Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 171A: 171A: Schedule 2, page 156, line 34, at end insert— ““Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) After section 334(2) (the spatial development strategy) insert— ““(2A) The spatial development strategy must be in general conformity with national policy statements.”” Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c. 5) (1) The PCPA 2004 is amended as follows. (2) After section 1(2) (regional spatial strategy) insert— ““(2A) In subsection (2) the Secretary of State’s policies include national policy statements.”” (3) In section 19(2)(a) (preparation of local plan documents) before ““national policies”” insert ““national policy statements, other””. (4) In section 24 (conformity with regional strategy)— (a) before subsection (1)(a) insert— ““(za) relevant national policy statements;””; (b) after subsection (1) insert— ““(1A) A national policy statement is relevant if— (a) it sets out the amount, type or size of development that is appropriate nationally or for a specified area that includes, or partly includes, the area of the local planning authority; or (b) it identifies a location that is in, or partly in, the area of the local planning authority as suitable, potentially suitable or unsuitable for development.”” (5) After section 117(3) (interpretation) insert— ““(3A) Expressions used in this Act and in the Planning Act 2008 have the same meaning in this Act as in that Act.”””” The noble Lord said: My Amendment No. 171A is grouped with other amendments in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd. All the amendments are designed to create a link between national policy statements, which relate to the larger sized projects and are the responsibility of the Bill, and smaller developments that are outwith the scope of the Bill. On the previous day in Committee, we discussed the various relationships between the minimum size of developments that would be included, as well as energy generators, rail freight interchanges, waste disposal and hazardous waste. There were a number of views about the minimum size of developments. Whatever the minimum size is, will the policies in the national policy statements for all these different types of development filter through into regional spatial strategies and development plans for similar projects that are below the limits that will be set by the Bill? In debates on previous amendments, many noble Lords have mentioned the problem of nimbyism. If one likes the idea of wind farms or hazardous waste disposal schemes and believes that the Bill will make getting development permission easier for these projects, I suspect that we will want the limit to be as low as possible. But many other developments will be well below the limit and could get caught out in what one could usefully describe as local authorities not wishing to have them in their back yards. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I still believe that rail freight terminals have to be in a national network—unlike sewage works—to work. It would be a great shame if the smaller ones, which need to be part of that network, are subject to local authorities which believe in the principle of rail freight—or wind farms or whatever—but do not want them in their back yard. These amendments try to relate the policies in the national policy statements to the regional spatial strategies, development plans and other similar documents, so that when local authorities or others consider applications for smaller schemes, they take into account the policies in the national policy statement. The amendments of my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd may be slightly different in detail but the intent is the same. I am sure that his explanation will be much better than mine because he is a real professional in these matters. I beg to move.