Clause 29
Planning Bill
4:15 pm
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 341, in clause 29, page 14, leave out lines 34 to 37.
John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 343, 344 and 353 to 355.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
Clause 29, together with clause 27, ensures that projects which require consent under the new single consent regime are not in addition required to obtain consents under other regulatory regimes. Subsection (1) states:
“To the extent that development consent is required for development”
it is not necessary to also obtain any of the consents listed in paragraphs (a) to (k). The amendments are needed to ensure that the devolution settlement with regard to Wales is maintained. Currently, a project that involves work on a heritage asset in Wales needs to obtain listed building consent, conservation area consent or scheduled monument consent from Welsh Ministers. Amendments Nos. 341, 343 and 344 amend the clause to ensure that a consent granted under the single consents regime will not override the need to obtain listed building consent, conservation area consent or scheduled monument consent from Welsh Ministers if such consent is currently needed.
For developments in England, there will be no such requirement to seek heritage consent as the order granting development consent will cover the issue. Amendment No. 343 also inserts a new paragraph that removes the need for notice under section 35 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 to be given in cases in England where development consent is required. Amendments Nos. 353, 354 and 355 make consequential changes to the 1979 Act to exclude matters that have received development consent under the Bill from the possibility of committing an offence under that Act. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 342, in clause 29, page 14, leave out lines 47 and 48.
John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 351
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
Clause 29, together with clause 27, states that projects which require consent under the new single consent regime are not in addition required to obtain consent under other regulatory regimes. Subsection (1) states:
“To the extent that development consent is required for development, none of the following is required to be obtained for the development or given in relation to it.”
Paragraph (h) refers to consent issued under section 39(1) of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 for the placing of pipelines over or under harbour waters. Consent in the first instance is for the harbour authority. Only if agreement cannot be reached will the matter be referred to the Secretary of State. It is not appropriate to remove the role of the harbour authority. In addition, the placing of a pipeline over or under harbour waters will not in itself amount to a nationally significant infrastructure project, so it is not considered appropriate to automatically disapply section 39(1) of the 1962 Act.
Amendments Nos. 342 and 351 propose to remove section 39(1) consents for placing pipelines in harbour waters from the list of consents that are automatically disapplied when development consent is required under the Bill. Instead, such works will require separate consent under section 39(1) of the 1962 Act. Should a promoter of a nationally significant pipeline wish to place part of their pipeline under harbour waters, they could still include that in their application to the Infrastructure Planning Commission as associated works, as referred to in clause 101. However, the requirement to obtain consent under section 39(1) of the 1962 Act will continue in force. I commend this amendment to the Committee.
Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
I do not have any issue with what the Minister said, but will he clarify one point? Given that we have discussed consultation arrangements, what happens when a developer proposes to put a pipeline under harbour waters? Will any harbour authority be a consultee under those circumstances? What will be the arrangements to ensure that they are consulted? One can imagine the circumstances in which they would have a legitimate material interest. If the Minister is not able to help me at the moment, he can take the matter away and perhaps come back to it later so that the authorities are not disadvantaged. As he said, harbour authorities frequently have a separate legal identity from the local authorities.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
I am very happy to come back to the hon. Gentleman in due course and I am grateful for the opportunity to research exactly where that matter will be covered in respect of the Bill. By virtue of the fact that we are articulating that the appropriate sections of the 1962 Act will still apply, we are clearly indicating that there will be a requirement for harbour authorities to be involved. Therefore, consultative arrangements that would normally apply will apply here as a matter of course. However, I will double check to see whether our references are strong enough.
Amendments made: No. 343, in clause 29, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
‘(ja) to the extent that the development relates to land in England, consent under section 2(3) or 3 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979;
(jb) to the extent that the development relates to land in England, notice under section 35 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979;’.
No. 344, in clause 29, page 15, line 7, at end insert—
‘(l) to the extent that the development relates to land in England, consent under section 8(1), (2) or (3) of the Listed Buildings Act;
(m) to the extent that the development relates to land in England, consent under section 74(1) of the Listed Buildings Act.’.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 345, in clause 29, page 15, leave out line 14.
John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 352
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
As we have already discussed, clause 29, together with clause 27, ensures that there are the required consent arrangements under the single consent regime. Subsection (2)(c) states that to the extent that development consent is required for a project, a notice under section 16(1) of the Gas Act 1965 with respect to safety conditions may not also be given in relation to that project. A notice under section 16(1) of the 1965 Act is issued by the Secretary of State and imposes safety conditions on the development or operation of an underground gas storage facility. It also applies to gas storage facilities that have received a consent by means of an order under section 4(1) of the 1965 Act.
Under the terms of subsection (2)(b) in which a project requires development consent under this Bill, no order under section 4(1) of the 1965 Act can be made. As they are linked to section 4(1) orders, it is automatically the case that notices about safety conditions under section 16(1) of the 1965 Act cannot be made for gas storage facilities consented under this Bill. The amendments seek to avoid confusion on the application of the 1965 Act by deleting references to section 16(1) of the Gas Act in the Bill.
None of this is to say that safety conditions cannot be imposed on the development of gas facilities within the single consents regime. That regime already contains a provision in clause 105(1) for the decision maker to impose whatever requirements it feels appropriate on the grant of development consent. That power can be exercised to serve a notice on terms equivalent to that which could previously be set out in a notice under section 16(1) of the 1965 Act given at the same time as a storage authorisation order under that Act.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 346, in clause 29, page 15, line 16, at end insert—
‘(2A) Subsection (2) is subject to section [Welsh offshore generating stations].’.
John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discus Government new clause 11—Welsh offshore generating stations.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
We have discussed clause 29 in some detail. Subsection (2)(d) refers to orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Currently, offshore wind farms can receive consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 or through an order under the 1992 Act. Provisions of the 1992 Act have been devolved to Welsh Ministers for projects based entirely in Wales. Welsh Ministers have made an order under the 1992 Act for an offshore wind farm at Scarweather Sands. In order to preserve the devolution settlement, these amendments are needed to allow Welsh Ministers to use the 1992 Act to consent to offshore wind farms in territorial waters adjoining Wales. That does not prevent a promoter from seeing a development consent for such a wind farm under the single consents regime if he or she so chooses.
David Jones (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
Perhaps the Minister could help me. How many of the current and recently granted applications for offshore wind farms in Wales—apart from the one at Scarweather Sands—been made under this particular provision rather than under the usual provision in the 1989 Act? Is it the case that almost every year consent for wind farms in excess of 50 MW generating capacity is applied for under the 1989 Act?
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
My understanding is that that is the case. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will do some research into the numbers of applications and respond to him in due course.
Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
My hon. Friend’s helpful intervention reminds me of one other point that I would like the Minister to clarify. He has set out the way in which certain decisions will be devolved to Wales. We will all have received a written memorandum of evidence from the Mayor of London. Will the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to make light devolution arrangements in favour of the Mayor of London, which he is apparently requesting in the memorandum, particularly in relation to the 1992 Act?
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
If we were intending to make any such arrangements, we would have tabled amendments.
There have been only one or two applications under the Transport and Works Act in Wales; most are under the Electricity Act, as far as we are aware.
John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)
May I say that in any event it is extremely unlikely that they would come within the scope of the clause, since this deals with Welsh wind farms?