Clause 42 - Power to decline to determine applications
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
9:30 am
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
The clause is at least laid out clearly in four parts. Part 1 covers the power to decline to determine subsequent applications, and part 2 covers the power to decline to determine overlapping—so-called twin-tracking—applications. Parts 3 and 4—proposed new sections 81A and 81B of the principal Act—do the same for listed buildings and conservation areas. I will confine my remarks to parts 1 and 2, because what I say will apply equally to parts 3 and 4.
The first part of the clause covers the power to decline to determine a subsequent application, if it is materially the same, within a period of two years. I accept that under proposed new section 70A(1), a local planning authority ''may'' decline, as I am sure the Minister will be the first to point out. That means that it still has the power to consider an application within two years, but I would have thought that in normal circumstances, its inclination would be not to consider an application within the two-year period.
If an authority declines to determine an application within the two-year period, will the applicant still be able to appeal that second application? I wonder about
the sense of proposed new section 70A(1), as two years is quite a long time. A great deal can happen: the plan or the regional spatial strategy may be revised, or a landmark court case may alter the way in which a local planning authority has to consider certain sorts of applications. I am not sure what the proposed new subsection is designed to achieve.
I believe that the Government hope that the provision will speed up the process, but we have had numerous representations—from the CBI, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the British Retail Consortium and the British Property Federation, for example, all of which are consumers, or users, of the planning system. They all tell us that far from speeding up the planning system, this is likely to have the reverse effect, especially for large and complex applications. Making the system more stratified and rigid means that there is less flexibility for developers. There is less flexibility, for example, to lodge a first application, concentrate the minds of the planning authority, the local community and everyone else, and then have meaningful discussions with the local authority to see whether a modified and superior application can be devised.
If we are not careful, the two provisions will be a charter for the local planning authority to keep delaying. The system needs flexibility; we want the local authority and the developers to come up with projects that best suit the area and the community. They should benefit the area economically, be sustainable, have the best spatial plan and suit the environment—all the factors that we have discussed. If we make things more difficult by making the system more rigid, I am not sure what we will achieve.
Much of what I say applies to the power to determine overlapping applications in the so-called twin-tracking process in proposed new section 70B. In many ways, it is even more important. The outside bodies always include the twin-tracking proposal in the half a dozen bad things about the Bill. The Law Society states:
''We are not convinced of the need to abolish ''twin-tracking'', that is the submission of two identical planning applications at the same time to enable a developer to appeal to the Secretary of State on the failure of the local planning authority to determine one within eight weeks, whilst negotiating with the authority on the other application.''
As I said, twin-tracking is a useful mechanism; it often takes place in complex applications where the local authority is not able to determine the application within eight weeks. One application goes to appeal and a similar application is submitted to the local planning authority to enable negotiations to continue. Provided that the negotiations proceed in a positive way and planning permission is eventually granted by the local authority, the second application, which has gone for determination by the independent inspector, is then withdrawn, saving time and cost.
My great fear about the power to decline overlapping applications is that many more will go to appeal. Appeals are expensive and long-winded; often, at the end of the day, all parties, including the local authority because it is not making the
determination, feel dissatisfied with the outcome. Bearing in mind the Green Paper and given, as I said at the start of our proceedings, that 90 per cent. of all planning applications are eventually passed, it would be much better if 100 per cent. of valid applications submitted were passed, because that would mean that everyone was doing their job. Applications would either be withdrawn or passed and that is a much more sensible way to proceed. My worry is that rather than 90 per cent. of applications being passed, the figure will keep dropping and more applications will go to appeal.
We will be doing the country's planning system a disservice if the two clauses are accepted without amendment. I have no doubt that the Committee will accept the clause as drafted but my words will come back to haunt this country in a few years.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)
I congratulate you, Mr. Amess, on looking interested throughout the sitting. However, this debate is of interest to developers and to local planning authorities.
In discussing the previous clause, the Minister said, in effect, that he did not know what all the fuss was about, which should apply to the entire clause. I do not know what the fuss is about. Much of my thinking on the issue relates to my experience and to discussions with local planning officers. Having read the discussion papers forwarded by the developers, I thought that I would test them out with the recipients. The reaction of an outstanding local planning director in London was that he did not know what the fuss was about. He thought it was a load of nonsense and he wondered why we were bothering. He made several key points: he said that if an application is similar to another one and there seems to be twin-tracking, ''We take the fee, then we get on with looking at the application, which is much easier if it is similar to the previous one. We get the same money for a fraction of the work, and if there is no real change in the application, then we decline it. There is no fuss, no bother and a large fee in the local coffers.''
That planning director also talked about a warning and used an intriguing example. He talked of a key site, a valuable site on the riverside that had been bought, had changed hands several times, and for which a developer was finally drawing up plans. In the meantime, it had been squatted by one of the green groups. That group was fascinating because it wanted a green atmosphere and a green community, and was growing vegetables to demonstrate it. The fact that the soil was horrendously polluted meant that I would not have gone anywhere near the vegetables the group grew—one might have contracted Pink's disease, from the mercury. So the whole thing became a big smile.
However, the green group got organised and intended, as a spoiling tactic, to put in an application for a development that was not dissimilar to that which it anticipated the developer would submit. If the legislation went through, that sort of spoiling tactic could work, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, the word ''may'' applies—the local authority may reject such an application.
Fortunately for the local authority in that case, because it would have caused a storm, the fee required meant that those green individuals—green with a luminous tinge if they had eaten their own vegetables—did not proceed with the application. However, the planning director made the point that that would be a spoiling technique.
The planning officer also agreed that many points made from the private sector were valid. There should be an opportunity to make subtle changes to meet changes in circumstances. A few years ago, there was a glut of office buildings and subtle changes were made as a result. If the twin-tracking idea was stopped, the opportunity to make subtle changes to meet changes in economic circumstances could also be stopped. That would be detrimental to many developers who are paying enormous amounts in borrowed money and would be unable to progress with their plans and their development.
There has been an interesting situation in my area. There are some applications that local authorities would wish, as a knee-jerk reaction, to reject. Nuclear power stations, incinerators, bail hostels, housing for asylum seekers and clinics for paedophiles would be classic examples. There were recently three applications for building incinerators in different areas of Surrey. I want to extrapolate a little, because although my extrapolation is hypothetical, it is quite plausible. Two of the three applications were from the contractor for the local authority for removal of waste, and one was from a second organisation that also has considerable abilities and expertise in that area. One application was to build on green belt—I do not understand why the applicants thought they could stick an incinerator on green belt—and that was rejected fairly promptly. One was an application to build in the countryside and was contrary to the proximity principle, but it was accepted. The third application was for a site near Guildford, and was therefore close to the main source of the rubbish that had to be incinerated. The incinerator would have been built on a site that was already used for collection of rubbish. Everything was in favour of that application, except that the site was not far away from a park.
The local authority was bombarded by a huge and virulent campaign, and, to put it bluntly, councillors of all political complexions bowed to the blast. In my opinion, the reasons given for rejection were pretty pathetic. In essence, it was said, if someone were sitting in the park, the development would be unsightly, though from a distance. I found that amazing because, having seen many incinerator plans throughout the country, I felt that that one was particularly successful. It looked like a church with a steeple. It was a modern design, albeit without the cross on top. It was a dramatically and cleverly disguised incinerator. But the local authority said that it was a little too high—I cannot remember whether it was 5 ft or 3 m too high—and came up with some half-baked excuses.
The hypothetical part is that the developer could have pressed the case in two ways. One way was to
appeal. Judging by a previous successful appeal in Portsmouth, I suspect that there was a high chance that the incinerator application would have been given the go-ahead by the inspector and, presumably, the Minister.
If the applicant were so minded, he could also have twin-tracked: he could have made a similar application in which the development was 5 ft or 3 m shorter and applied pressure on the local authority to reconsider. The developer could have proposed a subtle change or changes that dealt with the problems that the local authority used—I believe incorrectly—to turn down the application.
The word ''may'' is in the measure but, as I have said, in the classic scenario of applications for nuclear power stations, bail hostels or clinics for paedophiles, the local authority would bow to pressure from the local people and reject them, sometimes quite unreasonably. In essence, like the Minister, I do not know what the fuss is about. We do not need the provision, and it will damage progress and development.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne did not push his two amendments, because they were unnecessary. He wanted to insert ''proposed'' before ''development'', but as the words
''to which the applications relate''
appear after ''development'', it would have been superfluous. I therefore welcome what he has done. I say that deliberately because I want the Minister to understand that our amendments are tabled in good faith and are not as trivial as he thinks.
The Minister was right to take me to task for not doing my research. I merely point out that the parliamentary time between Second Reading and the Standing Committee stage was very short. I confess that I did not spend Christmas day or new year's day studying the Bill. I thought that I owed Christmas day to someone else, and on new year's day, I was in no fit condition to read the Bill.
In all sincerity, it is monstrous to have to deal with the complexities of the Bill in 12 sittings. Just down the Corridor is the Standing Committee considering the Hunting Bill, for which I understand 20 sittings have been allocated. I am not an expert on what is going on in the other Committee, but I should have thought that the issue was quite simple and did not necessarily need 20 sittings. The Government have got things the wrong way round: the Hunting Bill Committee should have had 12 sittings, and we should have had 20 or more. I say that just in passing.
I have another apology for the Minister. His eagle eye may well have spotted that on Second Reading I said that I welcomed the intention to abolish what has become known as twin-tracking—that is, putting in identical, or almost identical, applications to the local authority. I am a reasonable person. Just as I have been persuaded by what I loosely describe as environmental organisations to table amendments that we think would improve and strengthen the Bill, so it is necessary to have a balance between the interests of the environment and the interests of
applicants, developers, promoters, house builders or whoever. I have been persuaded that there are merits in twin-tracking. I now oppose getting rid of twin-tracking summarily in legislation because I believe that it helps to speed up the planning process and getting rid of it could slow things down.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. He has had enormous experience of the planning system, and he will confirm that we have not discussed the matter. I also said on Second Reading that I was in favour of abolishing twin-tracking. However, having had the representations from these worthy and important outside bodies, I am convinced of the usefulness of twin-tracking, exactly in line with what my hon. Friend has said.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
The Housebuilders Federation, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Retail Consortium, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the British Property Federation have all made representations, many of which are very persuasive. If local planning authorities could, persistently and consistently, determine applications within a statutory period of eight weeks there would be no need for twin-tracking. It has come into being because of the slowness of the planning system.
I enter the caveat that some planning applications are so significant that it would be unreasonable for the local planning authority to determine them within eight weeks. Generally speaking those applications would be called in by the Secretary of State for a public inquiry. It is reasonable to say that twin-tracking has come about and should be maintained, regrettable though that may be, at least until local planning authorities are able to expedite their procedures. The minor planning applications should of course be determined well within the eight weeks.
Secondly, I welcome the additional resources that the Government intend to plough into the local planning authority system to give those authorities extra resources to improve their service to applicants. As with most of the extra resources that are going from the taxpayer through the Government to various public institutions, it seems that the better one does, the more resources one gets. That echoes the old argument about whether we should devote extra resources to try to improve the performance of a poorer hospital or give them to the hospitals that are doing rather well. I do not want to get into that debate, and I would be out of order if I did.
It is essential that the extra resources should come up front so that authorities can improve their performance and give speedier, but well-considered decisions. I do not know whether it is the same in Harrow, but Barnet is overwhelmed with applications of one sort or another. My researches—not on Christmas day or new year's day—show that it has inadequate resources to deal with the volume of applications.
Finally, let us take the development of housing. It is vital. We must find the right land on which to build, but there is a great need for much more new housing,
particularly social housing. Twin-tracking applications are sometimes essential for house builders. The market conditions may change, and builders may submit an application and suddenly realise that the details have to be changed to reflect new market opportunities. I want some assurance that that point will be taken into consideration. I may be knocking at an open door, but the point must be put on behalf of house builders that even if an application is accepted and they start on the development, a revised application may need to be submitted to make the necessary changes. That is an important and serious point, and at the very least, I hope that twin-tracking—if that is how it would be described—should be allowed in both situations.
I admit that I have changed my mind. Having examined the evidence and weighed it against that of other organisations, I feel that the developers, promoters of development and house builders have a strong case for saying, at least for the present, that twin-tracking and repeat or similar applications should still be allowed.
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I listened with care to my hon. Friends, and I apologise to others for having to pop out for a moment or two. I agreed with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said except when he advocated 20 sittings. It is a personal matter, but from a political point of view, it should be more than that. The Proceeds of Crime Bill Standing Committee, on which I served had 39 sittings, and after a while, I began to receive comments about my ties—though, as it happens, I received another this morning. I was criticised for wearing the same tie twice, and with 39 sittings, I had to buy a lot of ties. It was expensive, so for that particular reason, I do not want to get round the Tie Rack cost-cycle again.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
My hon. Friend is being a little disingenuous. He knows perfectly well that a competition is taking place in Parliament this week to raise awareness of cancer. Mr. Ben McIntyre has been asked to find the person with the gaudiest, most horrible-looking or most colourful tie, and money will go to charity for the winner.
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I am conscious of that, but I have to disappoint my hon. Friend because the competition is next week. I am wearing my modest ties this week, so you will be glad that the Committee is not sitting all of next week, Mr. Amess.
The clause concerns me because of the harm that it will do to my local authority and county. It will make it impossible to get as much money out of applicants as it was before. I understand that as a dedicated socialist, the Minister will not care much for capitalism, but as far as I am concerned, extra applications equal extra fees. I am in favour of that for one simple reason, which is that the Government are clobbering the south-east by taking money away from properly run areas and giving it to the spendthrifts of the north, which support the Government. For example, my local police authority faces a 46 per cent. increase in its precept, my county faces a 15 to 20 per cent. increase and my borough the same—
Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)
Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the clause 42 stand part debate?
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
Of course you may, Mr. Amess, because my comments were a relevant warm-up to my first point that if by insisting on the clause, the Government reduce the income of my local planners, the 15 to 20 per cent. increase that the Government are forcing on my constituents will become even larger.
That is a good reason for voting against the clause standing part of the Bill, but it is not the only reason, because the clause also represents something of a Swampy's charter. It will be perfectly possible for the dinosaurs who want to stop everything happening in this world to keep whipping in applications to prevent the proper applicant—the landowner or developer, for example—from doing anything for two years. That is wrong, and we should not make it easy for the wreckers to wreck, which is what I believe that the Minister is setting out to do.
Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold mentioned, twin-tracking is important. I know from my own experience—
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
A proper applicant is someone genuinely seeking to develop land rather than someone who puts in an application with the intention of preventing someone else from doing something. I suggest that the provision is a wrecker's charter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands my point.
Mr David Wright (Telford, Labour)
In that case, I look forward to the Opposition tabling an amendment on Report to define the term.
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me. I am already thinking of enough amendments to require two days on Report, and it seems that the hon. Gentleman wants three. Perhaps I shall give way again for even more suggestions to save me staying up on Christmas and new year's day. No, it seems that he has given up. He has probably been told to shut up in case he helps me.
On twin-tracking, I know from my experience as a member and subsequently chairman of a planning committee how it focuses the mind of local planning officers. They do not like the process because it shows them up if they cannot work quickly enough. Anything that helps speed up the planning process should appeal to the Minister. He said that that was one of the main purposes of the process, but he is about to slow it down. This is a rotten clause in a rotten Bill and I hope that we shall not pursue it.
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
Only some of hon. Gentlemen's comments were germane to the debate—much of his last contribution was not. The hon. Member for Cotswold made a fair point in saying that anything done in this regard must be related to the performance of local planning departments. We accept that, which is why the planning delivery grant will shortly be in place.
Opposition Members' remarks start from the premise that, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, we are trying summarily to dismiss and get rid of twin-tracking and other elements in the clause, which—not least because of the key word ''may'' as opposed to ''must''—we are not. We are simply adding a degree of discretion to the process. In some circumstances, though not many, twin-tracking can be a useful device in focusing the mind, but it has been said that it is open to abuse.
I worked in a planning committee at the height of the previous property boom—artificially inflated by Lawson's economic pyrotechnics in the early 1990s—and know that local planning authorities were bombarded with all sorts of speculative developments. Any back garden larger than two postage stamps would have about 10 twin-tracked applications on it, driving LPAs to a standstill. They were frazzled with that level of abusive activity. As I said, twin-tracking has a limited role, which is why we are introducing an element of discretion. There is no question of summarily getting rid of it, as has been implied there is. We want to inhibit the use of repeat applications to ensure that they cannot be wrongly used to wear down the committee to force it to consider an application that it otherwise would not.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)
This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The problem with ''may'' is that it obscures the right of the local authority to decide on whether to contract. I shall give the Minister a specific example that should, as he has been on a planning committee, concentrate his mind. A local authority can be under pressure or not like a particular development. Let us focus on an example that recently caused the Home Office some trouble—a paedophile clinic in Surrey, which was rejected. There is no doubt that local authorities will use the excuse of ''may'' to say no, when reasonably, in the broadest line of things, they should allow twin-tracking to proceed.
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
Even if that happened, they would be saying no to twin-tracking, not to the application process and subsequent appeal process. If it seemed that that capriciously or unreasonably happened at any stage in the line of application, the LPA would get its just desserts as a result of the appeal process. It is not a case of either/or. The hon. Gentleman talked as though twin-tracking was the application process. It is not; it is but part and a variation of it. I defend the discretion, because it gives an extra string to the bow of the local planning authority.
As a Minister with responsibilities for planning, I do not want to be charged with examining hundreds of cases as they pile in for the regions for which I am responsible to see whether I can afford discretion on twin-tracking or any other element. However, I assure the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that his point about performance is right. We recognise that the performance of local planning authorities must improve before we allow them to decline to return twin-tracking applications, given that discretion. It is not right that developers should be penalised where the LPA has knocked down a building. That is wrong and goes to the heart of what we are trying to do.
We have announced a range of measures to improve local authority performance. There is the planning development grant, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Until performance has improved, the ability to twin track applications is still needed, and we should therefore introduce the measure only once delays in the planning system have been substantially overcome.
That will be part and parcel of how we measure each LPA's performance in the context of the planning delivery grant. I would love to go further and have an engaging debate on the nature of the PDG and what form it will take or otherwise, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet attempted, but I shall resist the temptation, not least because its mechanisms have not yet been formally announced. In that context, given that there is not a summary dismissal of the process and that there is a permissiveness and discretion, the provision takes on board many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I therefore urge that clause 42 should stand part of the Bill.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
I do not want to go into the detail unnecessarily, but there should be some simple mechanism whereby if an applicant thinks that the local planning authority is being unreasonable, he or she should not appeal to the Secretary of State but should be able to refer to the Secretary of State, who would give an immediate decision that there was a reasonable case for making a second application or whatever.
The Minister says that he will not introduce the measure relating to twin tracking until he is satisfied that local planning authorities have the extra resources. I welcome that greatly, but I presume—the hon. Gentleman might be able to clarify this; if not now, then as soon as he can, perhaps this afternoon—that the commencement of different parts of the Act, about which there is a special clause, will be triggered at different times. There will have to be a comprehensive provision so that all parts will not suddenly be activated. There are certain cases for certain parts. It would be great if the hon. Gentleman could consider that, because we might need a rather complicated mechanism for introducing the various parts of the Bill that are coming into force.
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
I take the second point and the tail-end point, which I will consider, but I do not accept the first point. If the applicant thinks that the LPA has been unreasonable in not entertaining the second application, the recourse is the determination in due course of the first application. That is right and proper. I thought that I was half joking when I said that I did not want to sit as the planning Minister with a pile of applications—not even to determine them, but just to go through them—to ascertain whether the LPA had acted reasonably in not affording the discretion of twin-tracking.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I have two points, which I will make one at a time. The Minister is being constructive in what he is saying—
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
Destructive?
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
Constructive. I was trying to be helpful to the Minister in saying that the mechanism
will not come into force until planning authorities perform to a reasonable standard. Will he clarify his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and explain how he will put the mechanism into effect? Will there be a separate commencement order for the paragraph, and will there be separate commencement orders for each local authority, depending on performance?
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
I understand that there will a broad commencement order for the Bill, which is entirely usual, and a range of orders that follow for specific parts that require regulation, statutory instrument or whatever else, which is also entirely usual. As I understand it, improvement will be part of the planning and delivery grant process. It is not only a question of resources. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet slightly misinterpreted the point. It is not a matter only of when LPAs receive more resources, but when they bring their performance up to speed. By definition, these discretionary powers will be awarded to those LPAs that come up to scratch. By law, we cannot wait until every LPA has reached a certain level of performance before these elements kick in globally. They will be awarded LPA by LPA, and at different times, as the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I am not entirely clear how the Government intend to lift the performance of the worst performing authorities. Surely there are proper mechanisms, through the Audit Commission or comprehensive performance assessments, to ensure that those authorities come up to standard. I give way to the Minister.
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman cannot give way to me on an intervention, when he is intervening on me. I gave way to him.
There are best value indicators and comprehensive performance assessments, but that is all prior to full implementation of the planning and delivery grant. They are there to assist the process.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
The Minister is indulging me. Does he admit that the practical effect of the clause is as I said it was in my opening remarks? If, on a reasonably complex development, a developer has an intimation that the planning authority will not determine the application within eight weeks, a twin-track application will be lodged and the matter will be taken straight to appeal. The net effect of the clause will be a huge increase in the number of appeals.
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
That is not necessarily so. Other elements in the clause allow the local authority to refuse the same or a similar application within a two-year period.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
The Minister has skated past an important point. Is he now saying that if the local authority fails to determine the second application, that application cannot go to appeal? If so, the net effect of this ratchet would be even worse. The developer will simply make one application and immediately lodge an appeal if he believes that the local authority will not determine it.
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
An applicant cannot lodge an application and go straight to appeal without the
LPA at least trying to determine the application. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is surprised by what I have just said. The import for the discretionary use of twin-tracking is that if two applications are lodged at the same time, one is determined and there is no appeal on the part of the client to determine the second one. That is the whole point. There is a live application and another application in the process to go straight to appeal for non-determination. If there remains an appeal on the second one for non-determination, there is no point in the clause at all. However, the purpose of the clause is to stop the second application automatically going to appeal, hence the term ''twin-tracking''. As I said, the crucial point is the discretionary nature. Circumstances and materials change, and it is proper that the twin-tracking notion at least lies on the table for legitimate use.
I will return to what I was saying about improvement, as, to be fair to Opposition Members, I admit that I am a tad confused myself, not least because with another hat on, we are going through what is happening and not happening on planning delivery lines. If anything that I have said about LPAs was not expected, I will write to Opposition Members to bring some clarity where, at least temporarily in my own head, there is confusion.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)
Going back a step or two, the Minister correctly told my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that an application could not go to an appeal until it had been refused. If it is refused under the relevant paragraph, can it then proceed on to appeal?
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
As I understand it, the second application cannot proceed. That is the whole point of the paragraph. Two applications going into a system is where the ''twin'' part of twin-tracking comes from. It is not meant to be anything more than that, and I stress that it is discretionary rather than a statutory dismissal. Considering what I have said about performance, I commend clause 42 to the Committee.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
A little light has been shone on an important matter. As more light is shone, it becomes more obvious that the Government's plans do not make a great deal of sense. The Minister was again struggling to give us a reasonable explanation, and we will study his words carefully, particularly as he has now told us that a second application may not go to appeal if the local authority has failed to determine it. It is an important matter that will exercise both Members and outside bodies. I will not press the matter to a vote, because I want to have the opportunity, subject to Mr. Speaker's selection, to return to it on Report, because it is such an important matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.