Planning Bill

I shall first deal with Amendments Nos. 156 and 162 of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which probe why development consent will be required for development where the development only forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project rather than being one in its own right. I reassure the noble Baroness that her amendment is not necessary. Clause 30 of the Bill is designed to regulate nationally significant infrastructure projects. To the extent that development is proposed as part of such a project, that development will require consent under the terms of the Bill. However, development that could be carried out separately, and which is not clearly part of a development NSIP, will continue to enjoy existing permitted development rights. Our overall policy aim is that the IPC will take on the role of examining and considering all aspects of an application that meets the definitions of a nationally significant infrastructure project. These definitions are set out in Part 3 and state clearly what scales of project will require development consent from the IPC. It is not our intention that promoters should be required to seek development consent for works which are not captured by these thresholds and which are not component parts of a greater project, by dint of them being judged as forming part of an NSIP. At the same time, however, we do not want to create a loophole that allows promoters to ““salami slice”” NSIP development into smaller chunks of work which could therefore slip under the thresholds. I should also clarify that we have no reason to believe that the wording of this clause will prejudice the ability of the promoter to carry out works which are below the thresholds through existing permitted development rights as long as these do not form part of an NSIP. In Amendment No. 157, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks to alter the wording of Clause 31(2)(a) to mean that the conversion of fuel sources in a power station should always be treated as a material change of use, and therefore require development consent under the Bill. I shall explain the background to this. The wording of Clause 31(2)(a) is intended to ensure that the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 are not lost. Under this Act, power station operators are required to seek consent from the Government before converting a power station to run from any power source, which generally, of course, means coal, to petroleum or gas, which was the example given by the noble Lord. The conversion of a power station to such a fuel source may not in itself be ““development”” within the normal definitions, and so were it not for this clause such works might not require development consent from the IPC. However, the conversion of existing power stations to use forms of fuel other than those contained in Clause 31(2)(a) would be extremely likely to require construction and other works, which would mean that it automatically counts as development under the Bill. For this reason we believe that Amendment No. 157 is unnecessary. However, if the noble Lord can provide me with any concrete examples to the contrary I shall, of course, look at them to see whether further amendment is necessary. Amendment No. 159 seeks to add a new category to subsection (3), to expand the definition of ““development”” to cover any works that are relevant to an NSIP. This is intended to cover the kind of works that would not otherwise constitute development; for example, internal building works. However, we believe there is a risk that this amendment would introduce real uncertainty as to the meaning of, "““works carried out under Clause 14””," and therefore create confusion as to the range of matters requiring development consent. No works are carried out under Clause 14, as this clause simply sets out definitions for what constitutes a nationally significant infrastructure project. By including these matters within the definition of development, this amendment would create uncertainty and confusion as to the range of matters requiring development consent under Clause 30, which would have completely the opposite effect of what this Bill seeks to achieve. The noble Lord’s Amendment No. 395 is intended to ensure that a person does not commit an offence under the enforcement clauses of the Bill if he is only measuring and marking out land. We believe that this amendment is unnecessary. As I understand it, the noble Lord is concerned to avoid the situation whereby an offence under Clauses 153 or 154 could be triggered by a person simply measuring up or marking out land. I understand that underlying this concern is case law that has developed around the meaning of when development is commenced for the purposes of Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The courts have held that in some circumstances preliminary works can be material operations for the purposes of Section 56. However, for the purposes of the offences created by Clauses 153 and 154 of this Bill, the relevant question is not whether development has commenced, but whether a person has carried out development for which development consent is required, or whether he has carried out works in breach of the terms of a development consent order. To understand this fully, it is necessary to refer to Clause 30, which says that, "““(““development consent””) is required for development to the extent that the development is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project””." We do not consider that the measuring up or marking out of land by itself could ever conceivably amount to development forming part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. It only remains for me to move Government Amendments Nos. 160 and 161, which are purely drafting points intended to clarify the workings of Clause 33. However, I can explain them fully if noble Lords wish.