the setting of a listed building. The intention of the clause is to allow local planning authorities to advertise such applications on the internet rather than in local newspapers.

Section 67(1) of that Act provides that the Secretary of State may prescribe publicity requirements for applications for planning permission in cases where the local planning authority considers that the development would affect the setting of a listed building. Regulation 5A of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 sets out the specific publicity requirements for applications affecting the setting of a listed building.

The local planning authority is required to publish in a local newspaper and on site a notice indicating the nature of the development and naming a place where the application and related documents can be inspected. Where the local planning authority maintains a website for the purpose of advertisement of applications, the notices must also state the address of a website where the application and related documents may be inspected. More and more authorities have these websites, and that is making and will continue to make a difference.

There is therefore no need to change the primary legislation in the way proposed as the publicity requirements for applications affecting the setting of listed buildings could be changed by amending the planning regulations of 1990. We appreciate that, as the hon. Gentleman described, local planning authorities incur costs from advertising planning applications in local newspapers rather than on line. We will consider this issue as part of the review and simplification of the General Development Procedure Order 1995 referred to in the planning White Paper. I hope that the hon. Lady will therefore withdraw the motion.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

On the grounds of the Minister’s assurance, I shall be happy to do so. I look forward to reading the consultation document next summer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 17

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is fundamental and asks how far we are prepared to take risks with public health resulting from new developments. My name sits in solitary splendour on the new clause and I hope that I can persuade hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support it. It would impose a duty on planners to consider health risks arising from extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. I am sure that all members of the Committee know what those are, but if they would like some help, the cross-party inquiry into childhood leukaemia provided a very good definition in its paper published in July 2007. It states:

“Both electric fields and magnetic fields are created by the generation and transmission of electricity. The term EMF is used to describe the mixture of these fields to which people are exposed. Major sources of EMF in our environment include High Voltage Overhead Transmission Lines... electricity substations”.

There is growing evidence of an association—I use that word carefully—between increased risks of childhood leukaemia and the location of homes and schools. Childhood leukaemia is the most common of all childhood cancers. There are 500 diagnoses a year and, while survival rates are improving, its incidence has doubled since the 1970s. I would be the first to concede that there could be many factors behind that, but there are certain milestones in the evidence that the Committee should consider, and the Bill provides a good vehicle for making radical changes.

In 2005, the Draper report, which was a ground-breaking piece of research funded by the Department of Health, found that children living within 200 m of high-voltage power lines from birth had a 69 per cent. increased risk of developing childhood leukaemia. That is nearly 70 per cent., which is a very high number indeed. In 2005, in response to that report, the Health Protection Agency set up the stakeholder advisory group on extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields, which made recommendations to the Government on practical, precautionary measures.

My new clause seeks, as a precautionary measure, to reduce the public’s exposure to EMF from sources such as high-voltage power lines. In April last year, SAGE reported that a ban on building new homes or schools within a specified distance of high-voltage lines was “the best available option” for obtaining a significant reduction in exposure to EMF from power lines. The cross-party group also defined extremely low frequency EMFs as having a frequency of between 30 and 300 hertz, and that is in the new clause. The Health Protection Agency has since recommended that the attention of local planning departments should be drawn to that evidence.

We are also assisted by a report from the World Health Organisation, which reported on the issue last year and made a number of recommendations. The first of two main recommendations stated:

“When changes to existing ELF sources are contemplated, ELF field reduction should be considered alongside safety, reliability and economic aspects.”

The second recommendation suggested:

“Local authorities should improve planning of ELF EMF-emitting facilities, including better consultation between industry, local government, and citizens when siting major ELF EMF-emitting sources.”

I am sorry to burden the Committee with jargon, but we have a situation where the Government are rightly shaping their opinion on the growing body of evidence. It would be a mistake to have to revisit the issue at a later stage when the Government will have to respond further to that growing body of opinion.

Many of us in the room are parents, and some of us have become parents recently. It is an extremely sensitive issue. It is hard to contemplate the experience of a family when a child is diagnosed with childhood leukaemia—there is not only the suffering of the child, but the fear and misery for the family. I do not want to play on the heart strings of the Committee, but want to look in a completely straightforward and scientific way at the direction in which the science is moving. Concern is felt across the House, and early-day motions 403 and 1784, which address the issue, have received 233 and 146 signatures respectively.

I finish by making two key points. First, the Government want to set national policy statements that the infrastructure planning commission will have to use when making decisions. There is an opportunity to include a recognition of the association between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia, and to make applicants and the IPC recognise those factors in national policy statements. Secondly, it is extremely expensive to re-route a power line, and all relevant stakeholders in the application, including the Government, should address that key issue at the planning stage.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

The hon. Gentleman took great pains to assert that he was going to use the term “association” and yet the usual basis on which we make judgments is cause and effect. Cleary there is no evidence of cause and effect that is demonstrable in statistical terms because there can be relationships between two measurable factors that are not necessarily causally linked but exist in the same location for different reasons. That is why there has to be a science that does not move; new evidence might be gained but there has to be evidence of cause and effect before a decision to legislate is taken.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo). She is responsible for dealing with that matter. She wrote to the charity Children with Leukaemia, saying:

“This issue obviously needs serious thought and we will be in touch with you once we have shaped our thinking in the light of all the advice that has now emerged.”——[Official Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2008; c. 353.]

It is clear from that that the Government recognise that there is a huge shift in the evidential basis for the assertion that there may be an association. It ill behoves us to say that there is no risk and that we should therefore just forget about it. It is of fundamental importance and massive concern to families up and down the country. The point is that if it can be included in the national policy statements and be dealt with at the planning stage, it does not have to be revisited later, when looking at re-routing, burying power lines or moving an electricity sub-station. There is an entirely practical cost element and an element based on emerging evidence. In addition, the Government are rightly thinking in that direction as well, all of which point towards including the new clause in the Bill.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman ought to be congratulated on tabling it and on his arguments in favour of it. It is all very well talking about cause and effect, but surely where public health is concerned precautionary principles should take precedence over such balancing acts. There is a body of scientific opinion in favour of that kind of clause and he is right. If we take a precautionary line, we can avoid further health risks and/or costs.

It is a perfectly proper new clause and should have been in the Bill all along because we all know from our postbags how big a concern it is whenever one of those power lines is proposed anywhere near a school, for example. We are very busy bees at that time dealing with various complaints and so on, all of which could be avoided. I fully support the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the Minister will give the matter further thought and perhaps come back with something that might accommodate people’s concerns.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury on both his interest and his ingenuity in tabling the new clause. It is similar to one that was floated in the Bill on the Homes and Communities Agency just over 10 days ago. The serious point—and I am sincere in this—is that he is part of a significant all-party push behind a concern to have a more firm science base, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich says needs to be more clearly established, and to see a suitably stronger Government policy response. He has given that process a significant shove.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the risk from extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields. I am advised, for ease of reference, to call those fields ELF EMFs, which I will. The hon. Gentleman is right that the main sources of those fields is power lines, but ELF EMFs are also emitted by electricity sub-stations, household wiring and electrical appliances around the house. They are by no means confined to the situation that concerns him.

The hon. Gentleman touched on this, but guidelines are in place. The Health Protection Agency has, with additional advice, looked at how those should be beefed up. It has provided that advice to Government, and, as he said, we are rightly shaping our opinion on that at the moment. We need to do that, but legislating in advance of coming to a conclusion about understanding the extent of the risk and, therefore, what is necessary is a little premature.

One point of comfort to the hon. Gentleman is that we are clear, and ministerial colleagues have made clear, that any precautionary measures that we conclude are going to be required as a result of the concern and the potential risk of ELF EMFs will be implemented at the national level. Therefore, the specific duty that he wants to put on the infrastructure planning commission is probably not the right way to proceed and is probably jumping the gun. However, as I said, he has given the debate an important shove and helped to raise its profile.

Returning to the response that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), gave on the Housing and Regeneration Bill about 10 days ago when the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) moved a similar new clause, as the junior Minister with responsibility for housing and planning, he agreed to meet the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. I do not believe that that meeting has taken place yet and the hon. Member for Newbury may wish to join it. That seems a sensible way of bringing those two interests together. He may also wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, whom he quoted, is due also to see my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who chaired the all-party parliamentary inquiry into these things, which also gave significant support to the impetus. On that basis, I hope that he does not feel that he needs to press his new clause to a Division. Again, I pay tribute to the way in which he raised the issue in Committee.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. Right from the outset, however, I should say that I should not be congratulated. The wonderful organisation Children with Leukaemia is excellent at bringing to the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House the devastating affects of that illness, the science that relates to it and the experts’ direction of travel. I take the Minister’s point that there may be other opportunities to raise the subject. My co-conspirator, to whom he referred, is my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. He was on that cross-party inquiry, chaired by the hon. Member for Dartford. If I can tag along with him to meet the Minister, I will.

I shall consult Children with Leukaemia and see whether there is another way in which we can make progress on this and continue the path of travel towards a consensus, as well as some form of legislative action, which will give great comfort to many people across the country.

New Clause 23

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause deals with third-party right of appeal. This is by no means the first time that it has been raised. It was raised by a few Members on Second Reading, not least the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), and I think the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) also referred to it.

The issue is a source of mystification and some frustration to constituents who come to us following the granting of planning permission on a particular development. They come to a local Member of Parliament in the hope that the Member can overrule the local planning authority and change the judgment, and they are unhappy to discover that that is not the case. When they ask what options are open to them, they are told that judicial review is the only course that could overturn a planning decision.

I accept that there are many potential problems with this course of action. If every planning application were subject to a third-party right of appeal we would soon have no planning applications going through the system, as it would be clogged up. It needs to be quite clearly defined, therefore, and there has to be a set of circumstances that are prescribed within which such a right of appeal may be exercised.

We do need, however, to explore this issue again. There is a sense of inequity. Those who propose the development are almost in an equal position to those who object to it, perhaps for valid reasons, when it is initially considered by a planning authority, but if the permission is not granted, there is a right of appeal for the applicant, whereas if it is granted, there is no right of appeal for those who have objected.

The likelihood that a planning committee may have got it wrong and may have overlooked a factor is the same in both circumstances. There is a difference of opportunity, therefore, between those who are seeking to pursue a scheme and those who are seeking to object to it. We have already discussed the fact that the infrastructure planning commission will take away bigger schemes from local authorities, albeit many that would have gone to the Secretary of State anyway through the planning inspectorate. It would be a good message to those who feel that local democracy is being undermined that there is the opportunity for their voice to be strengthened through the planning process by way of a third-party right of appeal.

I am not expecting the Minister to jump on this straight away and say, “Yes, of course I accept it,” but it would be interesting to hear the Government’s current thinking on this and whether there are any limited circumstances within which they think this might be re-examined. There are many groups who have been consulting with all Members of the Committee over this Bill and who will be submitting evidence who feel that there is scope for some form of third-party right of appeal. It must not be designed to gum up the planning process. It should be seen as an attempt to ensure that there is a level playing field, so that those people who have legitimate objections to a scheme are not forced to consider judicial review as the only means of addressing their concerns. I hope that the Minister will say something about what might be done for people in that position.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I support the new clause. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is not the first time that the issue has been discussed here. Of course, in any planning application, more often than not there is a disappointed person who might wish to object. There is a class of professional objectors—let us not forget about those dear people. However, if somebody, a neighbour for example, is badly affected by a planning decision, it is entirely reasonable for there to be a third-party right of appeal where there is a prima facie case for that.

The hon. Gentleman is right. We all have all met people in our surgeries who say, “They have big-gun lawyers from various places to do this, that and the next thing for them. I was listened to, but I am not sure whether they followed my argument, and anyway it was dismissed. Now, I have this potential bad property being built next door to me. It has devalued my property and made my life miserable. Why can I not appeal?”.

It is not a far-fetched notion, since the new clause contains a sort of gateway for sorting out the wheat from the chaff. I should also flag up that in several other jurisdictions not too far from here, it works very happily. Think of the model in Ireland, where they have a third-party right of appeal. It is not overused or misused, but it is there if necessary. To say, as we heard earlier, that the only route for challenge for a neighbour or an aggrieved person must be through a judicial review, is no comfort at all. I speak as a barrister—judicial review is an expensive process. It must be undertaken within a defined period by specialist counsel, who do not come cheap. Importantly, the decision must come within what are called the Wednesbury principles: the planning board or authority must have acted unreasonably, and to prove that is a very narrow gateway.

To be blunt, for most people there is no redress at all, and the new clause is designed to put in the Bill a form of redress for people who are genuinely aggrieved and affected. It is highly reasonable, and looking at other jurisdictions—I know a little about the Irish system—it is not overused but is there when necessary. I fully support the new clause, and will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

The hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy make the counter-argument as well as the argument, by pointing out that there is no clear way of doing this in terms of third parties. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy mentioned professional objectors, and how to get around them. It is true that we have a different role and different rights for applicants and third parties. The hon. Gentlemen have hit the nail on head in terms of the dangers and problems relating to third parties that get in the way and block very good and positive developments that could make a difference in local communities.

It is also important to remember the discussion that we had on part 9, when we talked about the democratic accountability of the system through elected councillors. Those councillors represent their communities. They must take into account the views of local people on planning matters before decisions are made, and justify those decisions subsequently to their electorate. I do not think we should underestimate the importance of that. Although the hon. Member for North Cornwall says it would be nice to have this third-party right of appeal, he himself gets across the fact that it would be very difficult to do it without having issues with professional objectors and people who will delay a process for a significant period.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The Minister spoke a moment or two ago about the role of councillors. There is a problem with that, as well. If, for example, a development was seen to be for the greater good, and Mr. A came along and said, “Well, it might be for the greater good, but it will ruin my property,” it would be difficult for a councillor to represent the views of that individual. More importantly, there should be a process at arm’s length from the councillor and the procedure where a person can legitimately take their claim if it qualifies. Regarding vexatious appeals, there is in the new clause a procedure for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

This goes back to a point about the role of councillors made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth at an earlier stage in Committee. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy himself was quite right when he said that in this process there will always be people who are aggrieved and people who are not aggrieved. However warm our words and our minds are now, I cannot change that. There are other important aspects. Anyone who is concerned about the handling of a planning matter can always go to a local authority’s monitoring officer. There is also the ombudsman process, which they can use without having to have expensive barristers. While taking on board the concerns raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I am afraid I must disagree with him, and I hope, for the reasons that both he and I have outlined, that he will consider withdrawing the motion.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

It is, in a way, unfortunate that we are talking about “third-party” rights of appeal, which implies someone wandering past, somewhat removed from the decision. Actually, we are dealing with people whose lives could be very much affected by what goes on. I have listened very carefully to the Minister, but we need to make the distinction between a third-party right of appeal—I am using the phrase myself—and a third-party right of veto, which is not what we are talking about.

The Minister seemed to imply that this would be a process where objectors could halt development. In fact, it would simply be a way for them to delay development, although, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, there is provision in the new clause for the Secretary of State to dismiss appeals made with the sole intention of delaying. It would in no way give objectors a right of veto. It would merely level the playing field in terms of developers’ rights, although in saying that I am at risk of straying into a later new clause about playing fields. If it is the case, with regard to accountability, that councillors should have the final say and that there should not be a right of appeal, why is there a right of appeal for developers over the heads of local councillors? That is, in a way, a circular argument.

The Minister also talks about appeals to the ombudsman. The ombudsman can look into something and say that the council was perhaps a little bit naughty, or behaved poorly, and say, “Yes, you have been treated badly, here is £50 or £100 or an apology from the council,” but that will not change the planning application at all. People may feel vindicated, but that does not change the problem they had in the first place. The ombudsman will not be able to overturn the decisions; only judicial review can do that.

I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments. I appreciate that this is a contentious and difficult issue, but as we heard from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, other countries have looked at it and come up with systems that work. I will not press the new clause to a vote, but I hope that the Government have listened to the arguments. I know that there are feelings across the House about this, and whether we return to it at a later stage of the Bill remains to be seen. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 24

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is an interesting part of our deliberations, in that all hon. Members now have the opportunity to look at other aspects of planning that were not at the heart of the earlier areas of the Bill. This could be our only opportunity to debate them for several years to come, so there are a number of issues that we want to raise.

The new clause provides the opportunity to get the Government’s stated policy into the Bill. The Government have a long-standing commitment to look at these issues and protect playing fields. There are two problems with the current regulations. First, there is a five-year limit, so if somewhere has not been used as a playing field for five years it is not covered. Secondly, there is a premium with regard to size of 0.4, which the new clause would change to 0.2. I understand that Sport England has made this point, and the Government have said that it will be addressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has been quite assiduous in pursuing Ministers on this over some time. In response to his parliamentary question last July, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) said:

“this will be reflected in the consultation paper on the review of statutory consultees due later this year”—[Official Report, 17 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 226W.]

Nothing had come by the time we approached the end of the year, so there was a further question from my hon. Friend in January, and this time the same Minister’s reply was that the review of statutory consultees would

“be published in due course.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1168W.]

We have moved from having it by the end of last year to “in due course”, which does not inspire a huge amount of confidence.

We have up to 850 cases of development occurring on playing fields each year, so this is a matter of some urgency. The Government have already said that they wish to protect playing fields. By accepting the new clause, which would increase the period to 20 years and address the issue of the size of the fields, they would be able to solve this problem. I hope that the Minister will be feeling generous on this occasion.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the issue of playing fields to our attention. He mentioned some cases, but we have no clear evidence of this being a widespread problem—I will talk a little more about that in a moment. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is, I hope, aware of our position on this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool wrote to him as recently as 15 January.

We believe that the first element of new clause 24 is entirely unnecessary, as PPG 17 in its entirety already provides the necessary protection. Even if the land is no longer a playing field—in other words, the five-year period that is currently set has expired—the land will still receive protection as open space under PPG 17, which is important. Ministerial colleagues have agreed that officials should meet Sport England to discuss this matter further, which they will. If change is needed, it can be achieved by amending secondary legislation, rather than the Bill.

On the second element that he raised, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the parliamentary answer that my hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Bath on 15 January. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman mentioned this part of his answer, but I will quote from it. My hon. Friend said:

“We are committed to reducing the threshold for statutory consultation on the sale of playing fields from 0.4 hectares to 0.2 hectares”.—[Official Report, 15 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1168W.]

It sounds like a reduction in this case is a good thing. This topic will be included in the consultation paper in the review of statutory consultees to be published in due course. We hope to introduce amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 following the consultation.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that we are actively pursuing both topics that he raised. I invite him to withdraw the motion and will undertake to write to him about the Sport England process.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

The Minister made it clear that the Government are considering this issue very closely. However, there are Government figures that show how many applications are made each year. As I have said, there are 850 based on the latest Government figures. Sport England said that about 50 of those constituted a significant threat to playing fields. While I am grateful to hear that the Government are continuing to pursue action on this matter, the longer they delay, the fewer playing fields there will be to protect. It is therefore important that action is taken as soon as possible.

What I was trying to illustrate with the changing answers that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath received to his questions between July last year and January this year was that at one point the Government were talking about introducing something by the end of last year, and now they are talking about its happening “in due course”. I am glad that it will happen, but when it will happen is the question.

I will not seek to press the motion, but I would like to add one other point. As I understand it, the protection is quite closely drafted to cover sports pitches and specifies a number of particular sports. There may well be pressure on play areas used by younger children. For some reason, the local authority might have decided to withdraw or not to maintain the play equipment. Those are not sports pitches as such, but they are important amenities for young children and their parents. As part of the consultation, I would like the Government to look at that issue as well, to see whether the provision can include those important play areas. It is very common in new developments to have a play area as the area of green space, under section 106 agreements. It is very important to protect those areas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 25

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause deals with a subject very close to my heart, and I know that it is close the hearts of a number of hon. Members across the House who are experiencing problems with the unsustainable increase in second homes in their constituencies. The issue that most applies to me, as a local Member of Parliament, in terms of use class orders, is that of second homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) would say the same. There are also related issues that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) has raised with regard to “studentification”. A number of other hon. Members are working with her on that issue in urban areas where there is great pressure on local housing stock from the growing student population.

The new clause would give local authorities the power not to create use class orders of their own accord, but to work with the Secretary of State to see whether they could be used as part of a solution to a particular local problem. As the hon. Member for Beckenham has said in the past, the drafting of Opposition proposals may not be entirely watertight, so I am looking for anything that the Government can offer in terms of an intention to re-examine this issue.

This matter has been raised in a number of reports. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) is working with the Government at the moment on affordable rural housing. Elinor Goodman's commission, which reported a while ago, mentioned the potential for using planning powers to restrict the growth in the number of second homes. I have debated this issue in the past when speaking on housing for the Liberal Democrats. At that point, the Member for Beckenham raised concerns about seeking to control the market through use class orders and said that people had a right to own second homes. I am not seeking to restrict people's rights in that regard, but we have to take account of the fact that there are areas where a particular class of property, which is not currently defined within a use class order, is distorting the local housing market or the local environment in some way.

I shall illustrate my point by mentioning the population statistics on Cornwall, which has seen a lot of development over the past few decades. The population of Cornwall has grown a great deal, which is recognised among other things by its getting six Members of Parliament, not five, at the next general election. However, closer examination shows that the population in some parishes is declining. Housing is being built in those areas—for example, Padstow, which has become famous because of a certain resident and his culinary expertise, has had development—but the overall population statistics show a decline. That is because there is a growing number of second homes. At the moment, although there may be tax issues to consider in respect of increasing the burden on a second home owner, that is not a disincentive to someone who has the financial wherewithal to have one. So the historic centres of towns and villages are increasingly deserted in terms of local residents. That situation is not sustainable. It has a knock-on effect on local schools and local services, particularly out of the holiday season. A number of coastal communities in Cornwall—and, increasingly, inland communities—are being affected in this way.

Elinor Goodman's report talks about examining use class orders as a way of distinguishing between a second home and a home that is being used as a full-time residence. There is great merit in pursuing that. I therefore seek some assurance from the Minister that that suggestion is not being entirely discounted and that it will be examined for the future. I do not believe that just looking at tax alternatives will solve this problem. We can continue building affordable housing and increasing development, but if the housing market continues to be distorted by the bias towards second homes in some areas, we will not save those communities for the future. I hope that the Minister has some good news for me.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I support the new clause. This is another matter that has exercised hon. Members in the House for some time. I introduced a ten-minute Bill 10 years ago, proposing exactly the same thing. The Government are now concentrating on affordable homes. I am afraid that second homes pose a great difficulty, because where there is a preponderance of them we find that villages are dying, local amenities are being cut and basic services, such as local schools, post offices, village shops and garages, for example, are fast disappearing. I fully support what the hon. Member for North Cornwall is trying to do with the new clause.

The problem of rural depopulation was recognised by the House not so long ago, when we legislated to allow rate relief for rural retailers. That was welcome, but it is not enough, because the second homes factor exacerbates existing problems. They are socially divisive, as they are empty for most of the year and are therefore of little benefit to the community. They do not assist the viability of village retailers, because their occupants are only there for a few weeks or months of the year. They also bring with them social problems. The usual scenario is that second homes are purchased by those who can afford them—the owners often earn salaries that are many times more than the average salary of those in the local community, and they are able to pay the asking price without quibble—while locals are left in the wake, wondering when, if ever, they will be able to enter the property market and buy a house in their own community, very often in an area in which they were born and brought up.

The problem is evident in villages in Kent, the Cotswolds, Somerset, Cumbria, Cornwall and throughout the UK. In Wales, the problem has an added dimension, because it directly dilutes the indigenous culture and language, which is of great concern to all those who hold them dear. My answer is that there should be a use class order for a property that is not occupied throughout the year. The local planning authority could decide, for example, what percentage of such homes is viable in any given community. It would be unwise, if not silly, to legislate for a certain figure throughout Britain, because that clearly would make no sense. There are some seaside towns that, for the past century, have had a huge number of second homes, which they have been coping with reasonably well. However, some rural villages are dying because of the preponderance of second homes. That is not just the view of the hon. Member for North Cornwall and myself. Many hon. Members throughout the House are coming to that view now.

The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs reported back in 1994 that redefining the use class order is one tool that could be used to assist in delivering affordable housing in rural areas. It is tragic to see villages dying on their feet and, worse still, youngsters being unable to live in the villages in which they were born and brought up. Such an order is not the absolute answer—I am not saying that if such a move was accepted by Government, all affordable home problems would disappear; that is absolute nonsense—but it would be a great step forward. I remember when the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was a Minister in the Department of the Environment. He was persuaded of the efficacy of such an order in helping to create more affordable homes. Unfortunately, there was further deliberation in Cabinet and the measure did not go forward. Therefore, the suggestion is not an eccentricity of the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his fellow Celt from Wales. It is a real problem, and this is a real answer. It is not the ultimate single answer, but it would assist the Government in their stated intention of providing affordable homes for all.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I do not know whether I should declare an interest as someone who has dined at Rick Stein’s restaurant in Padstow—and very good it was, too.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Very new Labour.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I can promise the hon. Gentleman that it was long before I became an MP. I am very sympathetic to the arguments of both hon. Gentlemen, but I disagree with the use of use class orders, because they are not the right vehicle or tool to achieve what they are talking about for their communities. The principal issue in categorising land for use class orders is whether there is a material change in the use of land between one use and another, which we do not get in the same way with second homes. There is nothing to distinguish a first home and a second home in that respect.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

The point has been made to me before. However, I believe that there is a clear distinction between a house that is being used as a home and a house that is being used as a temporary luxury for people to stay in. In fact, it has been regular practice for local authorities in some areas to grant permission for a building to be occupied only for holiday use, and not as a residence. This is just turning that round. I am focusing on second homes here, but there may be wider applications in other circumstances for local areas where a use class order could be part of the solution. Second homes are just the example I am giving.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

That is useful, but use class orders are about what distinguishes properties in planning terms. That is the difference. Local authorities may well keep registers, and there may be differences between first homes and second homes—the question of where people pay tax, and so on. In planning terms, however, they are not distinguishable. For example, a Woolworths and a WH Smith are in the same class in planning terms, whereas fast food restaurants are in a different class. That is a fundamental difference.

We do look at use class orders, consult with local authorities and make changes. Although I am sympathetic to what the hon. Members are saying about their communities, with regard to planning—which is what the new clause, the clause and indeed the Bill are about—first homes and second homes are indistinguishable. That is why I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the new clause is not relevant.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am disappointed by that response, though not entirely surprised, as I have heard it before. I was, however, present at a debate in Westminster Hall in which the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills spoke about the issue of studentification, to which I referred earlier.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

As I understand it, in planning terms, my right hon. Friend is right, because there is a definition of houses in multiple occupation. We are going to do more work later in the year around defining use class orders to do with houses in multiple occupation. That will not, however, remedy the problem with distinguishing between first homes and second homes, by which I assume he means wealthy people who live in one part of the country and have a holiday home elsewhere.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

During the debate to which I referred, we discussed the issue of different uses within the residential category. I am intrigued by the idea that there is a bigger difference between an HMO and a house being used for full-time residency—which may both be used full-time—than between those and a home that is not being used as a residence but as a place where people can stay from time to time. This requires further examination.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy made an excellent contribution describing in some detail the soul-destroying effects of second homes on local communities. There may be other categories of which I am unaware, in commercial application and so on, where planning regulations and use class orders have not kept up with the way society has changed. I believe there is potential for local application, in consultation with the Secretary of State, by piloting these sorts of things, which can solve local problems, in local areas. As this is something I believe in very passionately, I seek to test the Committee’s opinion, and wish to press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 26

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I feel that I might be making myself unpopular with hon. Members who have pressing business elsewhere. However, there is an important aspect that we have not addressed thoroughly enough, and it is the second issue about which constituents often come to us: enforcement. We go through a lengthy process of planning applications and negotiation to confirm what a developer must do to stay within the boundaries of what the local authority wants to impose. Again, we find that some of those aspects are not complied with. It is brave of a local authority to proceed with enforcement, because all too often enforcement does not take place.

I will not delay the Committee a great deal, but this measure would provide an opportunity to hold local authorities to account for the conditions that they impose. If enforcement is genuine, it gives more value to the planning process. If we are to have any faith in the system, we must take account not only of what happens in the run-up to the approval of a planning application, but also of what happens afterwards in ensuring that those who make the development do so within the boundaries that have been set.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

Local planning authorities are already advised to have an enforcement policy statement. The details are set out in chapter 1 of the Department’s publication, “Enforcing Planning Control: Good Practice Guide for Local Planning Authorities”. The enforcement policy statement includes almost all the requirements of the proposed enforcement charter in new clause 26. The policy statement sets out the authority’s policy for taking enforcement action. It gives details of the procedures for dealing with any complaints about enforcement action and it will be reviewed and published every year.

The Secretary of State gives guidance to local planning authorities in the good practice guide and in enforcement circular 10/97. That is being revised, and we expect to consult on a new draft circular later in the year—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will look out for it and may want to have some input. What is not covered in the enforcement policy statement, but would be in the enforcement charter, is an obligation on members of the public to inform the authority about a breach of planning control or to make a complaint about enforcement action, in a specified manner. That is the weakness of the new clause. We consider it less bureaucratic to allow members of the public to bring any breaches of planning control to the attention of their local planning authority by whatever means they happen to choose. We also consider that they should be able to complain to the local planning authority in their own way. Therefore, the new clause is unnecessary. Enforcement policy statements are the best means of publishing local planning authorities’ enforcement procedures and practices.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

A continuing theme among constituents who come to me with enforcement problems is that they feel that they are doing the council’s job for them, in checking whether something is being built within legal bounds. Local authority resources are part of the problem. Constituents think that local authorities should have greater resources to check whether laws are being followed, rather than relying on people who are not technical experts. When those people examine a development, they may spot that a window, for example, was not quite where it was meant to be, or that a wall was slightly higher or went out further than originally stated.

However, I am pleased to hear that the Government continue to look at that matter and are introducing further guidelines to encourage local authorities to take it seriously. The problem is that often local authorities do take it seriously, but risk a cost in taking an enforcement action against someone, which is, therefore, a disincentive for them to do so. Some matters certainly bear further consideration and I am glad to hear that the Government are doing that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Schedule 1

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

On a point of order, Sir John. I thank you and your co-Chair, Mr. Illsley, for keeping us on the straight and narrow during these proceedings, and for setting the tone for our deliberations, which has been productive, efficient and generally good-humoured.

I also thank the Clerks, who have provided great advice to you, Sir John, and to all hon. Members. I would like to thank the Hansard reporters, who are part of the essential underpinning of the work that we do. I thank the Doorkeepers too, for keeping the keys turning—but not too often—during Divisions. I thank the officials who have given such good support to me and my fellow Ministers. I particularly appreciate their work and the extent to which they have allowed me to honour my commitment to the Committee, at the outset, to ensure that new clauses and amendments would be tabled in good time. I pay tribute to the interest groups that have followed our proceedings, including those that gave evidence.

It is true that this Committee was not the hottest ticket in town, and that the Whips and the other Departments suddenly found it much easier to recruit to other Committees. They sidled up to people and said, “If you do not do this for me, you’ll be on the Planning Bill.” Attendance has been strong on both sides of the Committee and the active involvement in our proceedings has been good. It has improved our deliberations, including in the evidence session, which I, like you, Sir John, and the hon. Member for Beckenham experienced for the first time. We got there in the end, although I have to say that the procedural points that came before we started taking evidence in that first sitting were akin to a ward Labour party meeting in their extent and complexity.

I also pay tribute to and thank my colleagues as part of the ministerial team. They have done a great job. I greatly value their support and think that our deliberations were much the better for having Ministers from more than one Department.

On the Opposition, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy speaks from his Front Bench and his Back Bench simultaneously, but I guess he is used to that, and he has done a good job. The hon. Member for North Cornwall has had to do the same; he was largely on his own during the course of the Bill. He took us all aback when he talked about the fun that he used to have in planning inquiries. That gave us all a fresh perspective on the subject, and perhaps a fresh perspective on him as well.

As for the team of three on the Conservative Front Bench, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not in his place, but we enjoyed the teamwork. Sometimes they divided the clauses up between them, sometimes two had a go, and sometimes the third weighed in as well. My best moment was when the hon. Gentleman was on his feet, just getting into his stride on applications to the infrastructure planning commission under part 5, and the hon. Member for Beckenham kept intervening on him, not to say actually cross-examining him. He was just getting going when she jumped up and said, “What is the definition of a project?” and sat down again. Had she done that to me, I would have been flummoxed, but he handled it with the great aplomb one would expect from a lawyer.

All the best Committees, in my experience, develop a language or a leitmotif of their own, and we were privileged when the Under-Secretary of State for Transport talked about modelling in one of our sessions and then promptly returned to the Committee, slightly chastened, having been privy to the precise world of the traffic engineers and what “modelling” really meant and had to correct our understanding.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth introduced the word “traffication”, which even those precise traffic engineers in the Department for Transport have probably never dreamed of, but I dare say we will find it appearing in the Department for Transport’s next Bill. I give the Committee my undertaking that it will not appear in this Bill while I am in charge of it.

I thank the Committee for its work on this stage of the Bill and look forward to our deliberations continuing in such a productive, constructive and good-humoured way.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Further to that point of order, Sir John. May I add my thanks on behalf of my team to you and your co-Chairman for allowing us a fairly lenient ride on many occasions? I will not be critical at this stage about how the Bill is constructed, but we were grateful to you that we could put our comments and amendments into context. That was much appreciated. I am grateful also to the Clerks, who went above and beyond the call of duty. We were greatly helped by their skill and ability.

I also add my thanks to Hansard. I had an interesting exchange involving Hansard. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and myself came to the conclusion it was a score draw, and the accuracy of the reporting led us to that conclusion. Thank goodness for the Doorkeepers. I have lost count of how many litres of water I have drunk, and I am hugely grateful for their help.

I am grateful also to the team, who contributed nobly. It is because I knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst could cope that I gave him such a hard task. I would not do it to many others. I am grateful to everybody for the part that they played in ensuring that, as far as possible, we made as many comments, amendments and points as we could to improve the Bill. We tried to make it a Bill that we could support, but it is somewhat like the curate’s egg at the moment, good in parts.

I am grateful also to hon. Members from the other parties. I am sorry that we could not always vote with the hon. Member for North Cornwall, but then, without playing tit-for-tat, there was also a time when he could not support us. We appreciate the part they played, contributing to the general good humour and co-operation that, as an Opposition collectively, we were able to put forward.

It has been interesting to work opposite the Government team. It is quite difficult when there are so few of us against massive numbers. We look forward to reversing the situation in due course, probably sooner than they may like. However, it was good that we had helpful contributions from so many Labour Members. In fact, we often came up with similar ideas, few of which got us very far, but we tried.

It just remains for me to thank everybody for such a good-humoured Committee, which, with a bit of luck, we will be able to finish in time so that the Whips, who were so agitated to begin with about whether we would deliver the Bill on time, can be reassured that when we say we can deliver a Bill on time, we will deliver it.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

Further to that point of order, Sir John. I would like to thank you and Mr. Illsley for keeping us under control and steering us back in the direction of the Bill on occasions when we might have been ranging off it. That is indicative of the subject matter: planning touches on so many other fields.

I thank the Clerk and his colleagues in the Public Bill Office for their late-night advice when I was seeking to table amendments. Although I have sat on other Public Bill Committees, this is the first time I have led for my party, so it was a bit of a learning curve. Having been appointed over Christmas to be shadow spokesman on the Department of Communities and Local Government, it was quite a quick arrival into dealing with the subject matter.

It has been an enjoyable experience. I thank Hansard,the Doorkeepers and officials, some of whom I met in the run-up to the Bill while trying to clarify some points. That was particularly useful. It may not have led me to agree with the Government, but at least I knew what they were saying. It was interesting to see that the ministerial team had a different style each time a different set of clauses was reached, and the collective involvement made the whole process more enjoyable.

It has also been a pleasure to work with other Opposition Members. Sometimes we agreed and sometimes we did not, but if we agreed all the time it would be worrying to our colleagues elsewhere. It was probably reassuring that we did disagree on some key areas. I agree with the hon. Lady that parts of the Bill still give cause for concern, and I look forward to addressing those at a later stage.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Further to that point of order, Sir John. It would be churlish of me not to take part in this holy alliance—these valedictories. It has been a genuinely interesting Bill. I nearly said “a great pleasure,” but I do not want to exaggerate. We have engaged fully with the subject, and Ministers have done their best to answer questions. Although there was a bit of a falling out earlier, generally speaking it was a well-mannered Committee. I thank you, Sir John, and Mr Illsley, and the other Front-Bench spokesmen.

The Bill is probably in the same condition as when we started, but we have had lengthy debates where necessary, which has to be a good thing. I think we have examined as much as we can. It might be that these matters will be returned to in another place; I know not. It has been an interesting experience and I thank everyone involved.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

I will pass on hon. Members’ kind words to my co-Chairman, Mr. Illsley. I did not need any persuasion to act as Chairman for this Bill, since it relates to my own past professional career, although I am not still in practice. As far as I am concerned, it is a very interesting Bill and there were occasions when I had to restrain myself from intervening, but I am pleased that I managed to avoid doing that.

It has been a very good natured Committee and the innovation in taking evidence was beneficial. It worked very well—indeed, much better than I had expected. Having said all that, I thank hon. Members for their kind words.