Schedule
6
repeals
Mr.
Dhanda:
I beg to move amendment No. 614, in
schedule 6, page 129, line 4, column
2, at beginning
insert—
The
Chairman:
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
.
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
11.15
am
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.
Mrs.
Lait:
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 development control 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.
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Mrs.
Lait:
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.
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Mrs.
Lait:
I beg to move amendment No. 217, in
schedule 6, page 129, line 4, column 2, at
beginning insert ‘Section
74(1)(b)’.
The
Chairman:
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.’.
|
Mrs.
Lait:
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?
Mr.
Dhanda:
I will explain in a
moment.
Mrs.
Lait:
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.
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): 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.
Mr.
Llwyd:
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.
Mr.
Curry:
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.
11.30
am
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.
Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): 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.
Mr.
Curry:
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.
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Mr.
Curry:
So what is its
point?
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): How much of that
expenditure has actually been
made?
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
11.45
am
Mr.
Curry:
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.
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Mrs.
Lait:
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.
Mr.
Curry:
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.
Mrs.
Lait:
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.
Mr.
Llwyd:
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?
Mrs.
Lait:
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—
Mr.
Curry:
A confidence-building
measure.
Mrs.
Lait:
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.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mrs.
Lait:
I beg to move amendment No. 362, in
schedule 6, page 129, line 4, column 2, at
beginning insert ‘Section
2B(6)(b)’.
The
Chairman:
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.’.
Mrs.
Lait:
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.
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Mrs.
Lait:
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?
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Mrs.
Lait:
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.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mrs.
Lait:
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”’.
The
Chairman:
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.
Mrs.
Lait:
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.
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Mr.
Llwyd:
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?
12
noon
Mr.
Dhanda:
I am not sure that I quite understand the hon.
Gentleman’s point.
Mr.
Llwyd:
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?
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Mr.
Curry:
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.
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Mr.
Benyon:
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.
Mr.
Dhanda:
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.
Mrs.
Lait:
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.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 615,
in schedule 6, page 129, line 10, at end
insert—
|
‘In
Schedule 4A, paragraph 2(4) and (5).’.
—[Mr.
Dhanda
.
]
|
Schedule
6, as amended,
agreed to.
Clause
186
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
