 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Crossrail Bill |
Crossrail Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Mick Hillyard,
Committee Clerks
† attended
the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 22 November 2007(Afternoon)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Crossrail BillClause 10
Planning:
general
Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 11, in
clause 10, page 7, line 7, at
end
insert—
‘(c)
the development falls within the limits of deviation for the scheduled
works.’.—[Stephen
Hammond.]
1
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport
(Mr. Tom Harris):
As I predicted,
inspiration has descended, and I wonder if I might elucidate and expand
on the points that I was trying to make in response to the hon. Member
for Cities of London and Westminster. It may help if I explain what
clause 10 does. In simple terms, it grants planning permission for two
different categories of work. The scheduled works listed in schedule 1
have to be built within their respective limits of deviation. As long
as other non-scheduled works fall within the scope of the various
environmental assessments accompanying the Bill, they can be built
anywhere within the limit of deviation or the limit of land to be
acquired or used. In addition, safeguarding works to protect buildings
can be constructed outside these limits, but within a specified
distance of the works in relation to which the protection is
provided.
The
Bill plans show both the limit of deviation and the LLAU and together
they are commonly known as the Bill limits, so the geographical extent
of the works and the planning permission granted by the Bill is known.
For example, the main railway and running tunnels are scheduled works,
as are all the new stations to be built in the central section.
Planning permission for those works is therefore granted within their
limits of deviation, but some works are not scheduled works and so get
planning permission only if they have been environmentally assessed.
These include ancillary works such as station alterations within the
LLAU or protective works to buildings outside the Bill limits. The
proposed amendment would remove planning permission for that. I hope
that that clarifies the
position.
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): I have listened carefully to
the Minister. Certainly the last few points clarify his comment about
stations this morning which was of some concern. I am still not clear
why he feels that the amendment is not relevant. It inserts the
phrase:
“the development
falls within the limits of deviation for the scheduled
works”.
Is he saying that
that is already covered by the clause as it
stands?
Mr.
Harris:
Perhaps the confusion can be explained by the fact
that we are talking about two separate things. The limit of deviation
is, in general, a narrower pathway than the LLAU and will essentially
be where the railway itself must be built. By simply referring to the
“limits of deviation”, the amendment does not take
account of what is currently provided for in the Bill, which is the
limit of land to be acquired or used. Although taking the same path and
direction as the limits of deviation, the LLAU is significantly wider
to accommodate the extra work that has to be done outside the
construction of the railway. I hope that that clarifies
matters.
Stephen
Hammond:
I think that something has been lost in the gap
between sittings. One of the things that we have been testing all
morning is the limits outside the limits of deviation for which
acquisition purposes are necessary. I am thinking about this carefully.
I will not press this amendment, but I intend to read the
Minister’s comments very
carefully.
Mr.
Harris:
Having discussed with officials the amendment and
more general technical aspects of the Bill, I wish to take this
opportunity to offer the hon. Member for Wimbledon—indeed any
member of the Committee who wants them—meetings subsequent to
our proceedings in Committee on some of the more technical aspects of
the Bill that we might not be able to cover extensively. That is not to
say that they cannot be returned to on Report, but it is an open offer
to any member with concerns to sit down with the Crossrail team and
Cross London Rail Links and discuss issues that we may not be able to
resolve in Committee but on which they do not want to press amendments.
It is an offer to be as open and helpful as we
can.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am grateful for that offer from the Minister. I
had intended to divide the Committee on the amendment but, having
listened to what he said and to his offer, which it may well be
appropriate for myself or other members of the Committee to take up, I
shall not. However, I give notice that I may wish to return to the
matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
10 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 7Planning
conditions
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 30, in
schedule 7, page 137, line 14, leave
out ‘every relevant local authority
which’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 31, in
schedule 7, page 137, line 15, at
beginning insert ‘every relevant local authority
which’.
No. 32,
in
schedule 7, page 137, line 19, at
beginning insert
‘every
relevant local authority which’.
No. 33, in
schedule 7, page 137, line 19, at
end
insert—
‘(c)
all such relevant persons or bodies as may be affected by making such
an order.’.
Stephen
Hammond:
The amendments would make small
but significant changes to the wording of paragraph 1 of the schedule,
and I think that they are the best way to proceed. The Committee will
see that, taken together, they would add an additional body of people
to be specified by the Secretary of State to receive consultation, as
per the provisions of the
schedule.
Paragraph
1 requires the Secretary of State to specify every local authority that
either has given him satisfactory undertakings on the handling of
planning matters or
“has
not subsequently been released from its
undertakings.”
In the
name of prudence and equitable treatment, it makes sense to add the
words
“all such relevant
persons or bodies as may be affected by making such an
order”
to the list for
specification.
Mr.
Harris:
This part of the Bill
relates to the process by which the Secretary of State will specify
which local authorities have agreed to become qualifying authorities
under the Bill. A qualifying authority will be a local planning
authority from which the Crossrail-nominated undertaker will seek
various consents, and which has given undertakings to the Secretary of
State on the handling of planning matters under the schedule. That is
aimed to ensure that the process of obtaining consents does not unduly
hinder the construction of
Crossrail.
The
hon. Gentleman’s amendments would require the Secretary of State
to specify not only which local authorities have agreed to be
qualifying authorities but all the bodies and individuals who might be
affected by a specification order. If “relevant bodies or
persons” in amendment No. 33 simply means those who are
statutory consultees, I do not see the point of the amendment, as those
consultees are already specified under part 4 of the
schedule.
The
amendment would also place a potentially large burden on the Secretary
of State and could lead to lengthy argument about whether the list of
affected parties is accurate. Even if such a list could be produced, I
am genuinely unclear about what criteria the hon. Gentleman suggests we
should use to assess relevance. It is unclear what the benefits of the
provision would be, so I invite him to withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am, as you might guess, Lady Winterton, not
particularly concerned about whether the amendments might place an
extra burden on the Secretary of State. I am rather more concerned that
the body of people consulted be correct and appropriate. I would have
thought that both in other parts of the Bill and in precedent, there is
a well-defined list of relevant people; surely they are those who are
potentially affected. That definition of relevance should not
necessarily be a problem to the Secretary of State. I have listened to
the Minister’s arguments and I take on board his point that one
of the amendments is already covered. Given, therefore, that some of
those whom I wish to consulted are consultees already, and with his
assurance that the Secretary of State will continue to conduct as wide
a consultation as possible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 34, in
schedule 7, page 148, line 5, leave
out ‘6’ and insert
‘12’.
I shall not
dwell too long on my thinking behind this small amendment, as it should
be fairly obvious from the wording. Under the provisions of the
schedule, the nominated undertaker is required to restore any sites
used in relation to the construction of Crossrail. If such an
arrangement is not reached within six months of the completion of
scheduled works, the Government may impose an agreement. Clearly that
process would be benefited if the time period was extended. It is not
unusual in all sorts of building works for agreements to take longer
than six months. Indeed, I am a governor of a school that is now
talking to builders about an agreement and finally signing off some two
years after. On works as large and exceptional as those on Crossrail,
therefore, to impose such a tight deadline of six months would be
inappropriate.
The
amendment would reflect that and increase the chances of an agreement
being reached by parties involved, as opposed to having one imposed on
them from above. It seems to be especially important that parties be
given sufficient time to plan the future use of the land, if it is
unknown when the construction phase of Crossrail will officially come
to an end. Imposing such a tight time limit is inappropriate. Widening
it would provide flexibility and ensure that a vast number of parties
can come to an agreement without the Government imposing
one.
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): I seek clarity on
the possible impact of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. Would
local residents not find that it takes longer to ensure that a site
close to them is put back into a reasonable
condition?
Stephen
Hammond:
Clearly, one effect of my amendment might be that
it would take longer to restore land to its original state. However,
local residents might be more pleased that it is returned to its
original state, even if that takes an extra six months, than if it is
returned to a state that is not fit for purpose, because of having to
comply with a shorter time scale. Given the scale of the Crossrail
construction—it is likely to take about seven years—an
extra six months for restoring land to an agreed level would be a
useful and flexible arrangement for the constructors of Crossrail and
for those from whom they have taken
land.
Mr.
Harris:
The motivation behind the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment is perfectly fair and understandable, but one of its
weaknesses was ably illustrated by the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington. I hope that I can, in a spirit of co-operation, persuade
the hon. Member for Wimbledon that the amendment would not have the
effect that he hopes
for.
1.15
pm
Schedule 7
relates to the planning conditions attached to the deemed planning
permission granted under clause 10(1) for works authorised by the Bill.
One condition is the requirement for land that has been used for
construction purposes but does not form part of the permanent works to
be restored in accordance with a scheme agreed between the local
planning authority and the nominated undertaker.
Paragraph
11(3) of schedule 7 provides that, if a restoration scheme is not
agreed within six months of the completion of the construction works
for which the land was being used, the scheme would be determined
by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the
Secretary of State for Transport acting
jointly,
“after
consultation with the nominated undertaker and the local planning
authority.”
The
hon. Gentleman’s amendment would double from six to 12 months
the period before the restoration scheme is referred to the Secretaries
of State for determination in the absence of agreement between the
nominated undertaker and the local planning authority. That would have
a number of effects: it would delay the final date by which the
contractor could be assured that he would be able to finish on the
construction site, which would extend the duration of contracts, adding
to costs and potentially delaying the progress and completion of
the construction phase of the project; and it would extend the period
in which such work sites could be left unrestored and unused, to the
detriment of the local environment and
economy.
Six
months is a reasonable period to give the local planning authority and
the nominated undertaker to agree and, where that has not been
achieved, it is right that the matter should be referred to the
Secretaries of State for determination. Although it is conceivable that
local authorities would desire more time to agree a restoration scheme,
it is equally likely that both they and local communities would object
to work sites remaining unused for longer than necessary. I should add
that the proposal was contained in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act
1996. I cannot support the
amendment.
Mr.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con):
I can see what the Minister is getting at. The fear
of Conservative Members, as ably advanced by my hon. Friend the Member
for Wimbledon, is that the provision might put an additional burden to
rush through within the first six months on landowners and local
authorities, which are already very stretched in relation to planning
and other regulatory and enforcement matters. The desirable situation,
which we would hope for, particularly in central London, given the
value of land, would be that remedial work was done on the land within
a few weeks, by agreement between a local authority and the
land’s owner. However, the six-month limit may be passed and, if
that happened, it would be wrong for the power to go effectively
straight into the hands of the Secretary of State. For that reason, we
want an element of protection to allow agreement to be reached between
people on the ground who know what is going on—the local
authority and the landowner—rather than triggering in 180 days
the taking of the decision straight to the Secretary of State. We
thought pragmatically that 12 months would be a more desirable time
limit.
It is in no
one’s interest to have ongoing building
sites——bomb sites——in any of our towns and
cities after work has taken place. Equally, one has to appreciate that
this may not be a first priority for landowners, particularly for those
who have seen some of their land out of commission for some years while
work has been going on. It would be undesirable, after a six-month
period, for the Secretary of State to determine how and
when work is undertaken. Obviously, a much better
solution all round would be a sense of agreement. That is why 12
months, in this context, is sensible.
For practical
purposes, we hope that the great majority of such sites will already
have been developed and that there will be no environmental or other
degradation
ongoing. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment, because
12 months would be a pragmatic solution that ensures that landowners
who are put to great inconvenience by Crossrail do not find that they
have yet another problem to sort out and do not have to
deal with enforcement action put upon them by a
Secretary of State for waiting just a few days beyond a six-month
period.
Mr.
Harris:
The essence of this debate is that we have
actually agreed on what we want; the Committee is united on that. The
disagreement is on how we achieve it and on the practical measures that
should be put in place to get there.
Let me repeat
to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster what I said
earlier: the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government
and for Transport will take their decision after extensive consultation
with the nominated undertaker and the local planning authority, and
hence there will indeed be an element of consultation. I respect the
points that he has made, but we all want the easiest solution, and
there is precedent from previous hybrid Bills—precedent that
worked well. I understand the intention of the amendment, but I stick
to my original position, and I do not support the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened carefully to
the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and
Westminster made a very able contribution that set out the thrust of
what the Opposition want from an increase in the available time from
three to 12 months. I am struck by what the Minister just said about
how, after six months, the Secretaries of State for Communities and
Local Government and for Transport will get together and consult. It
might well be that that will take rather longer than if my suggestion
of six months had been adopted in the first place. I am therefore
unpersuaded that a top-down imposition will necessarily be faster than
the proposal in the amendment, so I shall test the will of the
Committee on the amendment.
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
2
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
‘and any such
other conservation body that might be expected to have a particular
interest in the site as it relates to their subject of
conservation.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 36, in schedule 7, page 161, line 23, at end
insert:
‘and any such other conservation
body that might be expected to have a particular interest in the site
as it relates to their subject of
conservation.’.
Stephen
Hammond:
As has already been said, the
Minister is a very fair man and I am sure that at some stage today he
will find one of my excellent amendments both tempting and
irresistible. The amendments in this group would insert identical
wording after the words “Natural England”, so although
tightly drafted they would add flexibility. They do not mean that any
conservation body would be able to wade into a site and say that it
might have an interest.
The Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds held a reception for Members of
Parliament last week, at which representatives talked about the number
of inland projects that they are working on, and a number of
conservation bodies and the process would benefit if the consultation
process were extended when it came to conservation matters in a
particular area. Natural England is certainly an appropriate body, but
it is not the only one. There are a number of others and, to my mind,
the RSPB is an obvious consultee. I would like to know whether the
Minister might not be persuaded to look at the amendment and accept
that the consultation and, indeed, the conservation process would
benefit from not being restricted to just one
body.
Mr.
Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con):
My concern about the restrictions within the clause
relates to local conservation areas. It seems that the
Government’s thrust is to attempt to shove the opportunity to be
involved in decision making down the decision-making chain and
certainly to involve local
communities
In my part
of the world, local conservation bodies play a very important role in
conservation at that important local level; I cannot speak with such
confidence for London. The amendment would allow such bodies to be
involved in the process, whereas, as the Bill stands, they are excluded
from it. Knowing the Minister and how fair-minded he is, I am sure that
he would want such local involvement, and I hope that he is able to
tell us that that is the
case.
Tom
Brake:
It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Lady Winterton. I am very tempted by the amendment
tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. However, I will listen
carefully to the Minister’s reply to see whether it is, in fact,
already covered. I assume that conservation groups have certain rights
to access the
site.
Mr.
Field:
I very much agree with what my
hon. Friends have said. I believe that there is a small danger in
giving statutory authority only to certain bodies; for example, English
Heritage has statutory authority in relation to a range of different
planning matters for listed buildings. As set out in the schedule,
there is a risk that large national bodies, such as Natural England and
the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, will
perhaps take the view that they will fight only on a limited number of
grounds, although the risk is probably far less in my constituency,
which, of course, contains many well known historic buildings, than it
might be on other parts of the Crossrail route. I understand that point
of view; such bodies will want to
make a precedent of two or three sites rather than the deserving cases
that might exist at half a dozen or so sites on the particular
route.
Across
the political divide in Parliament, we all subscribe to the notion of
localism—the idea that local people have a strong case that
should be listened to. That applies particularly in London and the
south-east, which is a very cosmopolitan and globalised part of the
world, and everyone regards London as a big, world city. There is also
a great passion about the villages that make up London; not just the
historical part of central London, but well beyond that. It would be
regrettable if we did not give some regard to those local
bodies.
1.30
pm
I
fear that if we simply say, “Natural England have authority
here”, it will, perhaps inevitably, take the view that it wants
to fight on a limited number of grounds, for cost reasons, and,
probably more importantly, in order to maximise the case that it is
making without being totally aware of some of the local
considerations.
For
example, the south-east Bayswater residents association has both a
planning and a conservation sub-committee. My constituency is also
strongly affected by these proposals in north Mayfair. There is a
conservation sub-committee of the St. James and Mayfair residents
association, and it will be regrettable if they do not have some input
on the matters that are statutorily protected by the schedule. I hope
that the Minister will consider the
proposals.
I think
that all hon. Members agree that we need to have the input of bodies
that have a passion for conservation at their heart. Because many of
those bodies have input from locally involved individuals, they are on
top of the very specific issues that some of the national bodies that
are protected within schedule 7 will perhaps not fully
appreciate.
I
do not think that there is much that different parties disagree about
on this issue. We know what we are trying to achieve. We do not want
this to be a nimby charter or for things to be held up by very small
local bodies delaying matters. However, it would be worth while for
those that have a specific interest in conservation to have their
interests protected in schedule
7.
Mr.
Harris:
The hon. Member for Wimbledon
seems to be using the strategy of trying to make me feel guilty about
my recurrent refusals to accept his amendments. I have to tell him that
that strategy is doomed to failure on this occasion. Similarly, the
hon. Member for Northampton, South seems to be trying to use flattery
to the same end. He will find his efforts achieving similar
success.
I
think that all hon. Members are, once again, on the same side of the
argument, but with a disagreement about how to get there. Amendments
Nos. 35 and 36 would extend the duty of local planning authorities to
consult where a planning request relates to conservation. The Bill
requires authorities to consult Natural England on such matters. The
amendments would extend the duty to include any other conservation
bodies that might have an interest in the site to which the consent
relates. I will say a little about that phraseology later.
Part 4 of the
schedule sets out the bodies that must be consulted by local
authorities and the time scale for doing that and receiving responses.
The bodies specified are those that have statutory duties to consider
the
matters in question. Those bodies have been consulted extensively as the
project has been developed and are represented on a statutory agencies
forum that reports directly to the high-level forum that I chair. We
believe that that is the right approach. It is open to any local
authority to consult and take comments from any body that it feels is
appropriate. However, to extend the duty to consult in part 4 of the
schedule in such an uncertain way could render the consultation
unworkable.
Tom
Brake:
Would it not be entirely appropriate for the
statutory bodies to conduct their own consultation among other
conservation groups, for
instance?
Mr.
Harris:
That seems to me an eminently sensible position to
take, but it would not be prescribed in the Bill.
In response
to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who warned
against extending the process and holding it up with too many
consultees, my concern about the wording of the amendment is that it
states,
“any such other
conservation body that might be expected to have a particular
interest”.
Most
hon. Members have served on Committees like this a number of times and
we all know how important it is to be specific in legal terms. I do not
know whether the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, but he looks far too
decent for that. It seems to me that almost any body, whether or not it
has a constitution and even if it is a very informal coalition of
different people, would be entitled to be consulted statutorily under
the amendment. For instance—I do not think that such a group
exists—“East End Against Crossrail” might be a
very informal coalition of various groupings, some political and some
not, and it would be entitled to be consulted. If it were not, there
will always be the prospect of judicial review. To my mind, that is the
weakness of an amendment that, with all respect, is phrased in a very
ambiguous and open-ended manner. That might be a gift to the lawyers,
for whom I have such a high
regard.
Given
those comments, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will see that
my reservations are genuine and that the amendments do not fit in with
what we are trying to achieve. I hope that he will beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened to what the
Minister has said and, as I am not a member of that profession for
which he has such high regard, I am perfectly able to accept that in
legal terms my phraseology might not achieve exactly the intent that I
had sought. I do not share his pessimism, because we have specified
that the body would have to have a particular interest in the site as
it relates to conservation, and I would have thought that that would
certainly rule out the nebulous coalitions that might conjoin simply
for the purpose of derailing the whole thing.
I think that this would have
been a sensible amendment because there are bodies that are likely to
be missed. However because he has reservations about the way in which
it is drafted, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Schedule
7 agreed
to.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 23 November 2007 |