Written evidence to be reported to the House
Planning Bill
12:30 pm
Ken Bell: In addition to the point that Richard is making about clarity and whether this measure relates to the extension or the totality is the question of the thresholds themselves, which seem extremely high for ports. We would suggest rather lower figures.
The two additional points that I would like to mention relate to general permitted development rights with regard to statutory undertakings. First, having taken legal advice on this matter, there is an opinion that an effect of the Bill, which we suspect is unintended, will remove those rights when an application is made to the commission. That does not seem to make any great sense. We suspect that it is unintended and we ask that the relevant wording in clause 27 be examined so that confirmation can be given that there is no intent to remove general permitted development order powers from ports.
My second point relates to the compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill, again with respect to statutory undertakers. The decision-making process appears to be broadly similar to what now exists: the Secretary of State would review that and its consequences. However, the Bill is silent about the process that would follow. This is quite an important issue for ports and other statutory bodies. If we could have clarification on the process it would be appreciated. It would be helpful to know whether the intention is to replicate the system that now prevails. At the moment we are unclear about how this would work.