Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 193:"Page 19, line 33, leave out ““appropriate national”” and insert ““relevant local””" The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to my other amendments that are grouped. Amendments Nos. 193 and 223 would leave out the words ““appropriate national”” and insert ““relevant local””. This touches on several concerns about the Bill that we have expressed, which we generally welcome. It imposes central control over matters that have traditionally been local. It cuts across the planning departments in local authorities and may well impede work by gas and electricity suppliers, water services and those with responsibility for managing the land as a source of production. The consent of the national authority is bound to be a more long-winded affair than, for example, ringing someone up at the town hall, e-mailing them for the form required and then having a meeting with the inspector or surveyor on site. Will central Government be bound by the same timetables as are currently applied to planning permissions? Will they, too, action requests with all speed or just see them pass by default? Reading Clauses 36 to 38, I doubt that the answer to those two questions is yes. Perhaps the Minister will tell me otherwise. Many commons are the source of people’s livelihood—a livelihood that is, moreover, often highly seasonal and subject to the vagaries of the weather. Ditches tend to be fairly permanent, but trenches are often dug to allow excess water to flow away, or to enable the support of land that is liable to slip. Will ““other structures”” include hides or temporary shelters? Will fencing that is in place for only a matter of weeks be included? Will the Minister assure us that Clause 36 will not impede the normal sequence of events in the course of raising birds, tending sheep or any other activity traditionally carried out on common land? Amendments Nos. 196 and 198 address the notion of restriction in the Bill. That is an important point for clarification. We feel that at the very least, Clause 36(2) should be modified to make clear that restricted works are ones that actually or materially prevent access. The conditions laid out in subsection (3) are easily contravened. What is even more worrying is the difficulty of obtaining consent to carry out works. The Moorland Association, among others, voiced its concerns on the matter. According to the Moorland Association, it can cost between £8,000 and £10,000 to get consent. Sometimes, it takes six months for that consent to come through. For works necessary for nature conservation or management, such as temporary fencing, that is a considerable fetter. There is also the danger that where applications are made, some organisations may object merely on principle, not considering the practical implications of delay. I shall be grateful to hear the Minister’s response. I beg to move.