Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 95, in

clause 40, page 23, line 39, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 96, in

clause 40, page 24, line 3, leave out

'so far as material to the request'.

No. 97, in

clause 40, page 24, line 3, at end insert—

'( ) whether sufficient information has been provided by the applicant to enable a decision to be made;'.

No. 98, in

clause 40, page 24, line 4, at end insert—

', including the possible requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed development.'.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Can you tell us whether you are minded to allow a clause stand part debate? I am slightly worried about that, given the number of amendments, all of which have been tabled by Conservative Members. I tabled an amendment to remove the whole clause. Will there be an opportunity to discuss the whole clause, or should I seek to do so under one of the amendments?

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I hope that all subjects can be covered, as a large range of amendments have been selected for debate. I cannot give an answer at this stage, because it will all depend on the Committee, on the length of time that it spends on the amendments and on how my co-Chairman or I feel that the debates have gone. I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants me to be helpful, but there are a lot of amendments and I hope that most of the issues can be covered in the debates on them.

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.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I am slightly confused. I thought that the amendments did tie together, and that there was a good reason for using ''may'' instead of ''must'' in those circumstances. The amendments would ensure that local authorities had the right to decline to give a decision on the statement of development principles if insufficient evidence were provided by an applicant, and would also allow them to consider a statement of development principles in the light of the legal requirement for a possible environmental impact assessment. The hon. Member for Spelthorne must have had reasons for tabling the amendments. Some of them might have been tabled some weeks ago and in the intervening time he might have forgotten why he did it, but I think that they are sensible and I was hoping to hear more about them.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Make the case, then.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

I was surprised to hear the opening statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, and to find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Ludlow more than I would normally tend to do. I shall be tempted to support the Liberal Democrats' amendment to delete the clause, which seems to me to be one of those ''care in the community'' clauses. It exists to help people who have nothing better to do than plague local planning authorities. Under the provision, the LPA must issue a statement of development principles relating to development in the area

''if they are requested to do so by any person''.

I have mentioned that before.

I am sure that from his past experience, to which he keeps referring, the Minister will recall that there are individuals who have nothing better to do than plague the local authority, either because they wish to plague the authority itself, or because they wish to stop some form of development. The clause will enable such

individuals to thwart the normal procedures that one would expect.

New section 61D(6) would block any outline application for a similar development for three years—even an application from the owner of the site, who might not have been involved in the original request. That would lead to an unreasonable increase in workload for the LPA. Thinking of some of the individuals plaguing local authorities whom I have met around the country, I realise that that is absolutely guaranteed—unless authorities have some means of turning out a standard three-line response to the standard three-line letter from individuals requesting a statement of principles.

The provision is also a recipe for various interest groups to frustrate viable development. If we must have the clause, the provision should be discretionary for the local planning authority.

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.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I rise with some trepidation, because I must distance myself from what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said about amendment No. 95. I have to do that, because the hon. Member for

Ludlow suggested that my hon. Friend might have tabled it so long ago that he had forgotten why he did it. My hon. Friend did not table it a long time ago, because I tabled it. My hon. Friend is not a mind reader, and any blame must lie with me, not with my hon. Friend.

I recall clearly why I tabled the amendment. I did so for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. I see the provision as an interferer's charter. It is a wonderful opportunity for those in the knee-jerk, against everything brigade with their heads in a bucket of sand, who want to object to anything that anyone else wants to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, it will be incredibly difficult to pick our way through the string of amendments without having the same debate several times—although I know that you will stop us, Mr. Pike, if we fall into that trap. Each group of amendments seeks a way to achieve the aim behind using the word ''may'' rather than the word ''must''. If the Minister would accept ''may'' rather than ''must'' we could make progress, because I suspect that many of the remaining amendments would be unnecessary.

I have no difficulty accepting the Government's principle that there should be an opportunity for people who are genuinely concerned and have a legitimate reason for being concerned to seek more information and that the planning process should be delayed for a moment or two to allow that.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I am now even more confused about Conservative Members' intentions in tabling this group of amendments. They hang together and would give local authorities the ability to consider a statement of development principle in the light of a legal requirement for the possible environmental impact assessment in amendment No. 98. I thought that that was a useful way of allowing them to decline to give a decision and then to take into account the environmental impact assessment. I am now baffled because this group of amendments seems to cover something else.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

No, I am talking only about amendment No. 95. The other amendments may hang together and may make sense with or without amendment No. 95, but I am focusing on amendment No. 95. What I see in that amendment, I see in all the other amendments. The amendment would provide a safeguard against gratuitous attempts to stop development for reasons that are not in the best interests of the majority of the people in the area. It is as simple as that. It would allow the local planning authority discretion to say, ''We understand. You have made your request and we have listened to your reasons, but we do not think that we should deal with that.'' If that is not acceptable to the Government, the remaining amendments seek alternative ways of doing that.

I shall not delay the Committee by speaking to amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 98. The hon. Member for Ludlow said that he likes them and I am delighted, but I make no apology for the fact that I am trying to stop

some harm that will arise from what is a good idea in principle.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is right to the extent that the clause is fairly complicated and many of the amendments hang together, so this could become a bitty debate.

We were as clear as we could be in the document ''Sustainable Communities—Delivering through Planning'', which was issued on 18 July with the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that we would take forward the proposal to introduce a certificate—the statement of development principles—which might eventually replace outline planning permission. That permission will be removed only when the statement of development principles has been proven to work. We shall come later to what might be a degree of confusion about subsection (6) of proposed new section 61D to the 1990 Act.

In the context of the amendments before us, I fully accept what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said about outline planning permission, the certainty that that affords developers and the way in which it can be utilised in the broader market for economic reasons above and beyond the planning process. I have heard those arguments and take them on board. If—and I accept this characterisation too—the prevailing view in the big, bad world is that the certificate will be introduced and outline planning permission will be thrown out of the window after Royal Assent, I am happy to disabuse people of those views in the context of the 18 July statement.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

That is very helpful.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

Amendment No. 95 would allow a planning authority to decide whether to issue a statement. I cannot agree with that. It would be similar to letting an authority decide whether it should determine an application for planning permission. The consistency brought about by ''must'' rather than ''may'' is appropriate. This is not an appropriate area for that degree of discretion. A request for a statement of development principles is a request for the local planning authority's view on whether a particular development could be acceptable. I see no reason why the LPA should not be obliged to form and state its view on that question.

Mr David Wright (Telford, Labour)

Does the Minister agree that this provision is really about changing the culture of planning departments and ensuring that they talk to applicants more than they do now? One of the big problems in this country is that many planning authorities only give permission at the end of the process. They do not talk to developers at all and they do not communicate the principles of development in their areas. It is extremely expensive for applicants to make applications and hear nothing until the planning committee sits and determines that application. This measure is about changing that culture.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His observation goes to the heart of the matter. As and when the statement of development principles is up and running and we are in a position to do away with outline planning permission, I am sure that all the fears to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet

rightly alluded, and which I have heard myself, will be dissipated. We are trying to bring a little sunlight and transparency to the good many informal and formal pre-application conversations that take place.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

I hear what the Minister says, but the difficulty is that the provision relates to ''any person.'' The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) talked about developers, which is understandable, but there are Machiavellian individuals out there who would qualify as ''any person'' but who might not have any intention of developing the site. They might not even own the site or have any prospect of owning it.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman will know that ownership of a site is not currently a prerequisite for putting in an application.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

I am aware of that. That is why I said it.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I will return to the hon. Gentleman's point shortly.

Clause 40 allows the LPA to disagree with the principle of all or part of the proposed development outlined in a request for a statement. The aim is not to thrash out a statement of development principles to the point of consensus between the individual and the authority, so I fail to see any justification for allowing the LPA to decline to issue a statement of development principles. I do not see why that should be discretionary in any way, shape or form.

I do not entirely understand the purpose of amendment No. 96. The suggestion seems to be that the LPA should have regard to something that is not material to the request. We have here an example of where material considerations specific to the potential decision on an application further down the line are appropriate. It would be inappropriate to throw in anything erroneous. Hon. Members might like to bear in mind that the wording of the clause at this point echoes that relating to the determination of an application for planning permission under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Amendment No. 97 requires the LPA, in considering a request for a statement of development principles, to consider whether the applicant has provided sufficient information to enable the authority to make a decision on the request. By inference, the amendment suggests, but does not state, that a statement should not be issued if the applicant has provided insufficient information. We intend to specify in a development order made under the powers in proposed new section 61D(8) of the 1990 Act that someone requesting a statement will need to provide, as a minimum, a site location plan and a description of the proposed development. If they wish to provide more information, such as detailed drawings, they will be able to do so, but we do not intend to require more.

The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet pointed out the interlocking or overlapping nature of the amendment, which is a germane point. We will discuss vexatious or capricious applications, which are made by people whom the hon. Member for Mole Valley has described. Every MP in the Room could

name 10 such people because that is a non-partisan, broad experience to which we are all used.

The General Permitted Development Order puts an onus on people to put in a request for a statement of development principles items such as a site location plan and a description of the proposed development. If the authority agrees with the statement of development principles, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned earlier, the way in which subsection (6) of new section 61D is drafted would mean that it was impossible to obtain outline planning permission. The confluence of the outline planning permission system and the SODP—statement of development principles—system could therefore be influenced by vexatious applications. People who do not want planning applications could stack up a bunch of statements of development principles to prevent bona fide developers seeking outline planning permission on the same site. I want to return to that point when we come to amendments Nos. 309 and 310. That is another little bit of generosity on my part, as it is not germane to amendments Nos. 95, 96 or 97.

Returning to the General Permitted Development Order, an authority will need to consider the proposal only in respect of the amount of information provided. It is therefore not appropriate to include an amendment that says, ''Are you sure that you have got all the information that you want?'' The LPA can proceed only on the basis of the information provided. If an application comes in with a little stick drawing, a site plan and the word ''housing'', that is the context in which the statement of development principles has to be determined.

I know that it is difficult to follow the argument because we are jumping around between the amendments, but I suggest that amendment No. 95 is inappropriate. I do not like the discretion that it would add to the process. Either the SODP system is an appropriate system that may or may not subsequently take over from outline planning permission, or it is not. If it is appropriate, it is appropriate for all planning authorities and not simply those that choose to use it.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister must answer my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley's point. If we are not careful, the procedure could open up a frustraters' charter in the planning system. Rows of people could pay the application fee, which presumably will apply to the SODP, although that is not clear in the Bill, and frustrate a development. The Minister says that he will bring forward a General Permitted Development Order, but we will use future amendments to probe what interest one must have before one can make an SODP application. Under the clause, somebody will be able to frustrate a development by asking for an SODP, which will mean that the owner cannot seek outline planning permission. The clause runs counter to the European convention on human rights, which states that somebody has the right to do what they wish with their land. I should like to hear how the Minister will stop frustration in the planning system.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I must apologise to the Committee for troubling it with that intervention, which repeated what I just said. I know that it is late, but I clearly stated that all that the hon. Member for Mole Valley has said is true. If subsection (6) prevails, a statement of development principles on a site precludes outline planning permission. I was going to be generous on amendments Nos. 309 and 310 because, as subsection (6) stands, vexatious applications could stymie the entire process, which is not our intent. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we get to amendments Nos. 309 and 310.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I hoped that the Minister would touch on amendment No. 98, because I should like to know how environmental impact assessments could be requested for the purposes of formulating statements of development principles and before they are put in place.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

Given the hour and the fact that we are discussing amendment No. 95, I shall write to hon. Members about environmental impact assessments. It is a fair point, which sits between the statement of development principles and outline planning permissions. However, given that the Committee will resume later, with the indulgence of hon. Members, I shall concentrate on the lead amendment.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

With great respect to the Minister, the frustration of outline planning permission is not the sole issue. The Bill makes it clear, in new section 61D(5), that a person may not apply for another SODP in respect of the same piece of land within two years. If anyone can come along and apply for an SODP, that will frustrate planning permission for that piece of land. The Minister still has not satisfactorily explained how his development order would prevent that from happening.

Mr. McNulty rose—

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. Before I call the Minister, I am minded to suspend the sitting for half an hour once we have finished discussing the amendment. I just thought that it might focus people's minds if I let the Committee know that now.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

It has focused mine. I have finished.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Mr. Clifton-Brown, do you want to say anything else?

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister said that he would reply to my question about outline planning permission, but he has not told the Committee how people will be prevented from making vexatious, spurious or capricious applications for SODPs. I am minded to press the amendment to a vote. I was not especially in favour of amendment No. 95, because it seems to me that anyone who has a genuine interest in land and who asks for an SODP should have it granted to them, but if we are to allow all and sundry to apply for SODPs, without there being any proper control, amendment No. 95 has absolute validity. To focus people's minds, I ask my colleagues to vote in favour of the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I am now suspending the Committee.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. In response to Mr. Green's question about clause stand part, I have given further thought to the progress that we have made today and to what we must cover by the time the next knife falls, and I am minded not to have a clause stand part debate. I hope that that is helpful.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Might you therefore allow me a little latitude on one set of amendments, Mr. Pike? I could choose the most suitable set. The amendments on offer do not really cover all the issues and I may have to stretch your patience a little.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I am fairly reasonable, as long as the hon. Gentleman does not stretch my patience too far. He asked for my guidance and I am trying to be helpful.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Will you give the Committee some guidance? We are now into uncharted waters. I was thinking during the break that 3 o'clock in the morning is my record when serving on Standing Committees. I hope that we do not break that record, but if we do go on, could you tell us when you would next be minded to have a break?

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I have served on several Committees that sat all through the night and even until lunchtime the next day. I am minded, if necessary, to adjourn for a meal break at about 8 pm. I told the Committee my thoughts on the matter at our first sitting; 8 o'clock would be an appropriate time for dinner if the need should arise.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 407, in

clause 40, page 23, line 41, leave out 'any person' and insert

'50 people who live in the local planning authority's area and who (in the opinion of the authority) will be affected by the proposed development.'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 308, in

clause 40, page 23, line 41, at end insert

'interested in the land on which the development is proposed'.

Amendment No. 369, in

clause 40, page 23, line 41, at end add

'with a legitimate interest in development in the authority's area'.

Amendment No. 311, in

clause 40, page 23, line 41, at end insert—

'(1A) Provision shall be made by a development order for the purpose of securing that, in the case of any request under subsection (1), any person (other than the person making the request) who on such date as may be prescribed by the order is an owner of the land to which the request relates, or a tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in that land, is given notice of the request in such manner as may be required by the order.'.

Amendment No. 312, in

clause 40, page 23, line 41, at end insert—

'(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), a person making a request under subsection (1) shall serve a notice stating that the request has been made on every owner and occupier of any land to which the request relates.

(1B) If, after reasonable inquiry has been made, the local planning authority are satisfied that it is not practicable to ascertain the name or address of an owner or occupier of any land to which the application relates, the local planning authority may direct that the notice required to be served on him by subsection (1A) may be served by addressing it to him by the description ''owner'' or ''occupier'' of the land (describing it) and by affixing it to some conspicuous object or objects on the land.'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

We have had a welcome tea break. We have all come back refreshed, renewed and invigorated and we shall pursue the Minister with all possible vigour.

I deliberately did not join in the debate on outline planning permission under the previous group of amendments, because it will be the subject of a subsequent group headed by amendment No. 309. I was not too fussed until I heard what my hon. Friends had to say about the substitution of ''may'' with ''must'', because I was much more concerned about who could apply for a statement of development principles. That is precisely what the present group of amendments seeks to probe and tease out of the Minister. Amendment No. 407 was tabled with precisely that in mind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley made a pertinent point. If we are not careful, the procedure introduced under the SODP could be a frustrators' charter. That is particularly relevant when one considers that later clauses say that a similar application may not be made for another two years. Someone who had no interest in the land could apply for a statement of development principles, but the poor landowner or others who had an interest in it would not be able to apply for a similar statement. We are particularly interested in teasing out who can make such applications.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I fear that the hon. Gentleman misreads subsection (5) of proposed new section 61D. It states:

''a local planning authority may decline to issue a statement''.

Nowhere does it say that no further applications can be made for two years. The SODP can be applied for within two years, but the LPA can decline to consider it should it relate to a similar development that was previously disagreed during the previous two years. The Bill does not say that there should no subsequent SOPD for two years.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention. It is a question of how local authorities apply that power. If they apply it sensibly, there will be no problem. We need to tease out from the Minister who can apply. In amendment No. 407, we suggest that it should be 50 people. I do not know whether that is the right number; it needs to be more than one, but perhaps fewer than 50. We need to discuss the matter.

Amendment No. 308 gets to the heart of the issue. It states that only people with a legitimate interest in development in the land in question may get a SODP. That is entirely reasonable. It is surely wrong that someone else, without consent or discussion with those who have an interest in the land, can get a statement of development principles and frustrate the possible wishes of the landowner.

Amendment No. 369 seeks to discover whether anyone can apply, whether or not they live in the local planning authority's area. Again, we must be careful. The Minister said that he will make a development order, but we are probing what will be in it. It is legitimate to ask whether people have to live within the authority's area.

I turn to amendments Nos. 311 and 312. Amendment No. 311 would enshrine in the new section the requirement that a person with an interest in land—and, indeed, an agricultural tenant—should be notified of a statement of development principles made with respect to that land. It is highly possible that someone who owned land would have no idea that someone else had applied for a statement of development principles with respect to it. It is wholly reasonable that the owner or tenant should be notified.

Amendment No. 312 would strengthen the provision that the owner should be notified. Proposed subsection (1B) would provide a default power to be used when the owner could not be identified after reasonable inquiries had been made at, for example, the Land Registry. A notice could under that power be affixed to some prominent object on the land. That is reasonable. At one time neighbours did not have to be notified about an ordinary planning application, but we established guidance for local authorities that they should notify neighbours. I think that the relevant provision is probably in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That was something wholly reasonable, and it bears some relation to the procedure I envisage happening under the amendments.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

There are three amendments in the group—Nos. 407, 369 and 308—that I cannot support. Amendment No. 369, for example, would give rise to considerable ambiguity about who would decide who had ''a legitimate interest''. The provision under amendment No. 407 for the local development authority to decide which people should have a right to be concerned is also too ambiguous. However, I strongly support amendments Nos. 311 and 312.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I cannot see that amendment No. 369 is in any way ambiguous, because it would narrow down the definition of who could legitimately

apply for a statement of development principles. The drafting of the clause seems to leave matters very wide, unless the Minister can assure us that the local development order will narrow things down. Anyone from anywhere in the country could apply for a statement of development principles on land outside their area.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The ambiguity is not in the intention, but in who would decide who had ''a legitimate interest''. I suspect that we should have to wait for test cases in the courts.

I can give strong support to amendments Nos. 311 and 312. It is only right that the owner and tenant of land about which someone seeks a statement of development principles should be notified that that is happening. It would be highly unfair if they were not. Likewise, the idea that a notice should be put on an object on the land makes great sense. We all want the planning system to be as widely understood, and as accessible, as possible. One way to do that is to make people aware when changes at whatever level are likely.

We all accept the procedure by which people are made aware of the arrangements for planning permission, but no such procedure, as far as I can see, has been established for statements of development principles. Perhaps the Minister will explain that guidance will deal with the adherence to suitable procedures. However, I am glad that the two amendments have been tabled, because they highlight a potential lack in the Bill.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

The amendments deal with a difficulty; finding the right word or the right phrase for our intention, whether we agree with it or not. Benjamin Franklin said at the signing of the American declaration of independence:

''We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall hang separately.''

I do not know whether the amendments hang together or separately, but they are trying to achieve something that I support. We all seek to improve the Bill.

Amendment No. 308 would add the following to clause 40(1):

''interested in the land on which the development is proposed''.

What do we mean by ''interested''?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

Who knows?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

We could say sincerely that we are interested in every acre in our constituencies. Perhaps we mean financial interest, although not necessarily only financial interest. The owner of the land affected should be included, as should the tenants of any property that would be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and I agree that the agricultural tenant—

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

It is, of course, possible to make amendments more complicated; but to clarify, I envisage ''interested'' to have the same meaning as in the Law of Property Act 1925, ''a legal interest in land''.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

That is most helpful to me, a non-lawyer. I am careful not to disagree with my hon. Friend.

There could be circumstances in which somebody does not have a legal interest in the land but has a genuine interest of another sort. I am not trying to deal in conundrums; I merely make the point. There is a challenge to us to find the right form of words.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

One of the reasons that I struggle to support amendment No. 308 is that ''interested'' could be taken to mean neighbours who might suffer financial loss as a result of a proposed development. However, it could be more widely interpreted than that. That is my concern with it, although it raises an interesting point.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I agree entirely: the list is not exhaustive. It will be difficult to find the right wording, but we should try. Of course we want to stop the frivolous and the Nosy Parker. Consider amendment No. 407, which would amend clause 40 by removing ''any person'' in subsection (1) of new section 61D and inserting

''50 people who live in the local planning authority's area and who (in the opinion of the authority) will be affected by the proposed development.''.

In this day and age, the wreckers could almost certainly still muster 50 people. These amendments, complex though they are, are probing amendments. I ask the Minister not to dismiss them out of hand because this is a very important point. We all share an aspiration: we want this measure to be transparent and we want people to know where they stand if we do change the law. The authorities, whether the local planning authorities, the Secretary of State or the regional planning boards, have responsibilities as well as privileges. We want to ensure that we get this right for the sake of those who will be affected by the Bill.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

My main reason for contributing is to help the hon. Member for Ludlow. He said that he could not support amendments Nos. 407, 308 and 369. However, he went on to support amendments Nos. 311 and 312. There is a simple explanation, which he has been too charitable to mention: I wrote the first three amendments, and people far more sensible than I wrote the two that he supports.

Let me try to persuade the hon. Gentleman of the sense of the first three amendments. We said in a previous debate that this could easily become a wrecker's charter. If we are not careful, an oddball will be able to run amok through the planning system.

I accept that a balance must be struck between giving an oddball the chance to wreck everything and giving opportunities to legitimate local interests. We should not be considering a minority of one here; it should be a larger minority whose rights should be respected. However, I plucked the figure 50 out of the air. I think that all of us in the Committee have tried to drum up signatures for petitions in our time, and we know that a moment arrives at which one has a critical mass that genuinely reflects widespread concern, rather than just the views of a few people.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I might have the most rural constituency of any Committee member. It is the

second largest constituency in England, but has only 63,000 electors. The parish in which my parents live is 96 sq km and has 92 inhabitants. Getting together 50 people to request a statement of development principle would be extremely difficult in certain parts of my constituency.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I accept that. The hon. Gentleman reminds me of when I was leader of the council in part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). If I remember rightly, one parish had an electorate of 23 people. The point raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow is well made and there are clearly other ways of achieving the aim, such as using a certain percentage of an area's total population. What is important is the principle. We do not want minorities of one to be able to be wreckers. We want a formula that gives a reasonable number of people with a legitimate concern the opportunity to express their concern and to take that forward.

To go down the track of saying that more than one person is needed to request a statement raises the problem of the would-be applicant, who will almost always be one person or a single entity. If we are to up the number of people needed, there must be some provision for that person. Amendment No. 369 leads us to the question of a ''legitimate interest'' in land, the definition that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and I came up with when I was thinking the matter through. I realise that we could use many other definitions but this is my attempt to say that the would-be applicant, owner or tenant, as one person, could make a request as an individual. Just as the measure could end up being a wrecker's charter, it could similarly be a helpful measure for someone trying to explore development possibilities for their property. I have suggested the narrow definition ''legitimate interest'' in land, purely to allow one person, in certain circumstances, to request a statement.

To use the phrase a ''legitimate interest'' in the ''authority's area'' might not be an especially neat legal way of addressing a further point of concern. I have been quite a long time getting round to runways this afternoon, but people such as members of Friends of the Earth are, as a matter of principle, implacably opposed to runways, irrespective of the effects that they might have on the travelling public and the general population. They are entitled to that view, but a few people based in headquarters somewhere, who decide to try to make life as difficult as possible irrespective of where they are based, could pepper planning authorities throughout the country with requests. The focus should be on the local community. That is my understanding of what the Government want—community involvement, not a national or international pressure group campaigning to get its way. Otherwise, one can only begin to imagine what would happen if we returned to contemplating further nuclear electricity generators. We might have the world's pressure groups taking up the opportunity afforded in the clause. It does not even say that the person involved has to be a British subject, which would be another approach to the matter.

Amendments Nos. 407, 369 and 308 seek to get rid of the wrecking element, while keeping to what the Government are trying to achieve in principle. They are as simple as that. Amendments Nos. 311 and 312 are put in far better language and I kick myself for not thinking of them when I was contemplating the clause.

Has my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold turned his mind to the status under the clause of a person with an option to purchase? He has rightly specified the owner and the tenant but are there other people who should be informed, such as a person with an option to purchase?

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Someone with an option to purchase would have a land charge. I envisage that anyone who had a legitimate interest in the land through a land charge or a mortgage, for example, or a trustee, would also automatically be notified.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I am most grateful for that comment. The problem could be solved in that way. Nevertheless, whatever the wording, the principles are important. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

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.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am not surprised that the Minister resists amendments Nos. 407, 369 and 308. I do not regret tabling them, because they led to a useful probing exercise. However, the Government have to do more work on the matter. If we are not careful, the planning authority will face a huge workload because of spurious claims for statements of development principles. I am not sure that the Government have thought that through.

However, the Minister was sympathetic to amendments Nos. 311 and 312, so they must be right. They received support from both sides of the Committee. We have received sympathetic consideration for two out of five amendments—40 per cent. It is not quite but nearly half a loaf. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 309, in

clause 40, page 23, line 41, at end insert—

'(1A) No request may be made in respect of any land which is the subject of an application for outline planning permission which has not been finally determined.'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 310, in

clause 40, page 24, leave out lines 21 to 23.

Amendment No. 219, in

clause 40, page 24, line 22, leave out from '92)' to end of line 23 and insert

'can be applied for at any time whilst the development plans remain valid'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

We move now to the heart of the clause, which deals with provisions for outline planning permission. The subject is extremely complicated but extremely important, so we shall need to spend some time on it.

Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 provides the mechanism by which an LPA might grant outline planning permission. Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 addresses the time limits within which applications for reserve matters under outline planning permissions must be submitted and outline planning permission must be implemented.

It is worth stating the value of outline planning permissions. They provide a mechanism by which an individual or a developer can test the willingness of a local authority to give full planning permission against the general principles of compatibility with the plan and other matters. Once somebody has obtained outline planning permission, albeit with reservations and time scales, he has a bankable permission on the basis of which he can seek funding. That is important in the case of developments such as King's Cross, the east Thames corridor and Battersea power station. Such large developments require a great deal of time and a considerable number of people have to be involved in the funding, if nothing else. According to the outside bodies that we have talked to, financial institutions will not consider a statement of development principles in anything like the same bankable manner as an outline planning permission. The developer of any sizeable development will go for an outline planning permission rather than for an SODP.

If the Government start to phase out outline planning permission, it is difficult to see how we shall be able to speed up the planning process for large and highly complex planning applications. In practice, people will probably go for full planning permission, and many issues will have to be considered in such complex situations. Almost certainly, section 106 matters—such as traffic impact assessment, open spaces or community facilities—will have to be considered and they might be subject to land transfers. One would need to consider PPG3 matters in relation to the amount of affordable housing that has to be provided in a large-scale development. Within such a development, the developer is likely to have to prepare, among other things, a sustainability plan, a traffic impact plan and an environmental impact assessment. It is a complex procedure. It would be detrimental to phase out outline planning permission. I am sure that the Government will not do so, because pressure will be brought to bear by planning developers, house builders and other practitioners in the planning sector. Amendment No. 309 seeks to restrict a person's ability to apply for an SODP where there is already in place an application for outline planning permission. That seems to us to be eminently sensible.

Amendment No. 310 seeks to delete subsection (6) of proposed section 61D in clause 40, the key subsection dealing with the following matter:

''If a statement of development principles is issued outline planning permission (within the meaning of section 92)''—

meaning section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the principal Act—

''must not be granted for a similar development before the end of the relevant period.''

I shall deal first with the technical problems. Subsection (6) refers to the validity of section 92, which gives the time scales for outline planning permission. However, there is a problem, on which the Minister will want to reflect. As I read the Bill—he will no doubt tell me if I am wrong—schedule 3 abolishes section 92. Paragraph 4, on page 63, clearly states:

''Section 92 (outline planning permission) is omitted.''

However, it is also repealed by schedule 6, on page 74. If nothing else, we have a drafting problem in subsection (6). Again, however, the Minister will no doubt put me right if I have misunderstood.

Amendment No. 219 provides that outline planning permission can be applied for at any time, rather than restricting it to after the two-year period in subsection (5). Why cannot outline planning permission be the next logical stage once someone has gone through the eminently sensible process of getting an SODP? He will presumably have gone through a certain amount of pre-application consultation with the local planning authority to get the SODP. Some of the work will therefore have been done, and he could logically move on to obtain outline planning permission following more consultation. He would then have a bankable document, so he could start to get funding and perhaps attend to many reserve matters. Once he had done that, he could make a full application. That would be a legitimate way in which the Bill could speed up the planning process for complex developments, and the Government may want to consider it.

The amendments are important, and we must be circumspect about abolishing outline planning permission. There has been much cogent lobbying by many outside bodies, which have said that it would be a retrograde step to abolish it, and I think that they will make their reservations known to the Government. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendments.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

My hon. Friend has said most of what I was going to say, and probably much better than I could have done. However, I want to add one point on the importance of outline planning permission. In the case of significant applications—those are the ones that we are talking about—developers can seek funding in the knowledge that the local authority generally accepts the proposals, although the detail will, of course, have to be attended to. That is one good reason for outline planning permission, but we frequently come across at least two others.

First, the promoter of a development must spend a considerable amount on detailed designs, and it would be absurd if he had to draft them all without the pretty sure knowledge that he would have the planning permission that he sought.

Secondly, there is often nothing to stop anybody from submitting a planning application for any piece of land anywhere in the England and Wales, even if he has no interest in it. By that, I mean that he does not own the land or is not a tenant on it. It is pointless to do that, however, unless a person—if he is granted planning permission—can acquire the land. The person who owns the land often will say to a developer, ''I will sell the land to you, but I'm not going to sell it at the agricultural price or the undeveloped price. I want to sell it to you at the full market value.''

Therefore, the developer has the assurance that he can buy the land at the full market price—with

planning permission—for which he could not pay the money up front without the outline planning permission.

Those are two other extraordinary and important reasons why we must examine carefully any attempt to curtail the right of getting or seeking an outline planning permission, even if the Minister is not minded to abolish outline planning permissions.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Committee is benefiting considerably from my hon. Friend's experience. Does he accept that there is a difference between the SODP procedure and that used for outline planning permissions? It is likely that only one SODP per piece of land will be accepted, although that is up to the local authority. However, it is more common with outline planning permissions for more than one application for the same piece of land to be accepted at the same time.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

Indeed. In an attempt not to detain the Committee unnecessarily, the two additional reasons that I gave were not exhaustive—there are others.

As the Minister recognises, we are dealing with an extraordinarily important point, which will significantly affect the ability to develop land.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

These are fairly key amendments that, for the reasons that we have heard, go to the crux of the clause. I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate that the Government will not get rid of outline planning permissions for the moment. We shall come on to that when we consider other provisions in the Bill. Some confusing points may arise.

I am glad that outline planning permissions are to remain. However, potential conflict will arise between the statements of development principles and outline planning permissions. If there is an area of the Bill that will add the most work to local planning authorities, this is it. As well as outline planning permissions, local planning authorities will now have to consider producing statements of development principles.

It is unlikely that extra money will be forthcoming from the Deputy Prime Minister in the Government's allocation to local councils to fund the extra work from the planning authorities. The local council tax payer will bear the burden. The Minister may tell us that the end result will be a price worth paying. However, if SODPs work, outline planning permissions will eventually be abolished, and I am nervous about that.

I would have liked a clause stand part debate because I am not convinced that the clause is the way forward. SODPs will lead to extra work in the interim and, in the longer term, there is no certainty that they will replace outline planning permissions, because we must see whether they work. If they do work, and outline planning permissions are removed, they will not necessarily enhance the current position, and local people will have undergone extra cost and payment as a result. While we are in that two-tier position, because I am certain that I have no chance of getting the clause

removed, much as I would like to, conflicts will potentially arise between the statements of development principles and outline planning permissions. The hon. Member for Cotswold has done the Committee a favour by bringing forward the amendments.

The hon. Member for Cotswold has done the Committee a favour by bringing forward the group of amendments. Although they might not be perfectly worded, they tease out some of the potential problems with a system in which outline planning permissions and statements of development principles exist at the same time. The Minister has already indicated that there might be some excitement on that matter.

Mr. McNulty indicated dissent.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Oh dear. We had all stayed behind for that, and we were getting excited. I hope that the Minister can tease out the conflicts between those two systems that will run at the same time, and reassure the Committee that the Government will find a way to define what needs to happen, whether that be through their own amendments, through regulations or otherwise. Planning departments face not only increased work loads—they will have to recruit extra staff to do the SODPs—but the problem of uncertainty that will be created by the two systems running in parallel.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I shook my head only because ''excitement'' would be too strong a word.

As for the entirely appropriate references to section 92, I shall précis the little note that has been going back and forth. It says that section 92, which deals with outline planning permission, is to be repealed, and that that must be included in the Bill to enable outline planning permission to be abolished if SODP is successful. Crucially, however, that will be brought into effect by a commencement order, as detailed in clause 86(1). All the elements alluded to in the daughter document of the 18 July statement that outline planning permission will go if SODPs are successful are in the Bill, hence the rather complex references to section 92. However, those elements rely on a commencement order that will not be made unless and until the SODP is successful. I hope that that elucidates the rather convoluted references to section 92.

If I may, I now want to reverse the way in which I deal with the amendments, in complete contradiction to what I said earlier about dealing only with lead amendments.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

I am not trying to be awkward, but the Minister blithely says, ''If SODPs prove successful.'' Can he say what trial time he anticipates, and how he will judge whether they are successful?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

Not off the top of my head—although I shall write to the Committee about that matter. There will be a mechanism in place that reviews clearly how the process works, because we are wedded to the end goal that I described if SODPs are

successful. It is necessary to include little legislative hooks in the Bill to do that.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

I hope that the Minister will be more helpful. What if the reverse happens? What if, after all that we have been through and all we have imposed on England—but not on Wales—what the Minister describes does not work? Will everything be withdrawn?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

As I understand it, the provisions would not need to be withdrawn. The commencement order would not be engaged, because the SODPs would not have been successful. It is not for me to speculate on the review of the success or otherwise of the provisions. If SODPs are not successful enough to replace outline planning permission they might be successful in other regards: by shining a light on pre-application discussions, for example. SODPs might not be the appropriate tool to replace outline planning permission, but might none the less have some virtue and deserve to be kept. I simply do not know—I am not a futurologist. I shall get back to the Committee to review and measure the success or otherwise of the measures that we are considering putting in place.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Before the Minister moves off section 92, will he say whether I am correct in thinking that the provision will be omitted both in paragraph 4 of schedule 3 and in schedule 6? I take his point about the commencement order. Is it correct that this has been deleted twice in the Bill? If so, is there not some tidying up that needs to be done?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I would need to explore that. There may be specific points at which that is mentioned twice—but if it has been repealed once that should be sufficient. There may well be a step process mirroring the introduction of the SODPs and the commencement order, and I will look into that too. The note that I have been passed by my officials says ''technical drafting''; perhaps that may help.

The crux is whether the SODPs succeed in replacing outline planning permission. Amendment No. 310 essentially gets rid of new section 61D(6) and formalises the relationship between SODPs and outline planning permission. Outside the Committee there has been much discussion of that matter and the confusion that it may cause. I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments about the bankable value of outline planning permission, above and beyond being merely part of the planning process. That does not put me in the pockets of rapacious developers.

If I agree to take back new section 61D(6) and consider anything from deletion to refinement, that means that amendment No. 310 is unnecessary. If that is the case then amendment No. 309 is also unnecessary. Consequently, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister is in extremely constructive mode. New section 61D(6) has caused considerable consternation. When people read our proceedings they will be reassured by what he has just said, which is very welcome.

Does the Minister agree that it would be a useful progression—particularly with a complex

application—for a developer to go first for an SODP and, even within the currency of that SODP, to have a mechanism for applying for outline planning permission and subsequently progress to a full application? That useful progression could cut the time that a complex development requires for planning permission to be granted.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

That may ultimately be the case. That is what I talked about when I mentioned SODPs shining a light on the pre-application stage and encouraging proper discussion then. Without undue speculation about the future, I can say that if SODPs were not seen to be robust enough to replace outline planning permission, I would be loth to go down the road suggested by the hon. Member for Mole Valley and scrap all the provisions for SODPs. Their execution may shed some light on useful elements that add to, rather than detract from, the planning system, as the hon. Member for Cotswold suggests. I suspect that he would like to keep SODPs, and he may be right. If they do not succeed in replacing OPPs—if we keep OPPs without repealing section 92—there might still be a role for SODPs.

I make no excuses for at least trying what could be an innovative and useful new system. If it does not work we will have to tweak it. By alluding to section 92, we have made provision for a range of contingencies. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, however. There has been a degree of confusion not only about the relationship between SODPs and outline planning permission, but about the notion that implicitly, if not explicitly on Royal Assent, SODPs will mean that outline planning permission will go. That is not the case, because it has its place and value. We will have to wait and see whether SODPs replace OPP or not.

Specifically, given what I said about the potential merit of amendment No. 310, I shall take back the whole of new section 61D(6) and look at it. I therefore hope that the Committee will indulge me and the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

This important debate has given the Committee a good opportunity to have a detailed discussion of outline planning permission. A number of the reservations and anxieties expressed by planning practitioners will have been somewhat alleviated. As the Minister said, when introducing an entirely new system it is difficult to predict exactly how well or how badly its provisions will work. I suspect that they will give planning authorities a huge amount of extra work, because the number of SODP applications will increase considerably compared with the number of outline planning applications. One result of the Bill will be a requirement for more skilled planning personnel to deal with its provisions. The amendments have outlined one area in which extra people will have to be employed. However, that is further down the line.

The Minister 's reply was helpful, particularly in relation to subsection (6) of new section 61D. We look forward to the Government's moving further amendments on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 409, in

clause 40, page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (3).

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 313, in

clause 40, page 24, line 10, at end insert—

(c) the reasons for the local planning authority's decision.'.

No. 314, in

clause 40, page 24, line 10, at end insert—

'(3A) If the local planning authority agree with the principle of the proposed development (in whole or part), the statement of development principles may indicate:

(a) information which should be provided by any applicant for planning permission for the proposed development or part of it;

(b) any principles with which the proposed development should comply with;

(c) and the nature of any planning conditions or planning obligations to which the development may be subject.'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The amendment is intended to probe what is meant by subsection (3) of new section 61D, and to discover whether negotiations would take place with applicants, perhaps enabling them to modify their requests for SODPs. It is not clear what the process of applying for an SOPD will entail. One would expect a certain amount of pre-application negotiation to be necessary before the application is made. Indeed, applications may have to be withdrawn and modified. We need to hear from the Minister exactly what is intended.

Amendment No. 313 seeks merely to ensure that when a statement of development principles is issued, the reasons for the local planning authority's decision must be given. I am sure that will happen as a matter of course, but we would like it on the record that the Minister envisages that that will happen.

Amendment No. 314 seeks to emulate the present position with outline planning permission, whereby the applicant, having been granted outline planning permission, will need to have resolved reserved matters and other material matters before full planning permission is granted. That is essential, especially in complicated planning applications such as those for King's Cross. It would be useful to hear what the Minister proposes in that respect.

The amendments are important; I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I see no merit in amendment No. 409. For a statement to be of any use to a potential developer, it must say clearly whether or not the LPA agrees with the principle of the proposed development. I should have thought that that was clear. Without it, the statement would be worthless. I know that it is late, and it would be churlish of me to describe this as a wrecking amendment, but that is the import and focus of it. However, I sympathise with the purpose of amendments Nos. 313 and 314. For an LPA's statement to be truly effective, it should include information that would help a developer to understand what the authority would expect to see in

a subsequent planning application.

We intend to specify, in a development order made under the powers in new section 61D(8), that local planning authorities must set out in their statement their reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with all or part of the proposed development. Where the authority agrees the principle of all or part of the development, we intend to require the statement also to include any matters that will need to be addressed by a subsequent planning application, any requirements in relation to the content of, and information to be submitted with, any subsequent planning application, and, if applicable, a statement that the LPA's agreement in principle, where given, is subject to the production of a satisfactory environmental statement.

If a local planning authority wishes to include information about possible planning conditions or obligations, it should be free to do so. However, we do not intend to make that a requirement at this stage—it can happen subsequently. Amendments Nos. 313 and 314 will be dealt with in the development order. However, the import of amendment No. 409 would make the SODPs redundant, and we will resist it. I ask that the amendments be withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Part of the function of the Committee is to probe the Government's intentions. If we had had some of the Minister's helpful assurance in an explanatory memorandum or in some other form, it would not have been necessary to table all the amendments. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 315, in

clause 40, page 24, line 13, leave out from 'permission' to 'which' in line 14 and insert

'so far as material to the application'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 410, in

clause 40, page 24, line 13, after 'development', insert

'on all or part of the same site'.

No. 411, in

clause 40, page 24, line 14, after 'development', insert

'an all or part of the same site'.

No. 316, in

clause 40, page 24, line 14, leave out from 'be)' to end of line 15.

No. 317, in

clause 40, page 24, line 14, leave out 'made' and insert 'determined'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The first of this large group of amendments, amendment No. 315, seeks to delete from subsection (4) the words

''in respect of a similar development or part of a similar development (as the case may be)''

and to insert

''so far as material to the application''.

This is just a drafting error—I am sorry, that was a Freudian slip; I meant a drafting amendment—to try to clarify the meaning of the subsection. I hope that even if he does not like the amendment, the Minister will clarify what is meant by subsection (4). Amendment No. 410 also seeks clarification. Can an SODP be applied for when outline planning permission has been granted on a full site, and can an SODP be applied for or granted on part of a site? It would be interesting to know what the Government's thinking is. Amendment No. 411 seeks similar clarification.

Amendment No. 316 is intended to obtain clarification of proposed subsection (4), the drafting of which is quite tortuous. Finally, amendment No. 317, on the same proposed subsection, is a matter of correct drafting. From my knowledge of planning law I believe that applications for planning permission are always determined, not made, by the local planning authority. If the Government are considering tidying up the drafting, as they now must because of the two spelling mistakes, should not the Minister do so in this case, if he is not prepared to accept amendment No. 317?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I support my hon. Friend's remarks about the amendments. In particular, although it may be pedantic to say this, the word ''determined'', which would be inserted by amendment No. 317, is better than the word ''made''.

We are dealing with very complex matters, and although the amendments may not be verbally perfect, they make substantive points, not just passing pedantic ones. The statements of development principles are a completely new concept in planning—incidentally, I notice that we appear to be calling them SODPs or SOD principles, but no one has actually pronounced the term as ''Sod principles'', as that might have a completely different meaning from what was intended.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

May I suggest another acronym—Sod plus P?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

Exactly. This might be a convenient moment for me to sit down.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

The amendments are misconceived. Proposed new section 61D(7) already specifies that a development is similar to another

''if the local planning authority think that the development and the land to which they relate are the same or substantially the same.''

The issue at the core of subsection (4) concerns what is to prevail

''in respect of a similar development or part of a similar development''

and that, as I have said, is defined in subsection (7). It may be interesting to debate phrases such as ''material to the application'' or

''all or part of the same site'',

but those elements are already covered by proposed subsections (4) and (7).

In contrast to the previous group of amendments, nothing in this group would add anything material to the Bill. At the risk of annoying and offending Opposition Members, I shall resist—unless I get a

note telling me otherwise—the word game about whether to say ''determined'' or ''made''. I am sure that if I had the time and energy I could come up with an excellent defence of the word ''made''—although I hear what hon. Members say about the greater appropriateness of ''determined'' in the planning permission context. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister was helpful with the previous group of amendments, and although he has resisted the group that we are considering, we have had a useful exchange. I do not feel particularly strongly, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 373, in

clause 40, page 24, line 16, leave out subsection (5).

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 318, in

clause 40, page 24, line 16, leave out 'But'.

No. 319, in

clause 40, page 24, line 23, at end insert—

'(6A) Where a local planning authority issue a statement of development principles in which they disagree with the principle of the proposed development or agree with the principle of only part of the proposed development the person who requested the statement and any person interested in land comprised within the statement may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.

(6B) A person who requested the statement and any person interested in land comprised within the statement may also appeal to the Secretary of State if the local planning authority have done none of the following:—

(a) issued the statement of development principles;

(b) given notice that they have exercised their power under subsection (5) to decline to issue a statement;

within such a period as may be prescribed by development order or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the person requesting the statement and the authority.

(6C) Any appeal under this section shall be made by notice served within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order.'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Subsection (5) states:

''But a local planning authority may decline to issue a statement of development principles before the end of the period of two years starting on the date of issue of a statement of development principles in which the local planning authority disagree with the principle of all or part of a similar development.''

In other words, when an authority disagrees, it may decline to issue a similar statement.

We are concerned that the proposed SODP mechanism will not provide an effective alternative to outline consensus. The SODPs will only be a material consideration for future applications; they will not be equivalent to consent. It is highly unlikely that they will provide a basis on which applicants could progress a development. They will not provide the certainty required to enable developers to raise finance for a project.

Subsection (5) allows a local planning authority to decline to issue an SODP within two years of a

previous SODP for a similar development if it disagrees with the principle or even part of it. That is an unhelpful proposal and it would prevent developers from establishing the LPA's position on a proposed development or proposed changes to a scheme, even when changes had been made to address the LPA's concerns as expressed in an earlier SODP. That will limit the use of SODPs.

As we said under clause 38, it is a feature of planning application that things evolve. An SODP application may be turned down by a local authority, but in two years' time there may be a new plan or a new RSS, or a number of other things could change. There should be a power to consider an SODP within that two-year period if the local authority considers it reasonable to do so. Providing such a straitjacket in subsection (5) is not helpful. I ask the Minister to consider that aspect carefully.

If Committee members turn to subsection (5), they will notice that the first word ''But'', as referred to in amendment No. 318, is completely unnecessary. The subsection would read with greater clarity and simplicity without it. That amendment is simple and needs little explanation.

Amendment No. 319 provides an appeal mechanism. The Bill provides no such mechanism. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, a citizen should have a proper right of appeal against an organ of the state with which he or she disagrees. On the very first page of the Bill, Committee members will see a certificate stating that the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights:

''Mr. Secretary Prescott has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:

In my view the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.''

Others more expert in that area than I, especially some of the lawyers in another place, will no doubt consider that. I wonder whether the Bill can actually conform to that certificate, if there is no appeal right in the SODP mechanism.

I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say because it is fundamental under section 1 of the 1998 Act that people have a full right to proper enjoyment of their property. Without an appeal mechanism, if a landowners apply for an SODP on their land and are turned down, with no right of appeal, their rights will be severely curtailed. If there is no appeal mechanism in the Bill there is a great likelihood that sooner or later a case will end up before the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that someone's human rights are being violated. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something helpful, because I am sure that those in another place will wish to pursue the matter, especially as expressed in amendment No. 319.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I am slightly perturbed by the amendments. One of the fascinating things about the Conservative party's position is that, having accepted the entire environmental agenda—it was good to hear that, and I welcome their conversion, Damascene as it

is—they now seem to be agreeing to the incorporation of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Government have to do it.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is implying that it is a good thing.

I am worried by the amount of work that we shall be asking of planning departments. The danger of an appeals system is that it will be a route for yet more work. We should remember that statements of development principles will be running for some time in conjunction with outline planning permissions. The latter will be crucial at that stage, and I am concerned that appeals against SODPs will cause the planning system to grind to a halt. Elements of the system suggest to me that it will become slower, not quicker, and I am concerned that the amendments would make it slower still. I am not a legal expert and I do not know what impact the Human Rights Act would have.

On amendment No. 318, I am a little perturbed because, as a member of the Committee considering the Regional Referendums (Preparations) Bill, we spent an hour and a half discussing several buts just before Christmas. Those, too, were Conservative amendments. I am worried that Conservatives may be obsessed by buts. The amendment will not achieve much; it will not make a jot of difference to the meaning. I am concerned that it will add to the work of planning departments, and I would struggle to support it.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I must take issue with the hon. Member for Ludlow. He seemed to imply that the party that I have the privilege of representing does not take a particular interest in the environment—or that we are not interested in it to same extent as his party. I can only tell him that 32 years ago, my maiden speech in the House was about the importance of the environment—it was a new word at the time. I would like to think that my record shows that I have had a deep interest in the subject, and I know that many in my party share that interest. It is slightly arrogant for one party to claim that it has a preponderance of interest in the subject.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

I remember being a Minister in the Department of the Environment, which legislated on the environment and set up a programme that the present Government took forward letter by letter, word by word, chapter by chapter.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. Let us keep to the amendments.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

Indeed, Mr. Pike. With your forbearance, may I say that, in a sense, this country begat the European Court of Human Rights. We wrote most of the convention. With your indulgence, Mr. Pike, I would like to say that never have a Conservative Government not carried out decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Our objection to the Human Rights Act 1998, which was brought in by the present Government, was that our judges and courts should necessarily have to second-guess the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. I leave it at that, Mr. Pike, but it is an important point. The idea that the Liberal Democrat party might be

more interested than mine in European human rights is absurd. I apologise, Mr. Pike, for that.

There is a contradiction between amendments Nos. 373 and 318. The first seeks to delete subsection (5) of new section 61D. If it is deleted, however, there is no need for amendment No. 318. Whenever I write an article for any organ, I like to begin certain paragraphs with the words ''and'' or ''but''. That seems more direct than using ''nevertheless'' or ''however''. I do not know whether it is etymologically correct to begin a subsection with a preposition—if ''but'' is a preposition—but I have no objection to it. It does not seem, however, that there is a need for ''if'', if subsection (5) is to remain in the Bill. If amendment No. 373 is voted down and that subsection remains, I will support amendment No. 318. I am not trying to be clever or to cast aspersions, but I genuinely do not see why subsection (5) is needed. I would be very grateful if the Minister could give the rationale behind it.

Briefly, on amendment No. 319, I think that it is important to include at least the proposed new section 6A and I would personally like 6B and 6C to be added as well. The first of those proposals reads:

''Where a local planning authority issue a statement of development principles in which they disagree with the principle of the proposed development or agree with the principle of only part of the proposed development the person who requested the statement and any person interested in land comprised within the statement may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.''

It is important to include that in the Bill because a local planning authority will otherwise be able to hold up an application by issuing a statement saying that it disagrees with that application. The applicant or interested person will then have to decide whether to submit an outline planning application or, if they cannot do that, a detailed planning application, which would cost a lot of money, knowing that whatever they submit to the local planning authority will be rejected because the statement of principle says that the authority disagrees with the proposed development.

It would be perfectly right and fair for an applicant who did not want to wait another two months or, for a significant application, six months, to be able to go to the Secretary of State, which would be his right were his application turned down. Why should he not be able to appeal to the Secretary of State there and then rather than having his time wasted? I know that the Government are sincere in their desire to speed up the planning process, but failing to include the amendment's proposal will be one sure way, in certain instances, to slow the whole process down and almost grind it to a halt. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has been absolutely on the ball in tabling the amendment. It would be in the interests of fairness to incorporate it in the Bill.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I have listened to the remarks on the amendments with great interest. I profoundly disagree with every word that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has said and with, even more so, the remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold on human rights, which were completely irrelevant. We are discussing a statement of principles not an application for consent or planning permission. As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, there are at least two occasions

between outline planning permission and planning permission proper when an appeal can be invoked. If neither option takes the applicant's fancy, they can go straight to judicial review and have an appeal sorted out that way. That more than provides for human rights. The hon. Gentleman's point was totally irrelevant.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I shall give way once but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am keen to make progress. I thought that that was why we were here.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

We are all keen to make progress. It is the Government who are curtailing progress.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

Fatuous.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister is belittling his innovation—the statement of development principles—when he says that they are only principles. He is, of course, fully aware of subsection (4), which states that

''A statement of development principles is a material consideration for the purposes of the determination of any application''.

It is more than just a statement of principles; it is a very important statement of principles.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

The principles are important for subsequent applications—read the whole clause.

Subsection (5) is simply about what happens when there is some degree of overlap. Unusually—given what we have been discussing today—the hon. Gentleman has failed to alight on the important word. ''But'' is not the key word in subsection (5); the fifth word, ''may'', is the key word. He has talked about subsection (5) as though it were a statutory power obliging local authorities to turn down applications for a statement of development principle. I do not know how that power, which is entirely at the discretion of the local authority, clogs the system up.

I do not think that I will bother, but I could cheerfully pop down to Ludlow and put in a planning application on the house of the hon. Member for Ludlow. He would have no right of appeal, and why should he? That has been an underlying principle of the town and country planning system since the 1940s. The notion that the hon. Gentleman, whether or not he owns the house or has a greater interest in the land, should have a right of appeal on planning permission is not included in the Bill. Whether such an appeal should be included and whether I should have the right to put in such an application without telling him are different arguments. To take one step back at the statement-of-development-principles stage and say that there should be an enshrined right to appeal for some obtuse human rights reason is absurd.

None of the three elements would add anything to the Bill. They would blow up a specific set of criteria in which we have afforded local planning authorities a discretionary power where there is overwhelming similarity between successive statements of development principles. Blowing that up as though it were the entire scheme, which it clearly is not, has lead

to obtuse and absurd conclusions, which is a matter for regret because the Committee was doing so well.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I am grateful for what the Minister has said, but it is what he has not said that is interesting.

The Minister profoundly disagrees with everything that I have said. Amendment No. 319 would introduce the words:

''Where a local planning authority issue a statement of development principles in which they disagree with the principle of the proposed development''.

Can the Minister give the Committee an instance in which a local planning authority would approve a planning application despite disagreeing with its principle? Subsection (5) gives a planning authority the power deliberately to slow down, if not thwart, a planning application with which it disagrees on principle. All I am saying is that if a planning authority issues a statement of development principles, the person who is disadvantaged by it should be able to appeal to the Secretary of State.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

On this occasion, I totally disagree with the Minister, who has belittled his statement of development principles, which could be a useful new tool. He says that there are other rights of appeal, but in his previous statement he said that he intends at some stage to consider phasing out outline planning permission in which there is an avenue of appeal. If outline planning permission were phased out, our appeal mechanism would become ever more important.

I am amazed that the Liberal Democrat party, which goes at the amendments in a nitpicking way, should want to seek to restrict the rights of citizens. I thought that that party was all about giving citizens every possible right. On many occasions, I have heard the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) drone on and on about rights of appeal. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Ludlow should argue in Committee for citizens not to have a right of appeal.

Be that as it may, the matter will probably be returned to in another place because the Lords will be much more interested in compliance with the European Court of Human Rights and the Humans Rights Act 1998, and much more knowledgeable about that, than we are. We have had a useful discussion, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 320, in

clause 40, page 24, line 33, leave out 'such'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 321, in

clause 40, page 24, line 33, after 'consultation', insert

'of the public and interested persons'.

No. 322, in

clause 40, page 24, line 34, leave out

'as the appropriate authority thinks fit'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I hope that we can make a little progress before we finish. If members of the Committee would be kind enough to turn to page 24, they will find that subsection (8)(d) refers to

''such requirements as to consultation on the proposed development as the appropriate authority thinks fit.''

My amendment would delete ''such'' so that subsection (8)(d) would begin with ''requirements''. I do not like the subjective mechanism that this and similar clauses give to local authorities. If the matter were to go to judicial review, it would be difficult to decide what the authority might think fit. The test should be whether it is reasonable. The word ''such'' is unnecessary.

Amendment No. 321 relates to the question of who is to be consulted. It could be a very narrow group of people and the development order could be made without the public having had an adequate chance to make their views known. The order will be important and the public should have the right to be consulted. The order ought to be fully advertised and the public should have the opportunity to make their views known.

Amendment No. 322 is intended to restrict the subjective nature of what the authority may or may not think fit. I am not sure that the amendment is drafted entirely correctly, but I want the Bill to include the idea of what is appropriate in the circumstances. That would give a truly objective test. The amendments are pretty simple, and I hope that the Government will accept them.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

In essence the amendments are simple, but they add absolutely nothing to the Bill, apart from changing the consultation requirements in a fashion that I do not really understand. As the hon. Gentleman said, the new section provides for the order to include such requirements to consult as the appropriate authority thinks fit. The amendments would have the combined effect of providing for the order to include requirements to consult the public and interested persons. I cannot think of any person, body or group whom we would wish to consult, but who would not fit in with the definition in the Bill. I see no point in introducing a provision that ultimately limits our ability to require consultation. We intend, in secondary legislation, to require the same consultation as would be required on an application for planning permission for a similar development.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

I remind the Minister that he indicated at the Select Committee that much of secondary legislation and subsequent legislation would be made available. We could have done without quite a bit of this evening's discussion if we had had that sort of information. That is particularly true in relation to the point about consultation in this group of amendments. The Minister says that there will be secondary legislation. If we had known that, we probably would not have tabled the amendments.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I accept that. I also accept that the Committee was grateful for the route map through secondary legislation and the guidance and regulation provided in part 1. I am sorry that it was not possible to do the same for this part of the Bill. I would love to say that our progress had been so speedy that it had been difficult to keep up with things, but that has not been the case. I take the point, but in that context, the amendments do not add anything and I hope that they will be withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 412, in

clause 40, page 24, line 39, leave out 'three years' and insert 'one year'.

This simple amendment would reduce the relevant period from three years to one. Subsection (4) explains that the relevant period is the period in which a similar application may not be made. As I have already suggested, circumstances and plans may change, so if we are to have a blocking mechanism, it seems sensible to reduce the relevant period to one year, although I cannot understand why it is necessary at all. After all, it is perfectly normal procedure to have one or more applications, and there is no time bar on when another similar application may be made. Indeed, there are often very good reasons for making similar applications. If we are to have a blocking mechanism, however, it seems sensible to reduce the period from three years to one.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I support my hon. Friend. The Minister may argue that the phrase,

''or such other period starting on that day as that authority direct''

in paragraph (b) to proposed new subsection (10) provides the necessary flexibility, but paragraph (a) refers to a period of three years, which we seek to reduce to one year, and that sets the trend. I suspect that the phrase ''such other period'' will probably relate to a later, rather than an earlier, period. It is perfectly legitimate to recommend that the relevant period should be changed from three years to one, given the provision in paragraph (b). I hope that the Minister will give that a fair wind.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

It is perfectly legitimate to put the case, but I am not giving it a fair wind. I like the Bill as it is.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

But for the lateness of the hour, given that challenge from the Minister, I would certainly press the amendment to a vote.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

Why not?

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

My hon. Friend urges me to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.