Planning Bill

In his Amendments Nos. 140 to 143, 170 and 171, my noble friend exempts port operators from having to seek development consent if they possess relevant permitted development rights to carry out such work. I appreciate the point he made about ports undertakers being keen to avoid being required to make applications for planning permission for minor improvements to infrastructure or for maintenance work. However, that would not be the case under the Bill, where permitted developments are proposed beneath the threshold in Clause 23. We recognise that statutory undertakers have rights that stem from Part 17 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order to carry out certain types of development. However, these permitted development rights are not available in respect of developments that require environmental impact assessment. Our view is that this Bill will not remove any such permitted development rights since the thresholds have been set above the level at which the project would require an environmental impact assessment—that is, when it is likely to have a significant environmental effect—and permitted development rights would no longer apply. Permitted development rights are already available where the nature of the development is specifically authorised by local or private Acts or orders, and we intend to protect existing Part 11 permitted development rights under the general permitted development order. We are not touching the ability of a harbour authority to undertake small projects currently allowed under its permitted development rights without seeking development consent. However, developers should not salami-slice environmentally significant projects into small chunks in order to avoid proper scrutiny, which would be contrary to EU law on environmental impact assessments. I hear from my noble friend that ports undertakers have complained that they are being treated unfairly compared with rail undertakers because Clause 23 does not contain a provision equivalent to subsections (1)(c) and (2)(c) of Clause 24—that is, it does not specifically exclude works carried out under permitted development from the thresholds of a harbours NSIP. However, an important difference between Clauses 23 and 24 is that there are high-capacity thresholds in Clause 23 but not in Clause 24, so the exclusion for permitted development in Clause 24 serves a useful purpose. Where the project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, a railway undertaker will not be able to rely on permitted development rights, for the same reason that salami-slicing a project is not permitted under EU law. I hope that that explains why we have not gone down the route outlined by my noble friend. On a wider note, I know that operators have raised concerns about how operational and maintenance works could be carried out on facilities constructed under a development consent order. We can offer some comfort to undertakers on this score. First, we intend to retain permitted development rights under secondary legislation in respect of development which has been specifically authorised by a local or private Act, an order approved by both Houses or a Harbours Act order where the development has not yet been carried out. Secondly, we intend to make amendments to the general permitted development order, such that land designated by a development consent order will become ““operational land”” for certain purposes, so that planning permission may be granted for future operational and maintenance works. In doing that, we will have to continue to be mindful of our EU obligations on environmental impact assessments. I hope that I have gone some way to meeting my noble friend’s concerns and have explained why the thresholds are in the Bill.