| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the second part of the Minister's answer was rather better than the first. To a lot of people who are involved with the matter in the outside world, the statement of development principles is almost the most unpopular part of the whole legislation. As my noble friend Lady Hanham and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, developers depend on planning applications to resource the funding for development. Outline planning permission has moved on considerably in the past few years. So much work is done on outline planning permissions for major developments now that they are almost statements of development principles. Therefore, the second part of the Minister's answer, about the planning Minister's Written Statement, was helpful.
However, on the first part, I perhaps did not make all my points clearly enough. Everyone is concerned that we will see a lot of requests for statements of development principles by people who want to abort or stop development. The Minister spoke about developers making applications for statements. We are concerned about the hundreds of other people who do not want to develop anything, but who want to stop development or merely to find out what might happen to a particular field next to their house. The Government have not taken that on board. It is a matter not only of developers applying for statements, but of all the other people applying for them too.
It is important that the Minister clarifies the Government's position before Third Reading, because it is a difficult part of the legislation. I repeat that all the professional bodies that I have met in the outside world are extremely concerned. It is the outside world that has to make the legislation work once it is in place. It needs a lot more reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 125 to 127 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.38 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.38 to 8.38 p.m.]
Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 128:
- Page 25, line 17, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the strategic environment assessment directive, which comes into force in July 2004, requires environmental assessment to be carried out of plans and programmes, including those which,
There are two directives on environmental assessment. The first is the strategic environmental assessment directive—2001/42/EC. The second is the environmental impact assessment directive—85/337/EC—which was amended in 1997. The environmental impact assessment directive requires an EIA of "development consents" which entitle a developer to proceed with a project. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said of statements of development principles and that directive:
We agree that a statement of development principles is not a development consent, so the EIA directive would not apply on that basis. However, the Minister's comment did not address whether the strategic environmental assessment directive would apply.
The Government need to answer on the issue. If strategic environment assessment applies, the SoDP process will be much slower and far more expensive and complicated than appears in the Bill.
There will need to be a screening process to decide whether a particular request for an SoDP needs an environment assessment. If it does, an environmental report has to be prepared, consulted upon and made available to the public.
An environmental report will include: an outline of the contents of the plan; relevant aspects of the current state of the environment; details of the environmental
Finally, there would be a non-technical summary. Trans-boundary implications would have to be addressed. A reasoned decision has to be given and published. The requirements of the directive are onerous but they do not replace any requirement for environmental impact assessment when a planning application is made.
There is some sense in applying the directive—how can a local authority decide on the principle of a development without knowing what the environmental effects will be? However, it will make SoDPs harder to obtain. Some of the reasoning for SoDPs has been to avoid problems which have arisen in environmental impact assessments of outline planning applications. The Government may find themselves requiring two environmental assessments rather than one. The legal advice which we have been given from those with expertise in environmental impact assessment is that the strategic environmental assessment directive will apply to SoDPs. The amendment requires strategic environmental assessments of those projects falling within Article 3 of the directive. Ultimately the answer is more important than the wording of the amendment, as the directive has to be complied with in any event.
We have to get this right, as it is complicated. First, any SoDP regime must be lawful. Secondly, a need for environmental assessment is a powerful argument that SoDPs will not be used because of the time, cost and practical difficulties involved. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can give a fairly short and succinct answer to assist the debate. Amendment No. 128 would require the local planning authority to carry out an environmental assessment of any proposed development consisting of projects listed in Annexes 1 and 2 of directive 85/337/EC, which could have significant effects on the environment prior to issuing a statement of development principles. The amendment does not work, because it refers to an environmental assessment under directive 2001/42/EC, which is the directive that requires environmental assessment of,
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, one needs to read and analyse what the Minister has said, because it concerns a directive. The advice that I have been given is that it is not as simple as the Minister says. We need to analyse his response and look at it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
"( ) The authority shall carry out an environmental assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC of proposed development consisting of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 85/337/EC where they are likely to have significant effects on the environment prior to issuing a statement of development principles."
"set the framework for future development consent of projects".
The Government accept that the directive applies to the RSS and local development plans. They have not addressed whether it applies to statements of development principles. The consultation on secondary legislation for statements of development principles does not mention the issue, and the Government's Strategic Environment Assessment Directive: Guidance for Planning Authorities, published in 2003, does not mention the plans.
"An environmental impact assessment will not be required on an application for a statement of development principles, because such a statement is not a development consent".—[Official Report, 29/1/04; col. 354.]
"plans and programmes which set the framework for future development consent of projects".
It does not apply to development consents for projects, which is covered by the environmental assessment directive and does not apply to statements of development principles, because they are not development consents. We would see no reason in any event to introduce new and unnecessary requirements. All the costs of carrying out such an assessment shall be placed on the local planning authority. Moreover, the environmental impact assessment directive places
the responsibility for providing information for the environmental impact assessment with the developer. I hope that those points clarify the situation, in case the noble Lord wishes to come back at a later stage.
8.45 p.m.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 129A:
- Page 26, line 5, after "Part" insert "or paragraph 8 of Schedule 1"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long in moving the amendment. The amendment will enable a development order to provide that a parish council that wishes to be notified of a request for an SoDP made in its area will be able to notify the relevant local planning authority that it should be notified of such requests. We have stated that the publicity and consultation procedures for this should mirror those for planning applications.
The amendment will ensure that the provisions concerning the involvement of a parish council will achieve that. Parish councils can currently notify the relevant planning authority that they wish to be notified of planning applications in their area. The amendment would ensure that parishes would be made aware of proposed developments, if they want to be, and it will provide them with the opportunity to comment at an early stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page