Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 337: 337: Clause 111, page 57, line 1, leave out from ““required”” to end of line 7 The noble Baroness said: Noble Lords are probably quite right to be leaving the Chamber; we will be discussing technicalities, and this is not the most riveting group of amendments—although the Minister is looking as if she feels that every group is riveting. I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 338 in this group, but not to Amendments Nos. 339 and 341, as we have adequately covered those issues at this stage. The Minister’s amendments in this group are completely unrelated to mine, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will be arguing that Clause 114 should not stand part of the Bill. My amendments apply to Clause 111, which deals with development for which development consent—planning permission, in common parlance—may be granted by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. Amendment No. 337 would delete the definition of ““associated development”” which was added during Committee stage in the Commons. I suppose that one will not get brownie points with the other place if one seems to be arguing that something that they put into a Bill should come out, but the definition was added with the explanation that it was to clarify the definition of ““England”” and some matters regarding Wales and I am concerned about its scope. I realise now that the words ““the development”” in subsection (5) refer to the associated development. I had been puzzled by the wording, and therefore by the subsection. As I say, however, subsections (2)(a) and (6) are drawn very widely—or are capable of being interpreted as such—in allowing the IPC to give permission for associated development which is more or less development associated with the main subject of the application. I am concerned that the scope is inappropriately wide. I have a question for the Minister. In view of the wording of Clause 110, the IPC cannot give consent to an application while excluding a part of it; the consent is either for the whole application or for nothing. Will it deal with associated development at the same time? Will guidance limit the associated development to what is necessary—which is perhaps the amendment that I should have tabled in the first place—or will it limit the consent to what is within the site of the application? As the provisions are now, it looks as if one could get development consent for, say, a power station and, as something associated with it, an office in a nearby town acting as an inquiry centre for local people. The term is extremely wide and I look forward to the Minister’s justification for it. I beg to move.