Clause
28
Meaning
of
“development”
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 143, in
clause 28, page 14, line 1, after
‘use’ insert ‘a cavity
or’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment No.
144
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Clause 28 provides a definition of
which type of works constitute
“development” for the purposes of the Bill, and
consequently whether development consent is required before the works
are undertaken. In general, the meaning of development in the Bill is
the same as is currently the case in the Town and Country Planning Act
1990. Subsection (2) adds two further categories of works which should
be considered development: the conversion of a power station’s
fuel source and starting to use underground strata for the purposes of
gas storage. Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 amend the clause so that
development will also include starting to use underground cavities for
the purpose of gas storage. That is a technical change to ensure that
the new regime properly covers all forms of gas storage as currently
undertaken both within underground strata and
cavities.
Robert
Neill:
We take no issue with what the Minister says. It is
a sensible and technical
amendment.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendment
made: No. 144, in clause 28, page 14, line 2,
after second ‘the’ insert ‘cavity
or’.—[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
Clause
28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
29
Effect
of requirement for development consent on other consent
regimes
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 341, in
clause 29, page 14, leave out lines 34 to
37.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 343, 344 and 353 to
355.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Clause 29, together with clause 27, ensures
that projects which require consent under the new single consent regime
are not in addition required to obtain consents under other regulatory
regimes. Subsection (1)
states:
“To the
extent that development consent is required for
development”
it is not
necessary to also obtain any of the consents listed in paragraphs (a)
to (k). The amendments are needed to ensure that the devolution
settlement with regard to Wales is maintained. Currently, a project
that involves work on a heritage asset in Wales needs to obtain listed
building consent, conservation area consent or scheduled monument
consent from Welsh Ministers. Amendments Nos. 341, 343 and 344 amend
the clause to ensure that a consent granted under the single consents
regime will not override the need to obtain listed building consent,
conservation area consent or scheduled monument consent from Welsh
Ministers if such consent is currently
needed.
For
developments in England, there will be no such requirement to seek
heritage consent as the order
granting development consent will cover the issue. Amendment No. 343
also inserts a new paragraph that removes the need for notice under
section 35 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act
1979 to be given in cases in England where
development consent is required. Amendments Nos. 353, 354 and 355 make
consequential changes to the 1979 Act to exclude matters that have
received development consent under the Bill from the possibility of
committing an offence under that Act. I commend the amendments to the
Committee.
Robert
Neill:
From our point of view, we are glad to have that on
the record. It spells out the situation quite well and we are grateful
to the Minister for that
explanation.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 342, in
clause 29, page 14, leave out lines 47 and
48.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment No.
351
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Clause 29, together with clause 27, states
that projects which require consent under the new single consent regime
are not in addition required to obtain consent under other regulatory
regimes. Subsection (1)
states:
“To the
extent that development consent is required for development, none of
the following is required to be obtained for the development or given
in relation to
it.”
Paragraph
(h) refers to consent issued under section 39(1) of
the Pipe-lines Act 1962 for the placing of pipelines over or under
harbour waters. Consent in the first instance is for the harbour
authority. Only if agreement cannot be reached will the matter be
referred to the Secretary of State. It is not appropriate to remove the
role of the harbour authority. In addition, the placing of a pipeline
over or under harbour waters will not in itself amount to a nationally
significant infrastructure project, so it is not considered appropriate
to automatically disapply section 39(1) of the 1962 Act.
Amendments Nos. 342 and 351
propose to remove section 39(1) consents for placing pipelines in
harbour waters from the list of consents that are automatically
disapplied when development consent is required under the Bill.
Instead, such works will require separate consent under section 39(1)
of the 1962 Act. Should a promoter of a nationally significant pipeline
wish to place part of their pipeline under harbour waters, they could
still include that in their application to the Infrastructure Planning
Commission as associated works, as referred to in clause 101. However,
the requirement to obtain consent under section 39(1) of the 1962 Act
will continue in force. I commend this amendment to the
Committee.
Robert
Neill:
I do not have any issue with what the Minister
said, but will he clarify one point? Given that we have discussed
consultation arrangements, what happens when a developer proposes to
put a pipeline under harbour waters? Will any harbour authority be a
consultee under those circumstances? What will be the arrangements to
ensure that they are consulted? One
can imagine the circumstances in which they would have a legitimate
material interest. If the Minister is not able to help me at the
moment, he can take the matter away and perhaps come back to it later
so that the authorities are not disadvantaged. As he said, harbour
authorities frequently have a separate legal identity from the local
authorities.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am very happy to come back to the hon.
Gentleman in due course and I am grateful for the opportunity to
research exactly where that matter will be covered in respect of the
Bill. By virtue of the fact that we are articulating that the
appropriate sections of the 1962 Act will still apply, we are clearly
indicating that there will be a requirement for harbour authorities to
be involved. Therefore, consultative arrangements that would normally
apply will apply here as a matter of course. However, I will double
check to see whether our references are strong enough.
Amendment agreed
to.
Amendments
made: No. 343, in clause 29, page 15, line 4, at end
insert—
‘(ja) to the extent
that the development relates to land in England, consent under section
2(3) or 3 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act
1979;
(jb) to the extent that
the development relates to land in England, notice under section 35 of
the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act
1979;’.
No.
344, in
clause 29, page 15, line 7, at
end insert—
‘(l) to the
extent that the development relates to land in England, consent under
section 8(1), (2) or (3) of the Listed Buildings
Act;
(m) to the extent that the
development relates to land in England, consent under section 74(1) of
the Listed Buildings Act.’.—[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
4.30
pm
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 345, in
clause 29, page 15, leave out line
14.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment No.
352
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
As we have already discussed, clause
29, together with clause 27, ensures that there are the required
consent arrangements under the single consent regime. Subsection (2)(c)
states that to the extent that development consent is required for a
project, a notice under section 16(1) of the Gas Act 1965 with respect
to safety conditions may not also be given in relation to that project.
A notice under section 16(1) of the 1965 Act is issued by the Secretary
of State and imposes safety conditions on the development or operation
of an underground gas storage facility. It also applies to gas storage
facilities that have received a consent by means of an order under
section 4(1) of the 1965 Act.
Under the
terms of subsection (2)(b) in which a project requires development
consent under this Bill, no order under section 4(1) of the 1965 Act
can be made. As they are linked to section 4(1) orders, it is
automatically the case that notices about safety conditions under
section 16(1) of the 1965 Act cannot be made for gas storage facilities
consented under this Bill. The amendments seek to avoid confusion on
the application of the 1965 Act by deleting references to section 16(1)
of the Gas Act in the Bill. None of this is to say that
safety conditions cannot be imposed on the development of gas
facilities within the single consents regime. That
regime already contains a provision in clause 105(1) for the decision
maker to impose whatever requirements it feels appropriate on the grant
of development consent. That power can be exercised to serve a notice
on terms equivalent to that which could previously be set out in a
notice under section 16(1) of the 1965 Act given at the same time as a
storage authorisation order under that
Act.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 346, in
clause 29, page 15, line 16, at
end insert—
‘(2A) Subsection
(2) is subject to section [Welsh offshore generating
stations].’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discus
Government new clause 11— Welsh offshore generating
stations.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We have discussed clause 29 in some detail.
Subsection (2)(d) refers to orders made under the Transport and Works
Act 1992. Currently, offshore wind farms can receive consent under
section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 or through an order under the
1992 Act. Provisions of the 1992 Act have been devolved to Welsh
Ministers for projects based entirely in Wales. Welsh Ministers have
made an order under the 1992 Act for an offshore wind farm at
Scarweather Sands. In order to preserve the devolution settlement,
these amendments are needed to allow Welsh Ministers to use the 1992
Act to consent to offshore wind farms in territorial waters adjoining
Wales. That does not prevent a promoter from seeing a development
consent for such a wind farm under the single consents regime if he or
she so
chooses.
Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): Perhaps the Minister
could help me. How many of the current and recently granted
applications for offshore wind farms in Wales—apart from the one
at Scarweather Sands—been made under this particular provision
rather than under the usual provision in the 1989 Act? Is it the case
that almost every year consent for wind farms in excess of 50 MW
generating capacity is applied for under the 1989
Act?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
My understanding is that that is the case. If
the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will do some research into the
numbers of applications and respond to him in due
course.
Robert
Neill:
My hon. Friend’s helpful intervention
reminds me of one other point that I would like the Minister to
clarify. He has set out the way in which certain decisions will be
devolved to Wales. We will all have received a written memorandum of
evidence from the Mayor of London. Will the Minister confirm
that it is not the Government’s intention to make light
devolution arrangements in favour of the Mayor of London, which he is
apparently requesting in the memorandum, particularly in relation to
the 1992 Act?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
If we were intending to make any such
arrangements, we would have tabled amendments.
There have been only
one or two applications under the Transport and Works Act in Wales;
most are under the Electricity Act, as far as we are
aware.
The
Chairman:
May I say that in any event it is extremely
unlikely that they would come within the scope of the clause, since
this deals with Welsh wind farms?
Amendment agreed
to.
Clause 29,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
30
Directions
in relation to projects of national
significance
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 347, in
clause 30, page 15, line 41, after
‘one’ insert ‘or
more’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment No.
348
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to
intervene in an application for consent for an infrastructure project
in England that has been made to a body other than the commission. In
such a case, if the Secretary of State thinks that the project is of
national significance, even if it does not meet the statutory
thresholds set out in clauses 13 to 26, he or she may direct the
authority that is considering the application to refer the application
to the IPC instead of dealing with it itself. The Secretary of State
can only direct an application to be considered by the IPC if the
project forms part of one of the fields mentioned in clause
13(5)—energy, transport, water, waste water or waste. Amendment
No. 347 is designed to clarify the drafting and provide that a
direction by the Secretary of State can be made when the development is
part of more than one of the fields mentioned in clause
13(5).
Amendment 348
is designed to improve the drafting for clause 30. It ensures that
where the Secretary of State directs an application to the IPC from
another authority, the application is to be subsequently treated as if
it were an application for development consent, and the development
that forms the subject of the application is to be treated as
development for which development consent is required under the terms
of the Bill.
Amendment No. 348 also provides
the Secretary of State with a power, in such cases, to direct that
certain requirements of the Bill are modified in relation to the
proposed development, or are to be treated as having been complied
with. The ability to modify the Bill’s requirements in relation
to an application, or to deem that such requirements have been
satisfied, is essential. If it did not exist it would mean that a
promoter could
be required to re-do all the work
involved in the pre-application stage simply because the Secretary of
State directed the case after the application was submitted to the
local planning authority. That is not to say that further work to the
application would not be needed on the part of the promoter. Indeed, in
many cases it will be necessary for a promoter to alter an application
so that it becomes an application for an order granting development
consent. An example of that might be rewording the application to fit
the format of an order, as set out in clause 32. The promoter may also need to
engage more fully with the IPC and local communities under part 5, to
reflect the revised application more fully. To that end, there is no
obligation on the Secretary of State to include the provisions in
clause 30(2)(c) in a direction referring the case to
the IPC. Nevertheless, the principle should remain that a promoter
should not be unreasonably penalised through having to do additional
work because the Secretary of State has decided that an application
made in good faith to a local planning authority should be referred to
the IPC.
Robert
Neill:
There is one question on which I would like the
Minister to be a little more specific. Does he anticipate circumstances
in which—perhaps he will give a practical
example—an application has commenced under the Town and Country
Planning Acts regime, but it fits the nationally significant
infrastructure projects criteria and the power of direction will have
to be used? He said that clause 29 means that anything that comes
within the national infrastructure projects criteria will have to be
commenced under that regime. Perhaps it is my fault, but I am
struggling to understand the circumstances in which a project might
commence outside the regime but could subsequently be brought under it.
Is it a question of size thresholds? We are concerned that the measure
has the potential for mission creep as far as the IPC is concerned.
Will the Minister explain a little more about the rationale behind the
measure?
Mr.
Jones:
Further to that question from my hon. Friend, I
note that the provisions apply in England only and not in Wales. Will
the Minister explain why a similar power is not given to Welsh
Ministers to make the direction that the Secretary of State can make in
England? The normal mantra is that the Government are reluctant to
disturb the devolution settlement but, if anything, such a provision
would enhance and strengthen the devolution settlement. Given that the
thrust of the legislation is to streamline and generally to speed up
the processes involved with consent application, there is no good
reason why an equivalent power should not be devolved to Welsh
Ministers.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. It
looks like there is an inconsistency but, having devolved the power to
Welsh Ministers, it is for them to make a judgment call. We discussed
that only a few moments ago, and the position is that they have used
the power under the 1992 Act or the 1989 Act and they will make a
judgment on what is appropriate for Wales. I apologise for saying that
the settlement allows them to do that—we do not intend to
disturb the settlement because it is working very well. It would be a
matter for them to judge an application as to which direction they
recommend.
The Secretary
of State would use the power mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromley
and Chislehurst only in rare circumstances and on the basis of clear
criteria. There might be a situation in which a series of proposed
projects that are individually beneath the thresholds collectively
represent a nationally significant project. For example, a series of
offshore wind farms might be below the 100 MW limit individually, but
above the limit when taken together. Directing such applications to the
IPC would allow a better examination of the collective benefits and
impacts of such a project.
As part of
the White Paper consultation, we questioned whether it was appropriate
for Ministers to be able to specify projects for consideration by the
IPC by means of a direction, and a large majority of those who
commented on the proposal believed that it was appropriate as long as
the power was used sparingly and on the basis of clear
criteria.
Mr.
Jones:
The Minister’s example of a series of
offshore wind farms amounting to one large wind farm would not be
subject to the devolution settlement. In those circumstances, why
should the Secretary of State not make such a direction even if the
wind farm is off the Welsh
coast?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I do not have anything to add on the
difference between the powers given to Ministers in the Welsh Assembly
Government and those given to the Secretary of State to
direct.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendment
made: No. 145, in clause 30, page 15, line 42, leave out
‘mentioned in section 13(5)’ and insert ‘specified
in subsection (1A)’.—[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
4.45
pm
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move amendment No. 165, in
clause 30, page 15, line 42, at
end insert
‘and’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 239, in clause 30, page 15, line 43, leave
out from ‘England’ to end of line
44.
No. 260, in
clause 30, page 15, line 44, leave
out ‘project’ and insert
‘development’.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I
am wrong, but my reading of the clause is that there is provision for
the Secretary of State to step in and take something away from a local
authority and take it to the IPC. We are concerned that, although the
Bill has already set out in what circumstances that should happen,
there is an extra facility for the Secretary of State to do so. The
amendment seeks to probe the Government on this issue. We have heard
why they feel that this power is needed, but I am yet to be convinced
that we should allow the Secretary of State further powers to remove
things from local authority consideration and give them to the
IPC.
Although
the Minister was not leading for the Government when we debated the
IPC, he will know that there is considerable concern among all
Opposition
parties about whether the provision is necessary. Having passed that
part of the Bill, we are concerned that the IPC will gather in more
powers or that more applications will go to it than necessary.
Amendments Nos. 165 and 239 were tabled to test the Government on which
measures it is appropriate to remove from local authorities and give to
the IPC. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that this
power will not be used very
often.
Robert
Neill:
May I refer to amendment No. 260 in
this group? I understand the point that the hon.
Member for North Cornwall made about his amendments. Our amendment
makes a slightly different point, but I do not disagree with his
observations. We are trying to seek clarity about definitions in this
part of the Bill. As we observed when we started discussing this part
of the Bill, the meaning of “development”—a
well-known phrase for all who are involved in these matters—is
sensibly restated in clause 28 as being defined in the normal Town and
Country Planning Act terms. We are intrigued as to why it is
appropriate to move away from the normal test for development, which
requires planning permission, to something else, which is called
“a project” and requires development consent. What is the
difference in practical and legal terms between a
development and a project? If something is a project, does
that not automatically involve development? What is the
distinction?
My hon.
Friend the Member for Clwyd, West raised the further
issue of whether the Minister was saying—and it seemed to be the
case—that a number of adjacent areas of development can amount
to a project. Who is to decide that? Are they not individual projects?
Are they not all developments? It is not entirely clear why the
Government chose to use the word, “project”, which is a
novel term to bring into the legislation, as opposed to
“development”, which is tried and tested as far as the
courts and all those involved in planning are
concerned.
Mrs.
Lait:
Without in any way wishing to enrich his
professional friends, may I ask my hon. Friend to tell us how the word,
“project”, should be defined in the Bill, so that
people do not confuse projects with developments and hence have reason
to take the matter to the
court?
Robert
Neill:
I am grateful—I think—to my hon.
Friend for that intervention. The Minister said that we are working as
a team and team members are always keen to test each other’s
mettle, as my hon. Friend’s question
shows.
Let me give an
example. Many people would refer to the Thames
Gateway as a project, but it is clearly a series of developments. I
hope that nobody would pretend that the developments at Barking Reach
at the London end of the gateway are part of the same project, for
planning law purposes, as the development of the port facilities at
Shell Haven or a barrage at Sheerness, if one is ever to be built.
People might argue—and it is common parlance for the man in the
street—that they are part of the Thames Gateway project, but
they are all significant developments in their own right, and some of
them could qualify as nationally significant infrastructure projects.
That is one example of a negative application of the term,
“project”.
The implication is that a
project involves more than one piece of development. I can see that
that might work if multiple consents are required—for instance,
when we deal with a pipeline to a refinery or an energy
plant—but that seems the only sensible reason for using the
provision, which would allow all the consents to be rolled up together.
I would be grateful if the Minister would amplify that point, because
there is a risk of confusion in the public’s mind. I do not
think that that was the Government’s intention—and I am
sure that they had a lot of advice from lawyers on the use of the
“project”—but because the term is a novel
departure, I would be grateful for a clear justification for its use
before some of my erstwhile colleagues find themselves extremely busy
litigating on the
definitions.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
With respect, I urge the Committee to
reject the amendment. We believe that amendments Nos. 165 and 239 go
together. They are intended to remove the need for the Secretary of
State to be satisfied that a project that is the subject of an
application to a body other than the commission is of national
significance before directing it to the IPC. We are not sure why hon.
Members believe that that is a good idea, because there seems to be
little justification for calling in small projects from local
authorities for a decision by a national body. As the Committee knows,
we intend the single consents regime to be reserved for the biggest and
most important infrastructure projects. Only projects of national
significance should go through that regime. Others are best decided by
local planning
authorities.
Amendment
No. 260 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied about the
national significance of a “development”, rather
than a “project”, before directing an application to the
IPC. Again, with respect to the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst, we believe that it is not necessary. The single consents
regime will work on the basis of projects being nationally significant,
as can be seen in clause 27(1). Development consent will be required
for development
“to the
extent that the development is or forms part of a nationally
significant infrastructure
project.”
Clause
30(1)(a) and (b) make it clear that the application that the Secretary
of State is considering directing to the IPC must refer to
“development” that is or forms part of a relevant
“project”. I am advised that the word,
“project”, covers development and matters that are not
currently treated as development, such as listed building consent. It
is designed to cover many types of consent, including associated works
such as connection to the electricity network for a power
station.
Mr.
Jones:
Is it the Minister’s understanding that a
“project” should be an undertaking mounted by one
individual or a series of individuals acting in concert? If so, how can
his example of a series of separate applications for offshore wind
farms be regarded as one project, if the applications were made by
different
developers?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I
am happy to consider it, now that I fully understand where he is coming
from. The judgment about whether to refer is a matter for the Secretary
of State, but I shall consider the arrangement that the
hon. Gentleman describes, whereby different developers
may collectively be in a similar area, and whether that constitutes a
description of a project. I hope he will forgive me, as I am not in a
position to respond to that point now, but I shall come back to him.
Having explained our interpretation of the amendments, which do not
meet the arrangements requested by the hon. Member for North Cornwall,
and having explained the definition of “project” and
“development” in the Bill, I hope that the hon. Gentleman
and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will not press their
amendments further.
Dan
Rogerson:
I thank the Minister for his explanation, and I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendments made: No.
146, in clause 30, page 15, line 43, leave out ‘England’
and insert
‘one or more
of the areas specified in subsection
(1B)’.
No. 147,
in
clause 30, page 15, line 44, at
end insert—
‘(1A) The fields
are—
(a)
energy;
(b)
transport;
(c)
water;
(d) waste
water;
(e)
waste.
(1B) The areas
are—
(a)
England;
(b) waters adjacent to
England up to the seaward limits of the territorial
sea;
(c) in the case of a
project for the carrying out of works in the field of energy, a
Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in
relation to which the Scottish Ministers have
functions.’.
No.
348, in
clause 30, page 15, line 45, leave
out subsection (2) and
insert—
‘(2) The Secretary
of State may direct—
(a)
the application to be treated as an application for an order granting
development consent, and
(b)
the development to which the application relates to be treated as
development for which development consent is
required,
for specified
purposes or generally.
(2A) A
direction under subsection (2) may provide for specified provisions of
or made under this or any other
Act—
(a) to have effect
in relation to the application with any specified modifications,
or
(b) to be treated as having
been complied with in relation to the
application.
(2B) If the
Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (2), the relevant
authority must refer the application to the Commission instead of
dealing with it themselves.’.—[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move amendment No. 166, in
clause 30, page 16, line 7, leave
out from ‘application’ to end of line 8 and
insert
‘for a period of
up to three
months’.
The
amendment relates to my previous point, but obviously when I tabled it,
we had yet to have that debate. However, our concern is that if the
Secretary of State considers whether an application should be moved
from one regime to another, a time limit ought to be imposed. Later
facets of the Bill impose draconian time
limits on everyone else regarding consultation, presumably in the hope
that applications can be dealt with swiftly. My concern is that there
might be an opposite effect, and that an application that might have
proceeded fairly well under the old regime will stall while the
Secretary of State decides whether to move it to the IPC. I seek the
Government’s reassurance that they will take any such decision
very swiftly so that the developers and local communities affected are
reassured that the application will not hang over them for a great
length of time.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I hope that I can provide the hon. Gentleman
with the appropriate reassurance so that he will not feel it necessary
to press the amendment, which is an attempt to secure reassurance about
time frames. He and his hon. Friends would like the Secretary of State
to decide as soon as possible whether to direct an application to the
IPC, and they would consequently impose a time limit on the length of
time in which the Secretary of State could instruct the relevant
authority that held an application not to proceed with it.
We intend that any decision
will be made speedily. There is no benefit to anyone involved if an
application is held in limbo for a long period. At the same time,
however, putting a time limit in the Bill would not be appropriate. The
Secretary of State will, in all cases, make a decision as quickly as is
reasonably possible about whether to direct an application to the
IPC.
The power to
direct a local planning authority not to proceed with an application is
not new. The Secretary of State already has similar powers through
directions under article 14 of the general permitted development orders
under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and there is no time
limit on how long those orders can last. On that basis, I hope that the
hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the
amendment.
5
pm
Dan
Rogerson:
I am pleased to hear the Minister say on record
that the Secretary of State would seek to take such a decision as
speedily as possible. Although I am no lawyer, I understand that if a
provision in a Bill were to be tested or explored in a court, our
discussions in this Committee about the intention of the legislation
might inform the decision. On that basis, I will not press the
amendment to a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 349, in
clause 30, page 16, line 11, after
‘decide’
insert—
‘(a)
’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment No.
350.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to
direct an application for consent for an infrastructure project in
England that has been made to a body other than the commission. In such
a case, if the Secretary of State thinks that the project is of
national significance, even if it does not meet statutory thresholds set
out in clauses 13 to 26, he or she has the power to direct the
authority that is considering the application to refer the application
to the IPC, instead of dealing with it
itself.
The
primary purpose of the amendments is clarification. The Secretary of
State can require the authority considering the application to provide
information to allow him or her to decide whether or not to direct an
application to be referred to the
IPC.
The amendments
also clarify that information can be used by the Secretary of State to
decide the terms in which such a direction should be given. That
reflects the fact that the Secretary of State may specify in the
direction that some of the requirements of the Bill are to be deemed to
have been complied with, as detailed in Government amendment No. 348.
The Secretary of State might make a direction in such terms if he or
she was satisfied that work already done while making an application to
the authority would substantially satisfy the requirements in the Bill
on pre-application consultation in chapter 2 of part 5. That works on
the principle that a promoter should not be unreasonably penalised
through having to do additional work because the Secretary of State has
decided that an application made in good faith to a local planning
authority should be referred to the IPC. I commend the amendments to
the
Committee.
Amendment
agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 350,
in clause 30, page 16, line 11, after ‘(2)’ insert
‘, and
(b) the terms in which a
direction under subsection (2) should be given.’.—[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
Clause
30, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
31
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
