Planning Bill

This has been an interesting debate because so many amendments raise significant problems in different ways. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for not speaking to his amendment. I shall summarise what I said so that we can have it on the record. I have a very long speaking note, but I am conscious of the time and that there is business waiting. I shall try not to speak so fast that I am incoherent. I shall take it steady. Amendments Nos. 412 and 413 insert new clauses that allow local planning authorities to advertise planning applications on the internet rather than in local newspapers. I understand the problem of accessibility and the case about cost. There is merit here, and I understand why the LGA is concerned. It may be that readership levels of local newspapers are not as high as they once were. However, they still serve a useful purpose, and I do not think we should exclude people because they are not online. My local newspaper has a tremendous following. This is an important point, and we will consider the publicity requirements for planning applications generally as part of the review and simplification of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. We are taking on board the issues raised by the noble Baroness. If we need to make a change, there is no need to do so in primary legislation. We could do it in secondary legislation. I hope the LGA will be satisfied with that. Amendments Nos. 415, 416, 417 and 419 are government amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, tabled Amendment No. 417A. I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, raised local determination. Much of this is about how we get more local determination through the local planning system and the GPDO. Amendments Nos. 415 to 417 and 419 make changes to the compensation provision contained in Clause 183, which establishes the principle that there should be a better balance between extended permitted development rights and the need, under certain circumstances, to restrict rights without incurring liability for compensation. That would depend on people having sufficient warning of changes that might affect them. Our amendments are made largely in response to representations that have been made as the Bill progressed through both Houses. I am sure that noble Lords know that the GPDO grants a national general planning permission for various types of normally small scale and uncontentious development and gives people the freedom to carry out certain changes to their homes without having to go through a planning application process and cuts down the work of planning authorities. The changes we have introduced after 20 years follow from our sense that as part of moving towards a more relaxed and proportionate approach—for example, in relation to household development—we also need a better balance between restricting rights in planning permission and the right to compensation. We have done that through the relaxation of the household development consents system and so on. Clause 183 now allows restrictive changes, whether through government amendment of legislation or through local withdrawal of a right—for example, under the old article 4 direction—to be made to permitted development rights without compensation being payable on condition that at least 12 months’ notice is given of the change. However, I know that there is a strong case to be made in certain sectors, particularly in agriculture. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who pointed out what we mean by those effects; for example, small temporary buildings such as accommodation for seasonal workers. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, brought it alive for me in a way that I had not been quite aware of because I was looking at the problem more abstractly. We are aware of those concerns, and Amendments Nos. 417 and 419 restrict this provision to types of development that will be specified in regulations. In consequence, with the exception of household development, on which we consulted in 2007, further public consultation will be required before regulations affecting other sectors can be made. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a point about partial or contradictory schemes. If we do it like this, we will have scheme that will not only allow the Government to listen and to consider carefully the potential impact on a sector before making further regulations, but we will be able consistently to address the needs of that sector. Given the wide range of permitted development rights, it is right that fuller consideration is given to how a change related to permitted development might impact on the sector. I hope that in that way we have met the intention of an amendment tabled by the honourable Member for Skipton and Ripon in another place, and I hope we have satisfied the anxieties of noble Lords. I should make it clear that these amendments apply not only to article 4 directions—that is, to local withdrawal of permitted development rights—but to any possible future restrictions imposed nationally by the Government via amendment or revocation of permitted development rights. Amendments Nos. 415 and 417 relate to the time span for making a planning application following an article 4 direction. Under Section 108 of the 1990 Act, where permitted development is withdrawn by government amendment or revocation, the potential liability to compensation applies only when the application for planning permission is submitted and turned down within 12 months of that change being made. Local authorities are treated differently, and we believe that is to their disadvantage. In the case of withdrawal or amendment of permitted development rights by local authorities, there is no requirement that applications for planning permission have to be submitted within 12 months of a change. For local authorities, there is indefinite liability for compensation. We feel that that is unfair and unreasonable and could be unnecessarily restrictive on local authority flexibility. Amendment No. 416 aims to put in place a mechanism that might level the playing field in future. It ensures that where permitted development rights are withdrawn by local government with less than 12 months’ notice, compensation will be payable only when the subsequent application for planning permission is made within 12 months. That brings it into line with changes made by central government. Amendment No. 415 is a technical and consequential amendment. I want to make it clear that this change to the compensation period when an article 4 direction is made will apply only to the types of development specified through regulations. That will allow consideration of the potential impact on a sector in the same way that we have agreed is appropriate for the main change to the compensation provision that I have already spoken to in relation to Amendments Nos. 417 and 419. In summary, these amendments put in place common-sense safeguards to ensure that the greater flexibility for planning authorities provided by Amendment No. 183 is not at the cost of those who would benefit from permitted development rights.