Planning Bill

I am grateful for the way in which noble Lords have introduced these very specific amendments. Noble Lords are essentially seeking various assurances. My noble friend Lord Judd seeks assurance on the primacy of the NPS. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, seeks reassurance that the NSIPs processes will be consistent with local planning provisions and other aspects of wider policy such as marine plans and will contribute to the, "““mitigation of, and adaptation to climate change””," and address matters such as health and well-being, the environment and so on. It is an interesting group of amendments. Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 306A, which seeks to remove the requirement that the commission should decide an application in accordance with any NPS. This goes to the heart of what we are trying to do in the NPS. It would remove the ground for the commission to take a decision that is not in accord with the NPS. I do not want to have a rerun of the long debate we had at the start of Committee. Instead, I can reiterate the fact that this is not acceptable because NPSs will be the primary factor for IPC decisions in the new single consent regime. They will set out clearly our national policy on and national need for infrastructure, but only after they have been consulted on and scrutinised by Parliament. However, it is clear that Clause 101 also provides that the NPS will not be the only factor. Earlier today we talked about how the IPC must also have regard to the local impacts report from the local authority, to other matters which may be set out in secondary legislation and to any other issues that the commission thinks are important and relevant. Even where the application is in accordance with the NPS, the IPC could well, as we know, decide that a particular application for a proposed project was not appropriate because it would be unlawful or would result in the UK being in breach of a duty imposed on it by or under any enactment. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that we intend that among the matters we will prescribe is that the IPC would need to have regard to relevant marine plans and the marine policy statement. He has indeed been extremely consistent and relentless on this matter. I hope that by answering him in this context, he will take what I said earlier as a fuller explanation of how we intend to respond. I turn now to the other amendments to Clauses 101 and 102 which would add further factors for the IPC to consider in determining applications, an example of which would be climate change. Clause 10 requires the relevant Secretary of State when preparing national policy statements to do so with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, which of course would include climate change objectives. The NPS stage is the right place to do that job. It should not be for the IPC to reach those judgments, for the reasons that we set out in our earlier debates. On Amendment No. 301A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Judd, I take the point entirely. I understand exactly what he is aiming at. However, I cannot say more than I said in my letter to him—which is that national policy statements will also incorporate planning policy where it is relevant. If we were to do what he wants and add them into the decision framework in the way proposed, we would essentially be duplicating their role. We would be confusing matters rather than clarifying what it is we expect the NPS to deliver in the way it relates to the planning framework as a whole. We are trying to achieve clarity and comprehensiveness in the NPSs, and this is the way to do it.