 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Planning |
Planning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall,
Committee Clerk † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 29 January 2008(Morning)[Sir John Butterfill in the Chair]Planning BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HousePB 33 Institute of
Environmental Management &
Assessment PB 34 Royal
Institution of Chartered
Surveyors
Clause 105What
may be included in order granting development
consent 10.30
am Mrs.
Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): I beg to move amendment No.
26, in clause 105, page 49, leave out lines
26 to 29. Welcome
back to the scintillating proceedings on the Planning Bill, Sir John.
We are starting with what appears to be an innocuous little amendment
to delete clause 105(4)(h), which would allow the development consent
orders to free land
“from any restriction imposed on
it by or under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 (c.
xciii), or by a covenant or other agreement entered
into”—
The
Chairman: Order. I know that the hon. Lady would not wish
to mislead the Committee, but the amendment would also delete clause
105(4)(g).
Mrs.
Lait: Thank you, Sir John. I am grateful to you, because
that paragraph is even more sweeping. It is considerably less
innocuous, even if shorter. Unless I receive serious reassurance from
Ministers, I will invite my hon. Friends to vote on the
amendment. You, Sir
John, probably more than anyone, are aware of the pressure on the green
belt in and outside London. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst and I have long had to fight, on behalf of our constituents
in Bromley, attempts to infiltrate the green belt with development; 50
per cent. of our borough is green belt, which leads to a lot of
pressure on it. Anyone with an outer London constituency or one that
borders any large metropolitan area—I do not use the term in the
local government sense—will know that the pressure on the green
belt is huge. The pressure to ensure that that lung remains around the
big urban conurbations is equally
huge. The Government
have for a long time been trying to use various methods and means to
resist or break down the resistance to development in the green belt.
They have been defeated so far on all occasions. It is, to
say
the least, sneaky to try to get it through in this Bill, in which no one
would believe that it should be
included. We all know
that the pressure for homes is enormous. The purpose of one section of
the Bill, which we have still to come to, is to try to extract some
extra value from the capital gains on housing developments because of
demand in response to the market. However, the green belt is precious
and is perceived to be precious. Should the infrastructure planning
commission or any other body be able to override current legislation on
it, I would suggest that the Government would live to regret it. We
certainly think that that should be resisted wherever attempts arise to
make incursions on to green belt
land. Therefore, as I
have said, unless the Minister can reassure me as to the point of
including paragraphs (g) and (h) in the Bill, I will invite my hon.
Friends to oppose their inclusion as strongly as we
can. Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I fully support
the amendment. The power in the paragraphs concerned seems very
sweeping. Were the commission considering making such an order,
effectively freeing up green belt land, would there be a dialogue with
people in the surrounding area before such an order was granted, so
that at least the consultation would have been gone through?
The provision seems to be
extremely sweeping, and as the hon. Member for Beckenham has said,
green belt land is there for a purpose and is very much valued by those
who live in its vicinity. Although I generally understand why the
commission should have powers to vary existing legislation, which can
sometimes be arcane, I find this power a little disturbing. Will the
Minister give some assurances about the amount, form and timing of
consultation and how the commission would be
guided?
Mrs.
Lait: Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and
generally agree that there should be consultation, I am concerned that
we can consult until we are blue in the face. I rather suspect that the
consultation will be completely meaningless if the provision is passed,
and that our local communities will feel even more
cheated.
Mr.
Llwyd: The hon. Lady puts her case strongly and I hear
what she says. No doubt the Minister heard that and will respond in due
course. Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): May I briefly
support the observations that have been made? The provision is a
concern, and I understand the point made by the hon. Member for
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. There might be certain circumstances in which
it is necessary to lay a pipeline across green belt land, or to
undertake something similarly limited and modest that relates to
infrastructure and development. However, a proposal to build a major
infrastructure development within the green belt would raise great
concerns indeed.
Although I see the argument
for single consent, I cannot help but feel that however well it is
dressed up, there will be a diminution of the protection of the green
belt and of the rights of individuals to be
consulted and to make representations. We have addressed that point with
regard to London suburbs and suburban areas, and I make no apology for
that. In my constituency, the inspector has recently given permission
for some 700 houses to be built on green belt land, and that is a
troubling precedent.
That issue relates not only to
the suburbs, but to other areas of the country where we can envisage
some type of infrastructure project being placed on the green belt, and
the sweeping nature of the power seems to go well beyond what is set
out in the subsection’s preceding paragraph, which sensibly
limits the power in relation to electricity lines going across the
land. What constraints and restrictions will there be on that power? Do
we run the risk that many acres could be taken out of green belt land
under the provision as it stands, with less protection and opportunity
for the public to have their say than exists at the
moment?
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim
Fitzpatrick): On behalf of those of us on the Government
Benches, let me welcome you back to the Chair, Sir John.
The Government do not support
the amendment, but understand what the hon. Member for Beckenham is
trying to do. She would like to see green belt land keep all of the
protection that it currently enjoys against inappropriate development.
The Government share that desire to protect those areas from
inappropriate development, but the amendment would not achieve that
intended result and is unnecessary.
It might help the Committee if
I were to set out the main protections for green belt land, and to
clarify the differences relating to the amendment and the apparently
simple term “green belt”. The clause relates to land that
is designated as green belt land in accordance with the Green Belt
(London and Home Counties) Act 1938. Under the 1938 Act, local
authorities were given power to hold certain lands surrounding London
and other metropolitan areas on trust, and development of that land is
subject to restrictions over and above those imposed by the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990.
When land is designated as
green belt land for the purposes of the 1938 Act, a separate consent is
required from the Secretary of State to enable the land to be
developed. I will refer to that type of green belt land as statutory
green belt land. It is not the same as land designated as green belt
land by a local authority in its local development plan. Such land is
currently protected from development by both local and national
planning policy, which prohibits inappropriate development in the green
belt, except in very special circumstances. This type of designated
green belt is not the same as statutory green belt land. Although the
development of this designated green belt land requires planning
permission in the usual way, it does not also require a separate
consent from the Secretary of State under the 1938 Act.
The way the Bill works in
relation to green belt land is to combine the consent regimes arising
from the 1938 Act and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 into the
single consent regime and to give the commission, or the Secretary of
State when she is the decision maker, power to authorise the
development of both
statutory green belt land and land designated as green belt in a local
development plan. An order granting development consent in relation to
green belt land will therefore have a similar effect to both a planning
consent and a separate consent from the Secretary of State under the
1938 Act. In deciding
whether to grant consent for a development in the green belt, the
decision maker will be required to adhere to the policies set out in
any relevant national policy statement and to take into account such
other factors as may be prescribed. It is intended that not only will
national policy statements reflect existing policy on green belt, as
set out in PPG2, but the Secretary of State will make regulations
requiring the decision to take into account the purpose for which green
belt land is held. In that way, the special status of green belt land
will be protected.
Amendment No. 26 would mean
that a development consent order could not include provisions on the
transfer of land protected by the 1938 Act or the freeing of such land
from restricted covenants under that Act. That would have no effect on
the ability of the IPC to make orders that contain provisions relating
to land designated as green belt by virtue of a local development plan.
The effect of the amendment would be detrimental to the concept of a
single consent regime as in certain circumstances it would be necessary
for a promoter to apply for a separate consent from the Secretary of
State in order to allow a proposed development to proceed.
Applicants could still obtain
authorisations for such sales or transfers, but only after a separate
application to the Secretary of State, who would be unsighted on those
issues as she would have no role in the granting of the other
permissions or consents in relation to the project. Furthermore, under
the amendment, in cases in which the Secretary of State was the
decision maker, the applicant would still need to make a separate
application to the Secretary of State.
The Government believe that
the right way to address the issue is by ensuring that green belt
policy is properly set out in national policy statements. It is our
intention that when we introduce national policy statements they will
cover the special policy protection for green belt land, which
prohibits inappropriate development except in very special
circumstances. In turn, that will be reflected in the policies set out
in any local development plan. When Ministers prepare national policy
statements they will have regard to national planning policies,
including PPG2 on the green belt. Special protections for green belt
land will therefore continue to
apply. In addition, I
should like to draw the Committee’s attention to clauses 94 and
95, which permit the Secretary of State to prescribe matters which the
decision maker must take into account before deciding to make an order
granting development consent. It is intended that those regulations
will set out that in a case involving proposed development on any green
belt land, the decision maker will be required to take into account the
special status of the land. The Secretary of State already takes that
into account currently when deciding whether to grant a green belt
consent under the 1938 Act. The single consents regime, as we have
discussed previously, is based on a clear separation between policy
making and decision making. As such,
the final decision maker needs to have the power to grant all the
necessary consents for a particular project, which may include the
power to free the land in question from the restrictions imposed on the
green belt. In
response to the specific question raised by the hon. Member for
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about dialogue with local communities, there
would be three chances for local consultation: first, when the national
policy statement is drafted; secondly, during the pre-application
consultation; and thirdly, when an application is made. Therefore,
there will be three opportunities to ensure that local issues are
raised appropriately. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw
her amendment. Otherwise, I will have to ask my hon. Friends to vote
against
it. 10.45
am
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 30 January 2008 |