My Lords, I think I have got the answer that I was seeking on the “may/must” issue: the Secretary of State would send it back to the local planning authority and there would be no question—I think that those were the Minister’s words—about that, which is okay. As someone who believes that words must mean what they mean, I do not understand why it should say “may”. Nevertheless, I accept the Minister’s assurance.
I can understand how the conservation consents and the listed building consents fit naturally with the relevant application with which the Secretary of State is dealing. I started to get a bit alarmed when the Minister referred to advertisement consent and TPOs. Advertisement consent tends to concern things that happen over a period of time. For example, at the beginning of a big new development, there will be some adverts. But what happens if someone comes along two years after the development has taken place and asks for more or different advertisements, or whatever? Because the application originally had been a relevant application dealt with by the Secretary of
State and assuming that the authority was still designated two years later, would it still go to the Secretary of State or would it be regarded as a completely new application, although not a major application because it refers to just advertisement consent, and be dealt with by the local authority in the normal way? In other words, what would the system be for minor additions to the development or minor changes to the development once the development had been completed and signed off? That is the question that arises in my mind.
6.45 pm
There is not usually a question of consent as regards tree preservation orders. It is usually a question of the local planning authority making TPOs generally against what the applicants would really like or because there is a fear that the development will interfere with some particular trees. They may have been there for quite a long time and no one has threatened them in any way: therefore, they do not have TPOs. An application comes along for development and TPOs are put on at the instigation of the local authority in order to protect those trees from being harmed by the development. Obviously, that takes place in the context of the planning application. If a building is being built and there is a tree in the middle of it, a TPO is not put on it. But TPOs perhaps are put on surrounding trees which are important to the landscape or the streetscape.
Perhaps the Minister will comment again on TPOs. It seems that they are a classic case where making the TPOs at least should remain with the local planning authority, although perhaps the question as to whether those TPOs should be removed as part of a planning permission—a process which sometimes takes place—might be regarded as being connected to the development. When we talk about trees, they always make complications. This issue needs thinking about before a new regime comes in. Will the Minister comment on that?