Clause 40 - Statement of development principles
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
4:30 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
In discussing the amendments, it is difficult to disentangle them from the next two groups. For example, amendment No. 95 refers to new section 61D(1), and one of the next group of amendments would add something to that instead of changing a word in it. Amendment No. 309, which is in a further group of amendments, would add other elements. Normally we argue that instead of using the word ''may'' in the Bill, we should use ''must''. The amendment is a reverse example. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold: in this case, ''may'' is a more appropriate word than ''must''. New section 61D(2) would be changed by amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 98. Amendment No. 96 would remove the unnecessary phrase:
''so far as material to the request''.
I want to make an over-arching comment. We are dealing with a clause that concerns the statement of development principles, and it is the belief of many people in the construction and development world that it will remove outline planning applications and approval. I hope that I am not going beyond the scope of the amendments in saying that. There is at least one good thing about outline planning permissions: they give certainty to the developer, builder, or whoever it may be. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be taken. If a developer does not know that he definitely has planning permission he could spend a lot of money and then find that both his time and money had been wasted if the development was not subsequently approved.
The Minister has said on the record that the purpose of clause 40 was not to abolish outline planning applications—it might be called the ''SOD'' clause; there is sod's law in the world and Syd's law in Parliament. If the Minister can give an assurance about the Government's intention for the future of outline planning permissions, I, for one, would be grateful.