| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
In respect of air freight, we used air transport movements as the definition in the Bill because, following consultation, we concluded that it was a more reliable manner of distinguishing national significance than the number of tonnes of increased traffic.
Baroness Tonge: I know that it is late but can the Minister explain why last week the permitted expansion of Stansted airport was expressed in both passenger and air traffic numbers, however erroneously in my view.
Lord Adonis: I do not think that that is a relevant consideration, as that was the way in which the consent was expressed. The issue here is the threshold above which proposals would be referred to the IPC. They are two very separate issues. The fact that the consent was expressed in terms both of numbers of movements and numbers of passengers does not affect the fact that in the Bill we have chosen to use the number of passengers as the threshold above which applications should be referred to the IPC. I hope that that explains the situation to the noble Baroness. She may not be satisfied with it because I know that she wishes to see a threshold based both on numbers of passengers and numbers of movements, but the fact that the consent last week was expressed in both terms does not in any way affect the decision that we have taken to proceed in the Bill with the threshold set at 10 million passengers.
Baroness Tonge: I also believe that in Europe the threshold is expressed in air traffic movements—50,000 such movements. In fact, there is a European agreement to express the threshold in air traffic movements, although I am not totally sure of the detail. I must admit that I am not totally satisfied and I am not convinced by this at all. I just cannot understand the Minister’s argument.
14 Oct 2008 : Column 711
Lord Adonis: I have explained the position. I am not familiar with the European regulation to which the noble Baroness refers but I shall look at it and write to her.
In conclusion, while I have been speaking I have been passed a copy of the letter from John Healey to John McDonnell dated 5 June 2008, which I shall pass to the noble Baroness so that I can satisfy her that, interesting or uninteresting, it was indeed sense.
11.15 pm
Baroness Hamwee: I want to know whether or not it was interesting.
I am grateful for the explanation on the first clutch of amendments. I, too, am puzzled by there being no reference to air traffic movements. Stansted is relevant because it shows that the Government were thinking in terms of transport movements and passenger numbers, which are equally relevant in their impact. I entirely agree that an additional 10 million, or however many million passengers going through a terminal is—if I can use the term a bit non-technically—material. I accept that it is very significant, but I should have thought it appropriate to have parallel thresholds so that both or either could be used. I do not feel capable of drafting off the top of my head at this time of night, but I want to explore that.
I am very conscious of the time that the Bill is taking. Perhaps we can explore it further outside the Chamber with a view to coming back with an amendment. I might talk to the Minister about that between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.]
[Amendment Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Harbour facilities]:
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 140:
140: Clause 23, page 15, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) The construction or alteration of harbour facilities is not within section 14(1)(i) if it is permitted development.”
The noble Lord said: We are now moving from the air to the water. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 141 to 143, 170 and 171. The issue is permitted development rights for harbours. We have talked about them for pipelines, and the Bill provides them for railways, but provision for harbours seems to be missing, which is the point of my amendments. I declare an interest as a harbour commissioner for the port of Fowey, in Cornwall. The amendments have two aims. They would except harbour authorities from the need to obtain a development consent order in respect of acts authorised under their permitted development rights and would confer PDRs on harbour authorities that wish to alter a facility authorised by a development consent.
PDRs are used by statutory port authorities frequently to maintain and develop port facilities. Ports and harbours rely on PDRs to respond to technical advances, changes in demand and changes in circumstances in
14 Oct 2008 : Column 712
The position of PDRs has been somewhat unclear because the Bill as introduced in the other place did not preserve them. Having been challenged on the matter, the honourable Member John Healey, the Local Government Minister, gave a simple but welcome expression of the Government’s stance. I quote:
“We are protecting all permitted development rights in the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/08; col. 529.]
That general commitment is not reflected in the Bill as introduced into this House. The Government seem to be adopting a piecemeal approach, so, while I was pleased to note that the amendments tabled on Report preserved the railways’ permitted development rights, the absence of a general saving of PDRs is a bit disappointing. I do not see why there is unequal treatment of railways and ports. If railways have PDRs, ports should have them.
The second issue concerns alterations to a facility authorised by a development consent order. Alterations of harbour facilities authorised by an Act of Parliament or an order under the Harbours Act 1964 will, provided that they are within existing authorised limits, normally enjoy PDRs. However, the Bill does not apply PDRs to alterations of facilities authorised by a development consent order, so a harbour authority would need to obtain an additional planning permission for such alterations. That is clearly not in the interests of efficiency, and it could hold ports back from taking action quickly to remedy operational problems or to exploit new commercial opportunities.
My amendment simply places an authorisation under a development consent order on the same footing as one made under an Act or a harbour revision order. I hope my noble friend will recognise that I am trying to ensure that the policy set out by our honourable friend in another place also applies to ports. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis: In his Amendments Nos. 140 to 143, 170 and 171, my noble friend exempts port operators from having to seek development consent if they possess relevant permitted development rights to carry out such work. I appreciate the point he made about ports undertakers being keen to avoid being required to make applications for planning permission for minor improvements to infrastructure or for maintenance work. However, that would not be the case under the Bill, where permitted developments are proposed beneath the threshold in Clause 23.
14 Oct 2008 : Column 713
We recognise that statutory undertakers have rights that stem from Part 17 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order to carry out certain types of development. However, these permitted development rights are not available in respect of developments that require environmental impact assessment. Our view is that this Bill will not remove any such permitted development rights since the thresholds have been set above the level at which the project would require an environmental impact assessment—that is, when it is likely to have a significant environmental effect—and permitted development rights would no longer apply.
Permitted development rights are already available where the nature of the development is specifically authorised by local or private Acts or orders, and we intend to protect existing Part 11 permitted development rights under the general permitted development order.
We are not touching the ability of a harbour authority to undertake small projects currently allowed under its permitted development rights without seeking development consent. However, developers should not salami-slice environmentally significant projects into small chunks in order to avoid proper scrutiny, which would be contrary to EU law on environmental impact assessments.
I hear from my noble friend that ports undertakers have complained that they are being treated unfairly compared with rail undertakers because Clause 23 does not contain a provision equivalent to subsections (1)(c) and (2)(c) of Clause 24—that is, it does not specifically exclude works carried out under permitted development from the thresholds of a harbours NSIP. However, an important difference between Clauses 23 and 24 is that there are high-capacity thresholds in Clause 23 but not in Clause 24, so the exclusion for permitted development in Clause 24 serves a useful purpose. Where the project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, a railway undertaker will not be able to rely on permitted development rights, for the same reason that salami-slicing a project is not permitted under EU law. I hope that that explains why we have not gone down the route outlined by my noble friend.
On a wider note, I know that operators have raised concerns about how operational and maintenance works could be carried out on facilities constructed under a development consent order. We can offer some comfort to undertakers on this score. First, we intend to retain permitted development rights under secondary legislation in respect of development which has been specifically authorised by a local or private Act, an order approved by both houses or a harbours Act order where the development has not yet been carried out. Secondly, we intend to make amendments to the general permitted development order, such that land designated by a development consent order will become “operational land” for certain purposes, so that planning permission may be granted for future operational and maintenance works. In doing that, we will have to continue to be mindful of our EU obligations on environmental impact assessments.
I hope that I have gone some way to meeting my noble friend’s concerns and have explained why the thresholds are in the Bill.
14 Oct 2008 : Column 714
Lord Berkeley: I am very grateful to my noble friend for that detailed response. I shall read it with interest, because it is difficult to take in at this time of night. I am sure the intention was not to go down the salami-slicing route, as he calls it, because that is not the way to develop projects. I know that the Bill has already been significantly improved, because at one stage one of the independent planning commission projects was 100 yards of cycle route next to a trunk road. Ministers have, rightly, taken that provision out. When I read that, I am sure that I will learn a lot and the ports will be much happier. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 144:
144: Clause 24, page 15, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) one end of the railway will (when constructed) be in England and the other end of it in Scotland,”
The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 145. First, I cannot see why the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, have been grouped with mine; they address a totally different point. Perhaps they are all to do with railways, but it is hard on the Minister and rather disrupts the thought process to lump all this stuff together.
In Part 3 we are dealing with nationally significant infrastructure projects. The UK is a nation; Scotland is a nation; England is a nation. In railways, there is no apparent link in future developments to what might be happening north of the border. In Clause 16, which refers to electric lines, there is a link to Scotland; in Clause 20, which refers to pipelines, there is a link to Scotland. I should have raised Clause 21, on highways, because it does not relate to Scotland. The point of tabling the amendments is simply to say: is it not a little stupid to have a project in England to develop a railway that could go right up to the border with Scotland but not beyond that? What discussions are under way with Scotland? What proposals are there for major infrastructure projects for highways and railways that will run across the border, so that we join up both Governments and get some sort of co-ordination? I beg to move.
11.30 pm
Lord Berkeley: I might as well speak to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and to my Amendments Nos. 146 to 151. He optimistically wonders how many new railway lines will be built between Scotland and England. It might happen one day, but his Scottish Government, if I can call them that, are already building the borders line half way to Carlisle. Perhaps it will go all the way to Carlisle, in which case they will have an interesting project. It is an interesting idea, anyway.
14 Oct 2008 : Column 715
My amendments relate to Clause 25 and rail freight interchanges. I put on record my thanks to officials in the sponsoring department of the Bill and the Department for Transport for some interesting discussions. We did not always agree, but we had some useful debates.
Amendment No. 146 would reduce the lower limit for a rail freight interchange from 60 hectares to 30. Amendment No. 150 would insert a definition of area, because if we do not have one, what are we talking about? A rail freight terminal—here I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—includes the area for which you seek planning permission, some environmental protection measures, one hopes, access roads, access railways, sidings, hard standing and sheds. How you define the area therefore has a significant effect on how big it should be. I am talking about the lower limit of something that we are defining as strategic, so the amendment offers a way of defining such an area. If Ministers think that the definition should be different, we will probably end up with a different number. The key thing is to have an area.
Sixty hectares is too big for a terminal that is strategic. A network of terminals is needed around the country if rail freight is to make sense. The terminals need to be well distributed if one is to avoid long road journeys at each end of them. In other words, one terminal in London is insufficient, because London is so large that three, four or even several more will probably be needed. Sixty hectares may be fine—even 80 hectares may be fine—for a greenfield site, as many greenfield sites that are anywhere near major conurbations will also be in a green belt, which does not help to get planning permission. However, if a site can be found that is closer to the centre of consumption or production, one might well have to make do with a smaller area because of land values and a lack of land. One should also bear in mind that a terminal needs good road access, good rail access and all the other conditions that I mentioned, which are in short supply.
Of the existing terminals, of which there are quite a number, some are much smaller, whereas one or two are larger. However, a network of terminals is needed to enable the Government’s transport policy to be implemented to grow the volume of rail freight, so it would be good if the area limit was reduced to 30 hectares. An application for a terminal in Radlett, which seems to be the home of many Liberal Democrats, was rejected last week for whatever reason. I shall not comment on it, but these things do get rejected, so my Amendments Nos. 146 and 149 propose an area of 30 hectares.
My other amendments are quite small. I do not like the phrase “container train”, because it is not right to say in a Bill how goods are carried in a train. They might be carried in containers or in wagons; it does not really matter. They are being carried, which is the important thing. I want to change the word “container” to “goods”, which is the normal word used in legislation. As regards storing the goods in warehouses, the important thing is for the goods to be stored. The words “suitable storage facilities” are not as prescriptive as the word “warehouses”.
14 Oct 2008 : Column 716
Finally, on Amendment No. 151, if the Minister accepts that the words “container train” should be changed to “goods train”, a definition of the words “container train” is unnecessary in Clause 25(9). That summarises these amendments.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I indicated to my noble friend Lord Berkeley that, as a supporter of the Rail Freight Group, I should like to emphasise one point that he has made. No other area covered by this Bill is so susceptible to nimbyism as rail freight interchanges. Everyone in the country wants to get more freight off the roads and on to rail, which requires rail freight interchanges, but the very people who unanimously say, “Get more freight on to rail”, hate any rail freight interchange anywhere in their town or city. That is very glaring nimbyism, which leaves me to support the figure of 30 hectares rather than 60 hectares for the reasons given by my noble friend.
Many local authorities will reject these rail freight interchanges if they are put to them for their consent. As we know, the heart of this Bill is about major national strategic questions going to the national Planning Infrastructure Commission not just because of procedural niceties but, in effect, to overcome some of the contradictions arising from nimbyism. I repeat: it is not that people do not want the freight to go on to rail but that they do not want the rail freight interchange.
I hope that the Minister will give some more thought to this or at least an explanation as to whether sufficient work has been done to ascertain whether in the next 10 or 20 years 30 hectares would not be nearer the sort of pattern of rail use through rail freight interchanges that would be conducive in practice to getting more freight off the roads and on to the railways.
Earl Cathcart: The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness are similar to our earlier Amendment No. 133 about pipelines that leave or enter England or Wales. My noble friend raised a good point. He was not talking just about railways. That was not really the issue. I was not going to speak to this amendment until the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pooh-poohed the prospect of new railway lines going north of the border. I do not believe that my noble friend’s amendment is about railway lines. It is about what happens when infrastructure projects cross borders. They might be crossing borders with Scotland, as in my noble friend’s amendment. They might be pipelines, power lines, roads or railways. What discussions have taken place and/or what agreements are in place or are intended to be in place with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?
Lord Adonis: I have no idea why these amendments are grouped. I thought that it might be because the noble Earl anticipated that my noble friend, with his commendable zeal for rail freight, was about to propose a new dedicated goods line between England and Scotland. He has not yet done so, so I can only assume that the amendments were grouped because it was thought that there might be rail implications in them all. However, I will deal with them separately.
14 Oct 2008 : Column 717
In respect of cross-border railways and Amendments Nos. 144 and 145, let me say, as the Government have said in response to previous amendments with a similar intent, that this Bill does not seek to alter the devolution settlements. Welsh and Scottish Ministers will continue to authorise railway projects wholly in Wales or Scotland respectively. Cross-border projects will be handled in accordance with the existing devolution settlement. Where a proposed Anglo-Scottish scheme comes forward, there are two ways of proceeding. The scheme could be split at the border, with the IPC considering the English part and Scottish Ministers the Scottish part, or such a scheme could be authorised by means of a private or possibly hybrid Bill presented to the Westminster Parliament and very likely requiring a Sewel motion. Discussions on which of these options would be best would take place at the appropriate time. I hope that that deals with the noble Earl’s concerns in this regard.
I turn to my noble friend’s amendments. I can tell him that we appreciate the points that he makes about the definition of container trains in Clause 25, in subsections (4) and (9). We are keen to look at these further with him between now and the Report stage.
On rail freight interchanges, I know that my noble friend has had detailed discussions on these points with officials from my department, so my responses will come as no surprise to him. However, I think that I should put the Government’s position on the record. In respect of Amendments Nos. 146 and 149, we are not attracted to lowering the area threshold for rail freight interchanges from 60 hectares to 30 hectares. We arrived at the 60-hectare threshold after considerable research and we still believe that the terminals considered to be nationally significant strategic rail freight interchanges would be in excess of 60 hectares. While we share the concerns of both my noble friends to see that appropriate support is given to the rail freight industry and that interchanges at a certain appropriate level are considered to be national projects, we believe that the 60-hectare threshold meets that requirement. Reducing the threshold to 30 hectares in the way proposed would take away from local authorities decisions that we do not believe to be of genuine national significance.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |