| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I look forward to the Minister’s response a great deal. She has been kind enough to give me a slight indication of what it might be in the form of a letter. I hope that she will forgive me if I quote from it.
“There is a lot that local planning authorities can do already to influence land uses in sensitive areas by using powers already conferred by the Use Classes order, backed by suitable policies in their local plans”.
There is no such power for second homes. We need that power, and we need it now.
The Earl of Caithness: I support the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, in particular. I ask the Minister, when she comes—
Lord Dixon-Smith: As I have five amendments in this group, I thought I might have a chance to speak to them before my noble friend started picking up points. I might accidentally say something of interest to him; although I do not think that I will, because—
Lord Dixon-Smith: The explanation for that is simple: the noble Baroness has taken the trouble to write to me on those amendments. I am grateful for that letter. Unfortunately, I received it only this morning. I have read it and it looks as though it has answered the points that we raised in those amendments. I give the Minister warning that I need to study it properly, but I do not propose to go any further this afternoon.
I have every sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is saying. I recognise that he is discussing a very real difficulty. I have been trying quite hard to make a connection between that and national infrastructure, but I may be rather less sympathetic than the Minister.
Noble Lords: It is in a different part of the Bill.
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1012
The Earl of Caithness: I was delighted to give way to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I was not certain whether he was going to get up before or after the Minister, so I went for the gap. I did not have the benefit of reading the letter that my noble friend has received from the Minister.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said. It is extremely important to the farming industry to have consistency the treatment of farmers by local authorities. My concern about the Minister’s Amendments Nos. 415 to 417 and 419 is that we could get a varying regime throughout the country. I hope that the Government’s eagerness to tackle the possible residential problem in Westminster under permitted development does not lead by accident to the closing down of businesses in the country. If farmers are prevented using their existing permitted development rights, there could be serious problems, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, for smaller farmers.
However, it is more complicated than that because farms do not follow planning boundaries. Part of a farm could be targeted by the local authority under the provisions of the Government’s amendment, and the other part of the farm, in another planning authority, would not be subject to the same restrictions. I hope that the Minister will give a firm commitment that what she is outlining in her amendments will still permit agriculture, as we know it today, to continue with its general permitted development rights. If my memory serves me right, they go back to the 1947 Act which, once upon a time, I knew quite well, but which I have forgotten about.
7.30 pm
Baroness Andrews: This has been an interesting debate because so many amendments raise significant problems in different ways. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for not speaking to his amendment. I shall summarise what I said so that we can have it on the record. I have a very long speaking note, but I am conscious of the time and that there is business waiting. I shall try not to speak so fast that I am incoherent. I shall take it steady.
Amendments Nos. 412 and 413 insert new clauses that allow local planning authorities to advertise planning applications on the internet rather than in local newspapers. I understand the problem of accessibility and the case about cost. There is merit here, and I understand why the LGA is concerned. It may be that readership levels of local newspapers are not as high as they once were. However, they still serve a useful purpose, and I do not think we should exclude people because they are not online. My local newspaper has a tremendous following. This is an important point, and we will consider the publicity requirements for planning applications generally as part of the review and simplification of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. We are taking on board the issues raised by the noble Baroness. If we need to make a change, there is no need to do so in primary legislation. We could do it in secondary legislation. I hope the LGA will be satisfied with that.
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1013
Amendments Nos. 415, 416, 417 and 419 are government amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, tabled Amendment No. 417A. I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, raised local determination. Much of this is about how we get more local determination through the local planning system and the GPDO. Amendments Nos. 415 to 417 and 419 make changes to the compensation provision contained in Clause 183, which establishes the principle that there should be a better balance between extended permitted development rights and the need, under certain circumstances, to restrict rights without incurring liability for compensation. That would depend on people having sufficient warning of changes that might affect them.
Our amendments are made largely in response to representations that have been made as the Bill progressed through both Houses. I am sure that noble Lords know that the GPDO grants a national general planning permission for various types of normally small scale and uncontentious development and gives people the freedom to carry out certain changes to their homes without having to go through a planning application process and cuts down the work of planning authorities. The changes we have introduced after 20 years follow from our sense that as part of moving towards a more relaxed and proportionate approach—for example, in relation to household development—we also need a better balance between restricting rights in planning permission and the right to compensation. We have done that through the relaxation of the household development consents system and so on.
Clause 183 now allows restrictive changes, whether through government amendment of legislation or through local withdrawal of a right—for example, under the old article 4 direction—to be made to permitted development rights without compensation being payable on condition that at least 12 months’ notice is given of the change. However, I know that there is a strong case to be made in certain sectors, particularly in agriculture. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who pointed out what we mean by those effects; for example, small temporary buildings such as accommodation for seasonal workers. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, brought it alive for me in a way that I had not been quite aware of because I was looking at the problem more abstractly. We are aware of those concerns, and Amendments Nos. 417 and 419 restrict this provision to types of development that will be specified in regulations. In consequence, with the exception of household development, on which we consulted in 2007, further public consultation will be required before regulations affecting other sectors can be made.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a point about partial or contradictory schemes. If we do it like this, we will have scheme that will not only allow the Government to listen and to consider carefully the potential impact on a sector before making further regulations, but we will be able consistently to address the needs of that sector. Given the wide range of permitted development rights, it is right that fuller consideration is given to how a change related to permitted development might impact on the sector. I hope that in that way we have met the intention of an
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1014
Amendments Nos. 415 and 417 relate to the time span for making a planning application following an article 4 direction. Under Section 108 of the 1990 Act, where permitted development is withdrawn by government amendment or revocation, the potential liability to compensation applies only when the application for planning permission is submitted and turned down within 12 months of that change being made. Local authorities are treated differently, and we believe that is to their disadvantage. In the case of withdrawal or amendment of permitted development rights by local authorities, there is no requirement that applications for planning permission have to be submitted within 12 months of a change. For local authorities, there is indefinite liability for compensation. We feel that that is unfair and unreasonable and could be unnecessarily restrictive on local authority flexibility. Amendment No. 416 aims to put in place a mechanism that might level the playing field in future. It ensures that where permitted development rights are withdrawn by local government with less than 12 months’ notice, compensation will be payable only when the subsequent application for planning permission is made within 12 months. That brings it into line with changes made by central government. Amendment No. 415 is a technical and consequential amendment.
I want to make it clear that this change to the compensation period when an article 4 direction is made will apply only to the types of development specified through regulations. That will allow consideration of the potential impact on a sector in the same way that we have agreed is appropriate for the main change to the compensation provision that I have already spoken to in relation to Amendments Nos. 417 and 419.
In summary, these amendments put in place common-sense safeguards to ensure that the greater flexibility for planning authorities provided by Amendment No. 183 is not at the cost of those who would benefit from permitted development rights.
Lord Cameron of Dillington: I am probably very naïve about parliamentary speak, but so that I am totally clear, did the Minister say, in connection with my amendment, that, subject to public consultation, it is not currently the Government’s intention that these permitted development rights should be withdrawn?
Baroness Andrews: That is correct in relation to the classes that we were talking about. Consultation will take place on the different sectors that might be affected and those consultations will then be reflected in regulations specific to those sectors. Nobody is nodding from the Box, but I think I am right. The regulations themselves will be consulted on. It will be the normal process. I think we will secure precisely those protections that we want to see for the sectors that have been identified.
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1015
Amendments Nos. 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 425, 427, 428 and 426A all concern minor changes to planning permissions relating to land where changes are not material. I shall pick my way through my speaking notes. Clause 184 enables a local planning authority to make a minor change to a planning permission relating to land in its area where it is satisfied that the change is not material. By “not material” we simply mean a change that would not be significant in planning terms. We are making this change because when someone seeks to implement their permission they often find that minor changes to their original proposal are necessary. One could hold up an entire office block by trying to establish that the entrance to an office ought to be slightly to the left or right. In the past such minor changes were dealt with locally with planning authorities making a judgment about whether they were so minor that they could be allowed without any formal procedure, and that worked well. The problem has been that recent case law has thrown doubt on whether that approach is acceptable. There has been widespread uncertainty for planning authorities and developers and this has become a serious burden. All we seek to do in this clause is to reintroduce a little practical flexibility. A similar provision has existed in Scotland for around a quarter of a century and has worked very well. However, I understand that noble Lords seek reassurance on this. Amendments Nos. 421, 422, 423, 424 and 426, about which I wrote to the noble Lord, question how this will work in practice. Amendment No. 421 is unnecessary because Schedule 1 achieves the purpose of that amendment. Amendments Nos. 422, 423 and 424, which seek to limit a local authority’s scope to exercise this power in relation to a material change, would not make much difference to what we are trying to do. If I put this into context, the concept of whether something is material is a longstanding one. Local planning authorities are well used to deciding what it means. They are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the planning system and it is fundamental that they exercise that judgment to ensure the system works. Removing the references, as the amendment suggests, would have little practical effect unless we were in a position to set out exactly what a non-material change was. Since it covers practically everything you can think of, we cannot address that in legislation. Moving a window might be material or non-material depending on the window, the dwelling or whether it was in a conservation area. I think that I addressed that in my note.
Amendment No. 426 would remove the ability to make changes that are not material by removing or altering existing conditions or imposing new ones. It would prevent a local planning authority making very minor changes to an existing planning condition. However, if it is accepted that it should be possible to make non-material changes to a planning permission and the planning authority is best placed to decide that, whether material or not, there does not seem much reason to impose a restriction that would prevent a minor change to the planning condition. We are trying to ensure that we have proper flexibility and that local authorities will not suddenly make significant changes to their schemes after planning permission has been given.
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1016
Amendment No. 426A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, is similar. It would prevent a condition being imposed. I accept that imposing a condition would in effect amount to a material change having been made. However, there might be occasion when the flexibility to do so would be useful. For example, if a developer asked whether a change could be made to reposition a window, the planning authority might consider that not to be material; for example, if it were obscure glazed to prevent overlooking. Therefore, I think that is covered by process.
Amendments Nos. 425, 427 and 428 were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and would make a slight change to the provision at Section 96A(2) of the 1990 Act. Subsection (2) requires that when determining whether something is not material, a planning authority must consider any other minor change that has already been made to the original permission under this power. As she said, this is intended to stop the cumulative impact of a number of minor changes to the original planning permission leading to a material change occurring. As she also said, removing the words “under this section” from the provision would require consideration to be given to any other change of any degree of significance that might have been made. The other way in which changes might be made is through Section 97 of the 1990 Act. That section is not used frequently, but is exercised to make changes that are significant. However, the significant point here is that the process has important safeguards, including a requirement that the changes are agreed by all parties, including affected third parties. However, we are not concerned with that situation here. This measure is about the sensible use of very minor adjustments to agreed permissions, which will remain substantially the same. Therefore, I do not see much advantage in linking the two measures. Indeed, from these amendments I pick up a concern across the Committee that Clause 184 would somehow undermine how the planning system operates by allowing significant changes to be made against the public interest. However, I believe that the safeguards the clause contains as regards the limits on who can apply for a change and who determines the scale of any permitted change deal with that. The proposal was welcomed by the planning profession, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Planning Officers Society, and has been in place in Scotland for a quarter of a century.
As regards Amendments Nos. 427 and 428 and a change being made only at the request of someone who has an interest in the land, the noble Baroness asked me specifically whether an applicant might not have an interest in the land and therefore could not use this power. In fact, an applicant for planning permission would be viewed as having an interest in the land under this provision, and therefore would be covered. I think that addresses the main points of those amendments.
I am making progress; I now deal with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, which was not what I expected. I thought that some other case would be made, to which I shall not draw attention. However, I now realise that he was interested in the change in use process with regard to second homes. I
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1017
The noble Lord referred to certain reports. Matthew Taylor’s report has recommended that the Government should trial planning rules limiting changes in use of full-time homes to second homes or holiday lets in one of more of the national parks. We are looking at Matthew Taylor’s report in detail and we will publish a response later this year, but we are not convinced that the recommendation for trialling planning rules with the aim of controlling second homes and holiday lets is a workable solution to the wider issue of housing affordability. As the noble Lord knows better than most Members of the Committee, to address rural affordability one needs a wide range of policies which create a synergy and incentive which respect human rights and the real needs of people who are being priced out of those areas where the ratio of affordability to prices is eight or nine to one—as high as it is in central London. We are well aware of that.
I think that the noble Baroness said that she was not moving Amendment No. 430, so I shall move swiftly on. Amendments Nos. 431 and 432 are government amendments that correct an unintentional drafting error that would have given excessively broad powers for the making of tree preservation regulations under the new Section 202G(1) of the 1990 Act that is introduced in Clause 186. The amendment would provide similar provision to that currently in Section 194A of the 1990 Act, and it is consistent with the recommendations of the DPRRC. Amendment No. 432 corrects a minor drafting error in Schedule 8. The tree preservation provisions that we have made in the Bill are excellent, but I am not sorry that we are not debating them.
The noble Baroness kindly gave notice of Amendment No. 432A, which covers the situation faced by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority in developing sites that are subject to easements and restricted covenants because they have no access to the provisions of Section 237 of the TCPA. The Government are sympathetic to the problems faced by the FEPA, which I understand languishes in a legislative lacuna. The predecessor was a precepting authority, which fell within the definition of a local authority and therefore had access to the benefits of Section 237.
The FEPA functions, in the main, like a combined fire authority, which is also specifically defined as a local authority. All those definitions are in the definition
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1018
Amendment No. 433 was tabled by the Government in response to concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the excessive scope of the powers in the substituted Section 303 of the TCPA 1990 to amend, repeal or revoke other legislation. The amendment restricts that power, so that it can only happen in the appropriate circumstances. Those circumstances are the effect of paying or failing to pay a fee or charge in accordance with the regulations in subsection (5)(f) or making incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision and savings in subsection (6)(a). We have reflected the committee’s suggestion that we restrict the scope of the power.
I am aware of the speed at which I have gone through this. I hope that I have answered most of the questions raised by the amendments. I would be happy to write to noble Lords if they feel that I have not done so.
Baroness Hamwee: I know what I ought to do, but before I do it, I urge the Minister to ensure that the problem for the FEPA is sorted out as soon as possible, if this is the opportunity in which to do so. She will understand the consequences that flow from it not being able to pursue the best PFI deal. It is a much bigger point than it appears from the short amendment. I will do what I ought to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 413 not moved.]
Clause 177 [Determination of planning applications by officers]:
[Amendment No. 413ZA not moved.]
Lord Patel of Bradford: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.55 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |