Clause 40 - Statement of development principles
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
4:30 pm
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
The clause introduces the entirely new concept of the statement of development principles. I assume that that will gradually replace outline planning permission, which will then be phased out. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that as we debate the clause. The clause is very important and we have had many representations about it. I do not think that the Government have thought it through thoroughly. The number of amendments tabled shows that there are many matters to be considered. I shall not get into the detail of the clause yet but shall—until you rule me out of order, Mr. Pike—deal specifically with the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne drew up amendment No. 95. On reading the Bill, I am slightly puzzled by it because subsection (1) of new section 61D of the 1990 Act, to which it applies, says:
''A local planning authority must issue a statement of development principles in relation to a proposed development in their area if they are requested to do so by any person.''
I think that that is perfectly reasonable, and I certainly will not urge my hon. Friends to press amendment No. 95 to a vote. In Committees such as this, one should be frank. When one is wrong, it is best to say so.
Amendment No. 96 deals with subsection (2). That says:
''In considering a request under this section the authority must have regard to—
(a) the development plan so far as material to the request''.
I have read and reread that and I am not sure what it means. The subsection would be much better if it read, ''In considering a request under this section the authority must have regard to any material considerations.'' Would that not be much simpler and clearer, and give applicants complete clarity as to what to expect from the local authority? While I accept
that amendment No. 96 does not entirely achieve that result, that is the result that we should be seeking.
Through amendment No. 97, we seek to ensure that an applicant provides sufficient information to enable a decision to be made. Of course a local authority is entitled to expect sufficient information. I would contend that if it were not provided, the authority would not slow in asking for it, so although it would aid clarity, the amendment may not be necessary. Similarly, amendment No. 98 requires the inclusion of a possible requirement for an environmental impact assessment. For some larger developments, that is entirely reasonable. However, the amendment is primarily designed to probe the Government's thinking. It would be unreasonable to require an environmental impact assessment for every development applied for under the statement of development principles.
I fear that we are about to introduce yet another acronym—SODP. We must be very careful, or we shall soon have SOD, which would be unfortunate; we must be clear what the clause is about. Amendment No. 96 is helpful; the others are merely probing amendments, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.