Clause 40 - Statement of development principles
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
I understand that in an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Cotswold put forward an amendment to clause 40. He sought to delete subsection (6) of proposed new section 61D, which states:
''If a statement of development principles is issued outline planning permission (within the meaning of section 92) must not be granted for a similar development before the end of the relevant period.''
That period is before three weeks, or such other period as the local planning authority directs.
Subsection (6) was originally intended to avoid overcomplicating the planning process by preventing the situation whereby a developer can seek a statement of development principles that is followed by outline planning permission, which is then followed by an application for approval of reserved matters. However, as my predecessor on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said previously, we see merit in the earlier amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold.
I am aware that subsection (6) has proved unpopular. I and previous planning Ministers have received a number of representations suggesting that the provision could be used as a spoiling tactic by competitors who wish to prevent a developer from seeking outline planning permission. There have been arguments that it might be useful for a developer to hold both a statement and outline planning permission, particularly if the statement was sought at a very early stage. It has also been suggested that no one would ever apply for a statement if it prevented
people from subsequently applying for outline planning permission.
We have listened to the arguments and found them persuasive. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be able to accept amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are technical amendments brought forward as a result of amendment No. 8. The amendments do not change any of the Bill's provisions, but simply tidy up the drafting of the clause. Subsection (6), the provision which is to be removed, refers to ''the relevant period''. Following its removal, amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are needed to delete the notion of a ''relevant period'' from the remainder of the clause and instead make the durational provisions a part of new subsection (4).
I now turn to the non-Government amendments. May I pause for a second there, Mr. Hurst, to confirm that I am in order in continuing to speak to amendment No. 205?