| Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
|
|
The Chairman: The Minister should reply to it if the hon. Member who tabled it mentions it during the debate. Matthew Green: I welcome the inclusion of Government amendments Nos. 7 to 9. There were clearly significant problems, which were highlighted by Opposition Members and Government Back Benchers in the first Committee, with the abolition of outline planning permission. The Minister has listed a number of the problems, and I welcome the amendments. Amendment No. 205 has been tabled by Conservative Members, and I shall be happy to listen to their arguments. I should like to ask you, Mr. Hurst, whether there is likely to be a clause stand part debate or whether I can use this group of amendments as a suitable vehicle to discuss the statement of development principles. The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman would be wise to keep to the amendments. I shall make a decision during the course of the debate as to whether it will be appropriate to have a clause stand part debate. Matthew Green: I thank you for that clarification, Mr. Hurst. Having dealt with one problem, the Government have got themselves into another with their amendments. The problem concerns the relevant status of outline planning permission and the statement of development principles. Let me give an example, which will not be hypothetical. A member of the public seeks to purchase a house. The investment is substantial and they want to make sure that the surrounding area will remain greenfield. New section 61D(1) states that
The person does not have to have an interest in the piece of land in question. Somebody who is about to purchase a house could ask for a statement of development principles on the adjoining land. They could say, ''I want to know whether it is possible to build a factory or houses on that land.'' They could receive a statement of development principles from the council that stated, ''Houses will not be permitted Column Number: 374 because this is greenfield.'' That would be a possible outcome of a statement of development principles.The person purchases the house in those circumstances. Now outline planning permissions are back, the statement of development principles will presumably have been issued by the officers of the council. It will not have come from the committee because it is a statement of principles rather than a planning decision. A few months after the person has bought the house, the adjoining field is put up for housing and outline permission is sought. That would be contrary to the local development document, but there could be good reasons for that. Perhaps the planning committee decided to overrule their planning officers—it happens—and granted permission. To all intents and purposes, the statement of development principles, which was issued only a few months before, would be utterly worthless. Somebody could make a major financial investment in an adjoining property on the grounds that the council has just issued them with a statement of development principles. That is why I ask about the status of statements of development principles and outline planning permissions or, indeed, full planning permissions. Although we know that the statement of development principles is a material consideration in a planning permission—it is not a material consideration in an outline planning permission, although the Government may want to introduce that by amending the Bill—it is only a material consideration. Of course, there are many other material considerations. I urged that our debate on clause 40 was brought forward because of this genuine worry. The Government have done the right thing in allowing outline planning permission for exactly the reasons that the Minister gave. However, in doing so, they created additional problems that have not yet been thought through to ensure that the system works. I understand what the Government are trying to achieve with statements of development principles, but they could be worthless—people just will not bother to apply for them—or, perhaps worse than that, they could be misleading. The Government may envisage the statements generally being sought by land developers, but I believe that people with an interest in adjoining land will be the major users. They will see a statement of development principles as a means of getting a statement about the piece of land next to them. On the basis of that they may make financial investments, borrow against it or extend their mortgage on a property. All of that could be affected, because the statement of development principles is not a strong document. It does not say, ''and all planning permissions will follow in line''. Someone is fairly certain to get planning permission if they follow the conditions in an outline planning permission, which is stronger. Hence, a reason that the Minister did not give for the restoration of outline planning permission is that there are many developers whose land values are based on existing outline planning permissions. They have borrowings against them. If such permissions were, to all intents and purposes, abolished overnight, many Column Number: 375 developers would suddenly discover that they were close to insolvency. That was another concern that was raised about the removal of outline planning permission.The Minister has done exactly the right thing, but he has left a hole. I hope that he can find a way of closing it. The simplest way—not necessarily the way forward—would be to remove the whole clause. If there were no statements of development principles, there would still be outline planning permission, and the system would work. That is the Government's fall-back position. The system would still work if clause 40 were removed. There is good intent behind the statement of development principles, but there must be a strong clarification of its status and how it relates to outline planning permission, planning permission and local development documents. A statement could be issued on a piece of land and then a revision, which, I hope, would now happen much more quickly, could be made of a local development document. If the local development document related to the piece of land, it would instantly change. At present, that can happen with a local plan, but it could take two and a half years or more—and that is quick for changing a local plan—during which period the person would have plenty of time to get involved. I foresee that local development documents will move faster than that. The council could issue a statement of development principles and then begin the revision process on a local development document a month later. A year later, everything will have changed and the value of the property will have been materially affected. We accept that changes in the planning system can materially affect the value of properties. The concern is that statements of development principles will give people a false sense of certainty. The relative merits of the different components of the system must be made clear. The Chairman: Order. It is my intention to allow a short break from our deliberations. Accordingly, I suspend the Committee until 5.20 pm.
4.59 pmSitting suspended.
5.20 pmOn resuming— Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Opposition have received many representations on this matter. It might be worth recording what clause 40 is intended to do. The Government's explanatory memorandum states:
I stress that—but, as the hon. Member for Ludlow made clear, Column Number: 376
While considering clause 40, we would have liked to consider my amendment No. 206. It relates to schedule 3, which abolishes section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which relates to outline planning permission. Schedule 6 also removes section 92 from the principal Act. Having considered the matter, we would like clause 40 to be abolished altogether. We do not see the merits of the statement of development principles. We cannot see that it speeds up the present system or makes it more transparent, and we have had many representations in relation to that. However, having had our original amendment to abolish subsection (6) graciously accepted—that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and I co-signed Government amendment No. 8; it has been a long time coming, but we won this small concession from the Government, for which I am grateful—it would be helpful to hear from the Minister about the Government's proposals in relation to abolishing outline planning permission. Keith Hill: I shall respond to that invitation. I am aware of the anxieties of developers and house builders about statements of development principles and outline planning permissions. I know that developers see the latter as—I think the phrase has already been used—the bankable asset in the process. I am continuing to consider these matters. Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not sure that that gets us very far. Developers will still believe that it is in the Government's mind to abolish outline planning permission. Outline planning permission has been available since 1950. It allows the planning authority to give a decision in principle and to reserve details for approval subsequently. Outline planning permission can be granted only for the erection of a building. Reserved matters include the site, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping. We have been told of a problem by a huge range of people. The statement of development principles is not a bankable asset. There is no certainty about it and one cannot raise finance on it. Let us consider a large-scale development: perhaps one of the supermarket chains wants to build a supermarket. It will go along to the landowner and say that it would like to do that. Under the old system, the local authority would grant outline planning permission, which would have a duration of five years. The supermarket would then be able to go away and get funding on the basis of that outline planning permission. The statement of development principles will not provide people with that certainty. Therefore, far from speeding up the system, the statement of development principles will slow it down and make matters more difficult, particularly in terms of regeneration. We have received representations stating that, where it is necessary to accumulate large blocks of property to carry out urban regeneration, developers have already been through the compulsory purchase procedure that is in the Bill, and that that can sometimes take three years on its own. The developer then has to sort out whether he needs to Column Number: 377 renew the consent. Permission is not straightforward or cheap, and a great deal of investment, in terms of time and money, is required to obtain it.I am grateful that the Government have had a change of heart and deleted the ''lockout'' in subsection (6). It will be possible, if a statement of development principles has been issued, to obtain an outline planning permission for the time being. Those developers that have not got that far, however, will never know whether the Government will announce the abolition of the outline planning permission. In a way, the Government's lack of clarity makes the situation even more difficult. I discussed another aspect of the statement of development principles with the planning officer in Wandsworth. Bearing in mind the fact that anyone can apply for a planning application on any piece of land, a number of people will visit the local planning authority to obtain a statement of development principles in order to freeze a particular piece of land and stop its future development. They know that the current council will not allow development on it, that it will produce the statement of development principles to that effect, and that no one will be able to apply for another statement or an outline planning permission for at least two years, under subsection (5). We tabled amendment No. 205, which would delete subsection (5), so that there would not be the lockout period of two years. It makes eminent sense, and I plead with with the Minister that, as well as deleting subsection (6), we should delete subsection (5).
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 23 October 2003 |
