New clause 4 - Effect of revision or revocation of
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
10:45 am
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
We start on a good note. I am pleased to see that the Government have given due weight to the sensible suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, which has given rise to new clause 4. That is why we, the official Opposition, have co-signed the Government's amendment in that respect and are pleased that they have taken notice. If a development has started and planning permission is subsequently revoked, it is eminently sensible that it should be possible for it to continue. Otherwise one would have the absurd situation whereby a development that was halfway through would have to be stopped and might remain derelict for many years.
We also welcome amendment No. 6, which will have the opposite effect. If the development has started and planning permission is subsequently revoked, one would not expect compensation to be paid. We also welcome the consequential amendment No. 5, and amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
I have one question for the Minister on the new clause. He says that the purpose of local development orders is to allow the local planning authority to permit a class of development. In other words, they would expand the existing permission under the 1995 order, but can a local development order be used to restrict the rights under that order? My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has tabled an amendment in relation to agricultural subdivisions, although we are not discussing that now—I merely use it as an example and do not want to get on to that debate. However, there is a problem with issuing article 4 directions to restrict the 1995 order, so it would be useful to know whether local authorities could use the relevant mechanism to restrict a class of permitted development rights as well as expand it.