Planning Bill

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 and171. 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 order to remain competitive. Their removal could compromise the efficient movement of international trade through these ports. One of the biggest operators, Associated British Ports, is deeply concerned. It owns 20 or 30 ports around the country—I do not have a clue how many. It is concerned that a Bill aimed at speeding up the planning process may do the reverse for larger port facilities in England and Wales. Port authorities will instead have to apply for a development consent order to be authorised to undertake what is now fairly routine business—using permitted development rights. They will have to wait probably two years or so before doing work that they can do very quickly at present. That is clearly contrary to the general thrust of government policy on planning. 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, 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.