New clause 5 - Crown
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
11:15 am
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I welcome the Minister's explanation of a large group of amendments that contains the wholly new principle of binding the Crown. Incidentally, the Crown is already bound in a number of respects under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to which he referred, so the provisions merely extend that principle, which we welcome.
The Minister's explanation was a little torturous—he was jumping backwards and forwards from a new clause to a new schedule, and back to the new clause again. However, I shall deal with the new clauses in the order that they have been selected. The main question for him involves the cost of compliance. What is the cost of compliance to the local planning authorities of dealing with the additional number of planning applications? Incidentally, does he have an estimate of the number of planning applications that will now be introduced? What is the cost to Departments of having to prepare those planning applications, the possible appeals that may follow and the delay in carrying out normal developments? It would be extremely useful if he told us that.
In principle we welcome new clause 5, which merely binds the Crown to the provisions and all subsequent Acts. However, in giving that welcome we believe that the Crown should as far as possible be bound in all respects. I have a little problem with this huge group of amendments: the Minister says that the Crown is to be bound, yet at many points he is saying, ''Ah, yes, but the Crown isn't going to be bound in this respect.'' If one accepts the principle that the Crown is bound, all other consequences should as far as possible follow from that. If someone commits an offence, whether they work for the Crown, a private company or an individual, there is no reason why they should be bound by a different law. I therefore have a little problem in that respect.
The Minister started on that course by mentioning paragraphs (a) to (j) of proposed new section 82A(2) of the listed buildings Act, which new clause 6 introduces. He said that the Crown was not bound in those respects in order, in his words, to accommodate the Crown, but the Crown should be bound as far as possible. Of those paragraphs, (a) refers to offences to listed buildings, (b) and (c) to false statements, (d) to enforcement, (e) to penalties, (f) to retentions, (g) to urgent works, (h) to recovery of expenses, (i) to damage to listed buildings and (j) to rights of entry. With the possible exception of (g) and (j)—some of the property will be sensitive and we do not want to enable every Tom, Dick and Harry to go into every Crown property on a whim—there is no reason for the Crown to be exempt from those provisions. I would be grateful if the Minister explained the matter.
The Minister, later in his explanation of new clause 6, skated over the contents of section 30B of the hazardous substances Act, saying that they were the same as those relating to commercial properties, but the Crown has some complex properties, some of which suffer complex pollution. Will a transitional period of six months and an establishment period of 12 months be long enough for the Crown and all Departments to get their heads round the problem?
I turn to new clause 16, which the Minister described as a tidying-up clause and under which the Government may produce subordinate legislation. He has helpfully given us a large tome of subordinate legislation for the Bill, but the explanatory memorandum does not mention any subordinate legislation relating to new clause 16. The Bill is so complex and so much paper is required that I ask him—this is not a criticism—whether we can have an indication of what might be put in the secondary legislation under new clause 16, even if we cannot see the text.
New clause 45 details the separate provisions that, of course, apply in Scotland. I understand that only too well, but I ask the Minister what discussions he has had with the Scottish Parliament on the matter. It would be anomalous if Crown immunity were to apply in England but not in Scotland. The same Ministry would have to deal with property differently in each country. As far as possible, the same treatment should apply. I also raise the problem of Scotland in relation to new schedule 1, which concerns purchase notices, having in mind the situation in Scotland with regard to land. Can the Minister clarify whether the Scottish Parliament or a delegated planning authority could refuse a planning permission and then issue a purchase notice? I hope that that is not the case.
Large portions of the new clauses and new sections bind not only the Crown but, as is made clear in new schedule 1, Her Majesty in right to her private estates. They bind
''land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster; land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall;''
and
''land which forms part of the Crown Estate.''
That could have far-reaching consequences. What consultation took place with representatives of Her Majesty in relation to her private land, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall and with the Crown Estate Commissioners? Are any anomalies created by the new schedule? I think of the planning law that applies to Guernsey and Jersey, the Isles of Scilly and other territories such as the Isle of Man, where anomalous situations may arise that fall between every stool. I suspect that that will not be the case, but I would like an assurance from the Minister.
I now move on to paragraph 3 of the new schedule, which effectively precludes land from compulsory acquisition—again, using the dictum that the Crown should not be bound. I am not sure why the Crown should be excluded from compulsory acquisition. After all, if an urban development corporation had
to accumulate a large enough piece of land to carry out a development—for instance, the Thames gateway, which the Government have trumpeted so much—the compulsory acquisition of some Crown lands would be necessary. Crown lands are immune under the Act, but I expect that the Crown would agree to be part of such a development. I wonder how the mechanism will work. I also wonder why most Crown land should be exempt from compulsory acquisition.
Paragraph 10 of this long new schedule will introduce new section 298A, on applications for planning permission by the Crown. Subsection (1) states:
''This section applies to an application for planning permission or for a certificate under section 192 made by or on behalf of the Crown.''
Subsection (2) states:
''The Secretary of State may by regulations modify or exclude any statutory provision relating to the making and determination of such applications.''
If the Crown is to be bound, why should it not follow the normal route for planning applications? Why should the Secretary of State be given the power to vary that procedure?
Paragraph 10(2) states:
''Section 299 of the principal Act is omitted.''
Section 299 deals with deemed planning permission. Again, I wonder why it should be omitted.
Paragraph 17 of this vast new schedule introduces new section 330A, which gives the Secretary of State the power to require information. It clearly states:
''Section 330 does not apply to an interest to which this section applies''—
that is, to the Crown. I see no reason why the Crown should not be required by a local planning authority or an urban development corporation to give information—unless, for instance, it would be in the national interest that the information remain secret. In the normal run of things, I do not see why the Crown should be exempt from giving information.
New section 330A (4) states:
''The appropriate authority must comply with a request under subsection (3) except to the extent . . . (b) that to do so will disclose information as to any of the matters mentioned in section 321(4).
National security is covered by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which also covers security of premises—but it is a blanket provision, and I do not see why the Crown should be exempt from giving information. I would like to know why the Crown will not regularly use the defence of national security or the security of buildings to evade some of those provisions.
Paragraph 24(3) states:
''In subsection (3) after 'in which there is' there is inserted 'a Crown interest or'.''
I think that that is a drafting error, because it refers to section 297, which paragraph 23 deletes. Will the Minister look into that, and see whether I am right?
Paragraph 26 deals with section 300 of the principal Act and says that tree preservation orders will not apply to the Crown. Why? I see no reason why the tree preservation order legislation should not apply to the Crown. This is another instance of our binding the Crown, but not really.
Paragraph 3(2) of new schedule 2, on ''Acceptable development'', states:
''The notice must be treated as if it is planning permission granted under Part 3 of the principal Act.''
Again, I ask the Minister why. Why should not a normal planning application be made?
Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55 are consequential and we therefore welcome them. I think that amendment No. 332, which would insert the words ''or 84(2)'' at the end of clause 87(5)(a), contains a drafting error and should refer to ''81(2)'' instead. If that is so, what about a reference to section 81(3)? That should be covered too. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister could explain where the provision mentioned in the amendment is to be found. I could not find it.
In principle, we should have liked the Crown to be bound pretty well universally. I shall be particularly interested to hear from the Minister—on subsequent amendments as well as the present group—how we are to avoid allowing the Crown, if it does not want to do something, simply to use the defence of the national interest, secrecy, security of buildings, and so on. That defence should be used only when it is really necessary. I do not want to prejudge future discussions, but how do we know that that defence will not also be used for contentious planning applications?