Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have anything further to say. Although I do not want to sound nitpicking, I shall refer again to my original notes and cross-check those against the wording of Amendment No. 41E, to which the noble Lord has just been speaking. We are not talking about the same thing. Amendment No. 41E deals with a,


I am no expert on the aviation White Paper, but I can only repeat what I have said. The recent White Paper sets out the development of airport capacity in the UK for the next 30 years. It does not authorise or preclude any particular development. Moreover, I have already made the point that even if it was site-specific, the inspector would still be able to question the need, which is the purpose behind Amendment No. 41E.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I do not want to debate that White Paper today but it gives a specific site and specific positioning for a second runway at Stansted airport. There is a specific site named in the White Paper.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept that. I am not arguing what the pronouncement was—the answer to the question for which everyone had waited for three years was "Stansted"—but the White Paper did not authorise Stansted. Let me make it absolutely clear that the White Paper did not authorise the expansion of Stansted. People think, "The Government have published a White Paper—boom—this is going to happen", but a process has to be followed.

As I have said, the inspector will be able to question the need. Under the new procedure in the Bill, we hope to be able to reduce the amount of time spent on the need argument before one gets down to the nuts and bolts. That is what we are seeking to do and it would not be fruitful for me to debate the pros and cons of the aviation White Paper. I am not seeking to nit-pick the amendment. I am making the point that the White Paper does not authorise the expansion at Stansted.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall not pursue the amendment further today. What he has said is on the record and one hopes that any potential future inquiries into large projects will proceed exactly as he has said they will. We shall be watching what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

42Leave out Clause 45

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—


42ABecause it will prevent the more speedy creation of simplified planning zones.

26 Apr 2004 : Column 604

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 42A. I shall speak also to Lords Amendments Nos. 130 and 139. The three amendments seek the removal of all reference to simplified planning zones in both the Bill and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

I shall take the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 42 proposes the deletion of Clause 45 from the Bill. The Commons disagree because this,


    "would prevent the more speedy creation of simplified planning zones".

Amendment No. 130 proposes amendments to Schedule 6 that would delete all reference to simplified planning zones from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Commons disagree because it would not be,


    "appropriate to abolish simplified planning zones".

Amendment No. 139 proposes an amendment to Schedule 9 with the effect that Section 83(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would not be repealed as is currently suggested in the Bill. The Commons disagree to this because it is,


    "not appropriate to retain the existing arrangements for the creation of simplified planning zones".

Clause 45 seeks to amend the existing provisions for the creation of simplified planning zones to enable the implementation of business planning zones. These will be fully defined in subsequent policy statements, most likely the forthcoming policy planning statement 4, Planning for Economic Development, which is due to be published later this year.

Broadly speaking, however, business planning zones are as previously described: flexible planning regimes, responsive to the needs of business. They are a strategic tool, to be identified at the regional level and implemented at the local level. We expect them to be used to encourage the development of high quality, high tech business, perhaps in the form of clusters. We will expect regional planning bodies to look at promoting one or two of these only in each region. They will be a valuable tool for encouraging investment and therefore growth and regeneration.

Business planning zone developments will be of a high standard. This is something that we will require through subsequent policy statements. They will have a low environmental impact and will be required to undergo environmental impact assessment. They will, of course, be subject to public consultation, both at the regional level, when the broad locations for business planning zones will be identified, and at the local level as they are implemented.

The new business planning zones will be very different from the current special planning zones, both conceptually, as already described, and technically. The key differences proposed by Clause 45 are as follows. The new special planning zones cannot be made by a local planning authority unless the need for one has first been identified in the regional spatial strategy or, in the case of London, the special development strategy, or by the National Assembly for Wales. The life span of a special planning zone may

26 Apr 2004 : Column 605

be varied to respond to the specific demands of an area and be for any period up to 10 years, rather than a fixed 10 years as is currently the case.

The business planning zones are an improvement on their predecessors. They will provide a new, useful and flexible strategic tool and will support business development. They should be supported. I regret that I cannot read out a list of all the people clamouring for them because I have not got one in my notes. I ask the House not to insist on its amendment.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 42A.—(Lord Rooker.)

5.45 p.m.

Baroness Hanham rose to move Amendment No. 42B, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 42A, leave out "not".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I suspect that the reason why the Minister has not got a list of people clamouring for these business planning zones is because there are none. When we discussed this issue at Third Reading I thought that the Minister was less enthusiastic over the provisions in Clause 45 than any other part of the Bill. There may be not only a lack of enthusiasm from the Minister—for which, I am sure, he has now been clouted round the head—but a lack of enthusiasm from business itself. In reality, for years there have been business planning zones, simplified planning zones and business enterprise zones, and they have not taken off.

The House would expect me to be concerned about a second aspect of this issue—that is, the fact that these zones will be identified in the regional spatial strategy. It is another name—or misnomer—for the Secretary of State deciding where business development will take place, alongside where housing will be built under the spatial strategies and the sustainable community plans.

As I said before, this is an unloved provision—not even business sees any particular virtue in it. It is not unique—it has been around before—and we ought to take the opportunity with this Bill to put it out of its misery; to take it out of these provisions, to take it out of the latest town and country planning Bill and to dump what is clearly not a very successful project. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 42A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Hanham.)

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, some Ministers leave a great many gaps between the lines for us to read into. Perhaps that is what the Minister has done in his final paragraph. Certainly at the previous stage he clearly filled in the gaps.

We still have not had it spelled out how business planning zones will facilitate "high quality" business schemes. As for "high tech", which is part of the same

26 Apr 2004 : Column 606

mantra, I remain puzzled. I continue to think that the local planning authority may have the scope to use the new local development orders to achieve high tech business parks or whatever; they seem to be ideal for that purpose. But as to whether we need simplified planning zones or the change in provisions brought about by the Bill to achieve this, I am no more convinced than when we started debating the issue.

The root of the provision does not seem to be the Minister's department. We all recall that the planning reforms were heralded originally by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the basis that planning was thought to hinder competitiveness, although there is no evidence of that. I support the noble Baroness entirely; we ought to let this die the death it is headed for.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page