Clause 40 - Statement of development principles
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
5:45 pm
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
I find myself broadly in agreement with the hon. Member for Ludlow. The first three amendments are completely erroneous, and the notion that the Bill is a wrecker's charter is abject nonsense. The principles behind establishing the statement of development principles are exactly those that have prevailed, by and large, since the 1947 Act, which referred clearly to ''any person'', in addition to successor bodies.
We could make the Bill even more obscure by making barriers to application of nationality or, as is now suggested, ''legitimate interest'', which is ill-defined if defined at all. The amendments are a wrecker's charter. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said about amendment No. 407, the local planning authority would choose 50 people who it deemed appropriate in that they had a legitimate interest. That is the diktat and jackboot—it does not appear anywhere in the Bill. The amendments are without foundation and have at their heart a fundamental misunderstanding of what the clause is trying to do.
However, I can find more generous words for amendments Nos. 311 and 312. Proposed new section 61D(8) allows the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to make provision for a procedure to be followed by a person requesting the issue of a statement of development principles. We intend to use the power to introduce in secondary legislation a requirement to notify owners and tenants. The exact provisions for requests for statements of development principles will be similar to those that apply for applications for planning permission.
I sympathise with the intent of amendments Nos. 311 and 312. I agree that owners and tenants should be informed in the same way that they are informed about applications for planning permission. However, we see no need for such provisions to be placed in primary legislation, given that they follow from proposed new section 61D(8).
At the risk of being slightly rude, the first three amendments baffle me somewhat. The engagement between the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Ludlow was interesting but, in my humble opinion—this is not in any way an attempt to impugn the Chair—it bore no relation to the statement of development principles or anything else that is covered in clause 40.
Amendments Nos. 311 and 312 deal with legitimate concerns and will be covered by proposed new section 61D(8). The other three amendments would add nothing to the efficacy of the new system or to developing it in any way, shape or form that is better than what is provided for in the Bill. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn.