Schedule 1 - Local development orders: procedure
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
4:15 pm
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 358, in
schedule 1, page 59, line 24, at end insert
'but must complete a review not later than five years from the adoption of the order or the previous decision of it.'.
This is a fairly straightforward amendment. As with so many of the amendments that my colleagues and I have tabled on the issue of time scales, the purpose is simply to prompt a discussion. If the Minister is persuaded by our arguments in principle but thinks that five years is wrong, we shall not have a ding-dong. However, the principle is important.
At present, there is no time scale for a review, and the amendment suggests five years. When we discussed sustainable development this morning, one recurring theme was that, like so much else, it is an ever changing concept. Scientific knowledge and technology, too, are forever changing; indeed, they seem to be changing at an ever faster rate. At the very outset of the Committee's proceedings, the Minister said that he hoped that the Bill would ensure that regional plans, in particular, were produced much more quickly. He said that the old process was very cumbersome and that things went on for years.
Given that the Minister wants the initial plans to be produced more quickly, we should also turn our attention, through the amendment, to the question of how often revisions should take place. It would be sensible for reviews to take place every five years, even if the conclusion were that nothing needed changing after all. At least a review would have been carried out. That is the spirit behind the time scale suggested in the amendment, which would take account of the Minister's wish for things to happen more quickly. That said, we are not arguing about the actual number of years.