Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Matthew Green: I am still somewhat concerned about the status of the statement of development principles. Let me put it another way. Let us suppose that a developer were to obtain a statement of development principles, but then went for, but was refused, outline planning permission for something similar to the originally proposed project. Let us say that the officer dealt with the developer the first time, but that the committee then refused the outline planning permission, perhaps against the advice of the officer. Would there then be grounds for an appeal against the committee's decision, because there was a material consideration involved? Does the statement have weight in that sense, even if it does not have any legal weight in the sense that outline planning does in financial terms?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman asks the precise question: does the statement have weight in that sense? The answer is that it does. Outline planning permission is a planning permission, so a statement of development principles will be a material consideration for outline planning applications.

Column Number: 382

I have attempted twice to clarify the issue. I am not sure that I can say much more than what I have said, but I have at least attempted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's questions.

5.45 pm

Mr. Clifton-Brown: It would be helpful to those listening to our debates or reading the proceedings if the Minister said why he needed to introduce the new concept. He has said that the proposals will lead to a halfway house between the officer's informal view and outline planning permission. What is the advantage of the new system, and what is the problem with the existing system?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman has heard my explanation and the interesting views of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. The proposals will give the developer the benefit of exploring the possibilities of a development and understanding what conditions there may be, yet without having to work through the mass of detail and make the huge investment that an application for planning permission normally requires. The provisions will help to rationalise the process and make it more cost-efficient. They will open up the prospect of an engagement on all sides. That way, the planners, the planning committee and the would-be developer can understand what might be required without the massive investment in time, space and finance needed to work up a complete project. That is the argument.

Matthew Green: I have previously asked the Minister about a developer, and he confirmed that the developer going to an appeal would be a consideration if the application was subsequently turned out. To return to the situation that I described earlier, if an adjoining landowner or householder seeks and obtains a statement of development principles from the officer that a field will stay green field, but a month later the planning committee grants an outline or full planning permission to somebody on that land—again, perhaps against the advice of the officers—could the adjoining landowners seek judicial review, given that the Minister is not minded to favour limited third-party right of appeal? I want the system to succeed, but such cases could discredit it.

Keith Hill: Again, let me attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman by reminding him that all such developments will occur in the context of the local development framework, which we debated at considerable length in relation to new clause 49. All proposals and designations will be subject to exactly the sort of detailed process of community involvement and pre-application discussions that we have talked about already. To be frank, I find the scenario depicted by the hon. Member for Ludlow of an application out of the blue and a sudden, unexpected granting of that application improbable against the backdrop of what we have debated and what we are seeking to set in place. All I can do is repeat for the third time that the statement of development principle will be a material consideration in relation to any application.

Column Number: 383

I will now go on to deal with amendment No. 205, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold. Amendment No. 205 would prevent a local planning authority from declining to issue a statement where it had issued a statement disagreeing with the principle of all or part of a similar development within the previous two years.

I can understand the concern that an authority might decline to issue a statement even where a potential developer has changed some factors of a proposed development in order to address concerns raised by the local planning authority in the first statement. However, it would be illogical to require an authority to deal with repeated requests for statements of development principles when, elsewhere in the Bill, we are proposing to provide them with the power to decline to determine repeated requests for planning permission.

If an authority issues a statement disagreeing with all or part of the proposed development it will need to include in the statement its reasons why the development is unacceptable. If a developer subsequently amends his or her proposals in order to meet these concerns, it would be unreasonable for the local planning authority to argue that the development was substantially the same and therefore decline to issue a statement.

By now, the Committee will have seen the secondary legislation package which accompanies part 4, which we issued for consultation on 13 October. That includes draft guidance on this point. It makes it clear that, where a potential developer has amended the proposed development in order to meet concerns raised by the local planning authority in the first statement, a local planning authority should not decline to issue a statement of development principles.

For that reason, which I hope reassures the hon. Member for Cotswold—who is nodding and one must always make it clear when a member of the Committee is nodding—I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have to say yes—the Minister's assurance is very helpful. It clarifies subsection (5). I want one other greater clarification from the Minister. I am sorry to labour the point, but when we have dealt with it we can move on. The Minister says that it is his intention to abolish outline planning permission at some stage, or at least that is my understanding given what he has said. Would he explain to the Committee how he will consult before taking that decision so that those using the planning system know at what point outline planning permission is likely to be abolished?

Keith Hill: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a proper consultation before any such move is made, but let me say in the meantime that we intend to run the systems side by side, and it will be only when we are satisfied that the statement of relevant principles is a sustainable arrangement that we shall move over to that system. Let me also reiterate for the sake of clarity that I am aware of the

Column Number: 384

representations and concerns that are being expressed on those matters, and I continue to take them into consideration.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: We have had an extremely useful debate. The Minister's explanations have been very helpful. We will study his words with care. Under those circumstances, if I need to, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is right: he does not need to withdraw his amendment if it has not been moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 8, in

clause 40, page 24, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.

No. 9, in

clause 40, page 24, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.—[Keith Hill.]

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Duration of permission and consent

Keith Hill: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in

clause 46, page 34, line 22, leave out first 'In'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 18 to 22.

Keith Hill: Amendment No. 19 provides that where planning permission is granted and subsequently challenged in a court of law, the duration of the permission or consent will be from the date of grant until three years, or another period as directed by the determining authority, after completion of the legal proceedings. It might be helpful if I explain that in more detail.

A decision to grant planning permission, taken by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State on appeal, can be challenged in the courts. It has been suggested to us that there has been a significant rise in the number of such challenges in recent years by objectors and competitors, whose aim appears to be to delay the start of a development, or even to prevent it entirely, by running it out of time. Where a grant of planning permission is challenged, it is likely to be imprudent for the prospective developer to commence his development until the challenge has been disposed of. However, that clearly presents a potential problem, because the clause reduces the period of validity of a consent, generally from five years to three years.

Furthermore, the clause also prevents the renewal of planning permissions. We recognise that there may be cases in which the combined effect of these factors could unreasonably jeopardise a development. Where a decision to grant planning permission is

Column Number: 385

subsequently upheld by the court, it is right that the developer should be given the necessary time to implement that permission. Amendment No. 19 therefore provides for the period of consent to start again after the completion of any legal proceedings.

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are technical amendments, which are necessary as a consequence of amendment No. 19. They simply allow the provisions that I have just set out to be incorporated into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—the principal Act.

Amendment No. 22 provides that where listed buildings consent or conservation area consent is granted and subsequently challenged in a court of law, the duration of the consent will be from the date of grant until three years, or for another period as directed by the determining authority, after the completion of the legal proceedings. The amendment applies the same provisions to listed buildings consent and conservation area consent as amendment No. 19 applies in respect of planning permission, and is being introduced for the same reasons.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are technical amendments, which are necessary as a consequence of amendment No. 22. They simply allow the provisions in that amendment to be incorporated into the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

 

---

Prepared 23 October 2003