Clause 41 - applications for planning permission and certain consents

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 8:55 am on 23 January 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government) 8:55, 23 January 2003

I beg to move amendment No. 356, in

clause 41, page 25, line 16, after 'think', insert 'reasonably'.

Photo of Sir David Amess Sir David Amess Conservative, Southend West

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 357, in

clause 41, page 25, line 18, after 'think', insert 'reasonably'.

Amendment No. 377, in

clause 41, page 25, line 19, after '(3)', insert 'must be reasonable and'.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. If we are to meet at this uncivilised hour, the rest of the House's functions have to be compatible. I have just come from Portcullis House, and through the glass door, which is locked, I could see the amendment paper for today and all the other documents that we may or may not need in Committee. We cannot do our job properly if the other offices of the House are not operating at a similar earlier hour now that we have moved Committees forward. Could you look into this matter urgently with the Serjeant at Arms and see what can be done?

Photo of Sir David Amess Sir David Amess Conservative, Southend West

This is not a matter for my consideration, but obviously it has been heard by noises off. I know that it is a nuisance, but the hon. Gentleman can obtain all the necessary documents from the Vote Office in the Members Lobby. I will find out what the arrangements are at Portcullis House.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I have received a helpful letter from Hansard, which states:

''I regret to inform you that, because of the heavy work load in Committees, the Official Report for the afternoon sitting of Tuesday 21 January will not be available until tomorrow morning. I apologise for any inconvenience that this may cause you or the Committee''.

I am not in any way blaming any of the officials of Hansard; it is not their fault, it is the system. I do not see how we can do our job properly in these Committees if we do not have a proper record of what has happened, particularly in the previous sitting. We might be in the middle of a clause, subsection or group of amendments when we adjourn. If we cannot look back and see what happened in the previous

sitting, I do not see how we can do our job properly. If it is not going to be possible regularly to have Hansard reports from previous sittings, the Government will have to schedule these Committees on a weekly rather than twice-weekly basis.

Photo of Sir David Amess Sir David Amess Conservative, Southend West

Again, that is not a matter for me, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There are undoubtedly teething problems with the new arrangements.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. What it amounts to is that the Government are over-scheduling the Committees. There are too many going on at the same time. It means that everyone in this place is in Committee—which is exactly what the Government want—and no one is down in the main Chamber paying attention to the really important debates.

Photo of Sir David Amess Sir David Amess Conservative, Southend West

Order. I have heard enough on this point.

Photo of David Wilshire David Wilshire Conservative, Spelthorne

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Have you been given any documents by the Minister that are relevant to this morning's debates? On Tuesday, I obtained documents relevant to matters I had been discussing in the morning after the sitting ended. I was told subsequently that they had been popped on the table. I do not consider that adequate. Are there any Government documents that we have not been given which we need to have before this morning's debate?

Photo of Sir David Amess Sir David Amess Conservative, Southend West

Government documents are not a matter for the Chair. I have the impression that the Minister does not want to respond.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

After that little canter on points of order, which were important—some of them, anyway—[Interruption.] I did not say which. We now move to clause 41 and amendment No. 356. Would the Committee kindly turn to clause 41 on page 25, and look at subsection (3) of the proposed new section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990? That subsection reads:

''The local planning authority may require that an application for planning permission must include—

(a) such particulars as they think necessary;

(b) such evidence in support of anything in or relating to the application as they think necessary.''

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has devised an amendment to paragraph (a) so that it would read:

''such particulars as they think reasonably necessary.''

I believe that to be a useful amendment. Otherwise, the planning authority could ask for all sorts of extraneous information, which might be vaguely related to the application, but which could not reasonably be considered necessary. I hope that the Minister will accede to that simple amendment.

Similarly, paragraph (b) would be amended to read:

''such evidence in support of anything in or relating to the application as they think reasonably necessary.''

That amendment adds narrowness to the very wide possible requirements.

Planning authorities require more and more information to be submitted with planning applications. Sustainability reports, environmental impact assessments, traffic impact assessments, and a whole host of supporting documentation will be required for larger applications. That is expensive for the applicants. I believe it to be incumbent on all planning authorities and on the Secretary of State to consider the cost and inconvenience to applicants of having to provide such information, some of which may be necessary and important, but not all of which is important in every case.

The amendments are simple, and I hope that the Minister will consider them.

Photo of David Wilshire David Wilshire Conservative, Spelthorne

May I add some comments, particularly in relation to amendment No. 356, which would amend subsection (1)(3)(b)? That section currently reads:

''such evidence in support of anything in or relating to the application as they think necessary.''

The amendment would alter that to read:

''such evidence in support of anything in or relating to the application as they think reasonably necessary.''

There is a specific point behind this amendment that has concerned me for a long time, from the days when I was a member and then a chairman of a planning committee. It is also an issue that has regularly been raised with me as an MP, and no doubt with other hon. Members. From time to time, human nature being what it is, there will be disputes between neighbours about planning applications. Those disputes often concern who owns what. Arguments will be adduced that something cannot be done, because the person making the application does not own, for example, the hedge or the ditch concerned. I have no doubt that such issues have arisen in your Southend constituency, Mr. Amess.

Such cases may eventually end up with the ombudsman. The complaint will be that it was inappropriate to consider the application either because the papers submitted with the application showing the ownership of the site were wrong, or because the certificate confirming that the notice had been served on everyone who had an interest in the site was wrong. Reasons will be adduced for those complaints. There are occasions when it is almost impossible—sometimes wholly impossible—to give notice to a neighbouring owner, or to someone who might be involved in the site, because no one knows who that person is, or there may be no owner.

This issue exercises councillors, council officials, MPs, and ultimately the ombudsman. I am concerned that if this part of this clause stands without modification, it will now be argued that there is a requirement on the planning authority not to consider anything until every last doubt has been eliminated. This is another opportunity for neighbours who are trying to stop something that is perfectly permissible in planning terms from happening out of bad neighbourliness, or some other reason that has nothing to do with planning.

A requirement to say that we must have all the evidence without a test of reasonableness makes the problem worse. It will ensure that councillors, officials, MPs et al will get more and more of this complaining—dare I say, whingeing—which has nothing to do with our objective of planning the future of this country. Even if the other amendments do not appeal to the Minister, I ask him to give serious thought to having some form of words that makes it clear that the local authority is entitled to apply a test of reasonableness and to say to these people who make these complaints about land ownership, ''We hear what you say. We understand that you are concerned, but the applicant has done everything that is reasonable to supply us with information.''

To go any further than reasonableness is not a planning consideration and will not make for good processing of applications. Indeed, it gets into the realm of the law on neighbour disputes. That is the context for amendment No. 356. The Minister may not like the way I have gone about it, but I urge him to consider the point. If he does not like these amendments, I ask him to suggest others to meet our legitimate and reasonable concerns, so that the Bill does not bung up the system and achieves the swifter, more efficient planning system that he says he wants.

Photo of Paul Beresford Paul Beresford Conservative, Mole Valley

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) from a slightly different aspect to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. Anyone who has been on a planning committee for any length of time and has looked at the tactics of some of the planning officials will recognise the term ''jobsworth''. There is a great temptation for local authority officials to cover themselves by asking for what most of us would consider unreasonable details. They stymie any progress on an application without making a decision or bringing it to the committee or members to make that decision. I am not sure whether the word ''reasonably'' should be in its present position or earlier in the sentence. That would be down to the Minister. The Minister often tells us that he has been on a planning committee for 11 years. I am sure that he will understand the argument, and I hope he will consider these reasonable amendments reasonably.

Photo of Sir Sydney Chapman Sir Sydney Chapman Conservative, Chipping Barnet

I support my hon. Friend on these three eminently reasonable amendments. We have talked a lot about terminology and whether we should have ''may'' or ''must'', but I believe that ''reasonable'' is in line with the terminology of much town and country planning legislation and regulations. If it is not used universally throughout those Acts and regulations, it should be. The only additional point that I would, with the greatest respect, put to the Minister is that in trying to speed up our planning system—whether we will succeed is another matter—it is crucial that we are seen to be fair and that we strike a balance between the interests of promoters and developers of schemes and those who will be affected by them. It would be to the Government's credit if they accepted these seemingly minor, but significant, amendments.

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

It is nice to have a reasonable opening debate. Amendments Nos. 356, 357 and 377 are entirely unnecessary. The addition of the word ''reasonably'' in the position suggested in amendments Nos. 356 and 357 adds nothing to the clause, and nor does the insertion of the words ''must be reasonable'' in amendment No. 377. In law, ''necessary'' implies ''reasonable''. Furthermore, the court could review an authority's decision on the basis of ordinary judicial review principles if that authority were to impose requirements that it could not reasonably think were necessary, or which another party thought were unreasonable.

In general, and whatever the intention may be, we have no reason to suppose that local authorities will act unreasonably in requiring information to enable them to determine planning applications. The current regulations enable them to direct an applicant to supply further information necessary to enable them to determine the application, and we do not envisage that they will act differently under the new provisions.

I accept the spirit of the suggestions made by Opposition Members, but the words that the amendments would add are entirely unnecessary. That has proved to be the case under the regime with the current regulations in place, and will be so under the new system. This is not a recipe for clogging up the system any more than it has been under the current system.

I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

To use the Minister's analogy, we believe that the amendments are reasonably necessary. They are necessary, therefore they must be reasonable, and the Minister should be reasonable in accepting them. However, he has not done so. We have much to get through today, and I have much to say about the clause, which is important. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

I have a lot to say about the clause that is fairly technical and refers to many different Acts. I hope that the Committee will bear with me; I will try to take things slowly.

The clause is in five parts, which deal with the forms that local authorities require in relation to applications for planning permission, tree preservation orders, advertisements, universities and listed buildings. I have examined section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—the principal Act—which from now on I shall refer to as the TCPA. In those days, Bills received proper scrutiny. They were drafted in a highly professional and considered manner, amendments were made, and they emerged as very good legislation. I do not blame the draftsmen of the Bill, but it seems that clause 41 replaces good, well considered legislation in the TCPA with something

that is much more nefarious and difficult to get to grips with, and much less clear.

Section 62 of the TCPA could not be simpler. It states:

''Any application to a local planning authority for planning permission—

(a) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act''.

In other words, the Secretary of State may prescribe any regulations that he wishes, so he has more than adequate powers to deal with the whole of clause 41. Section 62 continues:

''(b) shall include such particulars and be verified by such evidence as may be required by the regulations or by directions given by the local planning authority under them.''

So the local authority has all the powers that it needs to vary the legislation. I therefore contend that the clause is unnecessary. However, we must consider it.

Clause 41(2) deletes section 73(3) of the principal Act, which deals with applications for varying or revoking reservations in planning permissions, and states:

''Special provision may be made with respect to such applications—

(a) by regulations under section 62 as regards the form and content of the application, and

(b) by a development order as regards the procedure to be followed in connection with the application.''

Again, that it is simple stuff, yet we are tinkering with it and deleting it. It was clear under existing legislation, so I am unsure why we need to vary it in the Bill.

Section 198(3) of the TCPA deals with tree preservation orders. Subsection (3) of clause 41 refers to it and adds to it additional subsections (8) and (9). Section 197 of the principal Act is also clear about how tree preservation orders are made, and the Secretary of State is given all the powers needed to deal with them.

I shall read out the relevant provision in the TCPA. Part VIII starts with the word ''Trees''—nothing could be clearer than that—and section 197(b) says that the local planning authority has

''to make such orders under section 198 as appear to the authority to be necessary in connection with the grant of such permission, whether for the giving effect to such conditions or otherwise.''

That is all pretty clear, simple and straightforward stuff, yet again the Bill tinkers with the existing legislation, which has been tried and tested in the courts and everyone understands. The clause is tinkering for the sake of tinkering.

Section 328 of the Town and Country Planning Act deals with universities. In comparison, subsection (5) of the clause must have taken the draftsmen many hours of midnight oil. Section 328 of the TCPA refers to—I have been through them all—the Settled Land Act 1925, the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Universities and College Estates Act 1925. That is all old and well established legislation. Section 26 of the Universities and College Estates Act 1925 has no less than 22 subsections. However, I have to say that all the subsections in the Acts that I have looked at have very

little relationship to planning. Tangentially, sections 26, 111, 112, 133 and 327 of the principal Act make small mentions of development, but it is unnecessary for the Bill to alter all those provisions. It achieves nothing, because most of the sections are irrelevant to planning, being concerned with how universities should dispose of and buy assets, deal with moneys, mortgage their moneys and so forth. That has little to do with the Bill. I repeat that it is tinkering at its worst.

Finally, subsection (6) of the clause deals with listed buildings. Again, unnecessary tinkering is going on. Section 10(2) of the listed buildings Act 1990 is simple:

''Such an application shall be made in such form as the authority may require and shall contain

(a) sufficient particulars to identify the building to which it relates, including a plan;

(b) such other plans and drawings as are necessary to describe the works which are the subject of the application; and

(c) such other particulars as may be required by the authority.''

It will not have escaped the Committee's notice that the wording in that Act is almost identical to the wording in the Bill, but we are tinkering again. More than adequate powers are already provided for in existing legislation.

What problem out there in the country is the clause supposed to remedy? I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against clause stand part. If Labour Members had any determination—

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

Yes, if they had enough gumption—and, indeed, if the Minister had any gumption—they would all have looked at what the civil servants had produced and said, ''This is a load of garbage; chuck it out. It is not needed in the Bill; it clutters everything up.'' With that explanation I hope for a little common sense. We should not be tinkering with Bills for the sake of it and cluttering up the courts with the inevitable applications for judicial review, because whenever an Act is altered, lawyers find one word that is different and say that it changes the meaning of the whole section. The clause, like many others in the Bill, will simply make more work for lawyers, and that is unproductive for the wealth-creating sector.

Photo of Sir Sydney Chapman Sir Sydney Chapman Conservative, Chipping Barnet

The amendments that we discussed in the previous debate included the word ''reasonable'' because clause 41 needs clarification. What exactly can a local planning authority stipulate that a planning application should include? Many people are worried because the clause rewrites sections of the principal Act. The extra requirements that local planning authorities will be able to impose on applicants, whether they do so or not, could be onerous. I am always suspicious when blanket authority is given to the Government, or an agency of Government, to impose extra demands on the people of our country. That is putting it rather grandly, but simply, and I hope that it makes the point.

I shall ask the Minister some questions now, so that he has plenty of time to deal with them before we vote

on clause stand part. First, how does clause 41 make a difference to the principal Act? What changes does it make to that Act? Does it add anything? The Minister might reasonably argue that I should have done my research and found out myself, but the clause is complicated as it refers to many parts of the principal Act—sections 62, 73, 198, 220 and 328, among others. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask him to spell out what effect clause 41 will have on the principal Act.

Clause 41(3) refers to tree preservation orders. My friends in politics—or perhaps I should say my friend—tells me that my only useful accomplishment in 32 years in the House is that I was the instigator of national tree year in 1973, before you were born, Mr. Amess. It was a successful campaign, which led to the creation of the Tree Council, which highlights its work by having a national tree week every year. All in all, the initiative has been quite successful.

Tree preservation orders are important, and they are used sparingly. The owner of a tree that has an amenity value in a particular area must get permission before he can do anything to it apart from light pruning, and certainly if he wants to lop, top or chop it. The orders were extended to include all trees in conservation areas. If someone wanted materially to alter a tree in such an area, unless it had a tree preservation order on it, they had to give notice of intention—six weeks, I think—to the local authority, and the local authority could then impose conditions. If the tree was in a conservation area and had a tree preservation order on it, the requirements of that order would come first and foremost. I would be interested to hear comments on that.

As for controlling the display of advertisements, I need not say anything more.

Clause 41(5) states:

''In the principal Act before section 328 (settled land and land of universities and colleges) there is inserted the following section''.

I will not read that out, but I am interested to know why it does not include schools, for example. It seems reasonable that it should, given that there is a reference to universities and colleges. Perhaps they have special historic legal requirements or privileges, but again it would be helpful if the Minister would deal with that point.

My last material point—this is one of my longer contributions in this Committee, Mr. Amess—concerns subsection (6), which refers to

''section 10(2) of the listed buildings Act''.

I am not aware of any such Act. I hope that the Minister does not think that I am being pedantic, but I am just wondering whether that subsection should refer to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. I should quite seriously be grateful for confirmation of that. If I am right, why has the full title of the Act not been used, as is the case elsewhere in the legislation? Perhaps I am wrong and there is a Listed Buildings Act, but I do not think so, because ''listed'' has a small ''l''. In any case, the year of the Act should be given in the text of clause 41.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

My hon. Friend is exactly right. In fact, I read out clause 41(6), which begins with the words

''In section 10(2) of the listed buildings Act''.

There must be a drafting error in the clause, because the list of repeals in schedule 6 refers to section 10 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Photo of Sir Sydney Chapman Sir Sydney Chapman Conservative, Chipping Barnet

This is one of those rare occasions when it looks as if I might be right. If I am right, and the Act has been described incorrectly or inadequately, an amendment should be made.

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 82(6), which states:

''The listed buildings Act is the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990''.

The Act is clearly defined there, as the hon. Gentleman asked. It is referred to as the ''listed buildings Act'' purely as a form of shorthand.

Photo of Sir Sydney Chapman Sir Sydney Chapman Conservative, Chipping Barnet

I am most grateful to the Minister, and I will not pursue the point any further, but I still do not see why the Act is not accurately described at the first point in the Bill at which it is mentioned. If clause 82(6) came before clause 41, I would have no problem with the use of the shorter description of the Act in clause 41.

I have one other point. The Minister will remember that at a previous sitting, when two spelling mistakes, or typographical errors, were pointed out in an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, he said that there was no need to change them.

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

With the best will in the world, I must point out that I said quite the opposite. I said that we did not know how many more errors there were. Let us not change just those two mistakes, prompting a reprint as the Bill leaves Committee. Let us ensure that we capture every one that we can and correct them all in one hit.

Photo of Sir Sydney Chapman Sir Sydney Chapman Conservative, Chipping Barnet

I apologise to the Minister if I got the wrong end of the stick, but although what he has just said is true, one of his reasons was that there might be an extra cost if we were to correct the two typographical errors before Report. I note that the Minister has tabled a Government amendment to a later clause. If that amendment is passed, the Bill will presumably have to be reprinted before Report, so I do not see why the observed typographical errors should not be put right between the Committee stage and Report.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

Does my hon. Friend not think that it is arrogant in the extreme for the Government to bring a Bill to Committee, but say that whatever mistakes are found, they will amend it only on Report? If that is the case, what is the point of having this Committee at all?

Photo of Sir David Amess Sir David Amess Conservative, Southend West

Order. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will concentrate their remarks solely on clause 41, and not labour that point any further.

Photo of Sir David Amess Sir David Amess Conservative, Southend West

Order. It is for the Chair to decide how matters proceed.

Photo of Sir Sydney Chapman Sir Sydney Chapman Conservative, Chipping Barnet 9:30, 23 January 2003

I have been attempting to reach the conclusion of my peroration for the past five minutes, Mr. Amess. I finish by saying that because clause 41 gives extra powers, and enables local planning authorities to impose extra requirements on applicants, those should be much more clearly spelt out in the clause.

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

I am tempted to tell the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) that he should have done his research—but I will not, although he offered me cause to say that.

I must say that I cannot see what all the fuss is about, although I realise that that will make Opposition Members deeply suspicious. If this is tinkering, then it is tinkering with a purpose.

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Wait a minute; I have only just started.

All the provisions ably read out by the hon. Member for Cotswold do most of what we need in a new and modern planning system, but they do not prescribe the nature of the forms that applicants should use. Since the 1990 Act, a plethora of forms has been used, and they vary between London boroughs, let alone the rest of the country. Some have good practice and some do not. As part of the process of streamlining and to help people know what to expect from planning authorities, we want to prescribe the nature and form of the paperwork that people will use to apply.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

I come back to the core point that I made in my summing up. Will the Minister tell us what is wrong the present planning system that requires the provisions in the clause? For every subsection, with the possible exception of the one related to universities, regulations are already available to the Secretary of State and the local authority to achieve exactly what he says the clause will achieve.

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

That is the right point, but made in the wrong context. The principal Act does not contain any provisions to prescribe the nature of the application forms.

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Absolutely not. Regulations do not prescribe from the centre what every local planning authority in the country should use as appropriate official forms or, concomitant with that, give local authorities the power not to entertain applications that are not on prescribed forms. That is the one element that the principal Act does not contain, and the clause simply remedies that.

When we were deciding how to streamline, we examined the notion of a ''ready reckoner'' planning checklist, so that all parties would know exactly what needed to be marshalled to present a legitimate planning application. After some investigation, it did

not seem appropriate to follow that route. There are 500,000 applications each year, and the form and manner in which they are presented to local planning authorities varies enormously.

This is not a matter of local interpretation, independence or autonomy. Our citizens should know what to expect and what they need to marshal in applications for planning approval, whether they are in a London borough or anywhere else in the country.

Where tinkering occurs, it is because either there is no power in the relevant legislation to prescribe the forms, or the power is prescribed by regulations rather than development orders. The provision is no more sinister than that. It is about the standardisation of the requirements, which will have benefits for delivering the planning system. One spin-off that is not central to why we want to tidy up planning applications is that if we standardise we can far more readily get the forms and the process on to the internet, so that people can apply electronically rather than on paper.

As the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) says, if one has been on a planning committee for any length of time and taken it seriously—as I know many do—one will have seen the paperwork and application forms long before the application appears on the agenda in front of the committee. Some of the content of those forms is horrendous. All that the clause does is give people a comprehensive list of what they need to put in their applications, and standardise the forms on a national basis.

I appreciate that, as the hon. Member for Cotswold says, if such a duty does not apply to the whole array of applications—tree preservation orders, listed buildings regulations and so on—rather than just to planning applications, the measure looks rather clumsy, but if we start from that premise we have to look back at every aspect of the principal Act, and any previous Acts, and hook the new responsibility on to them. That makes for a terribly over-complicated clause, but I assure Opposition Members that clause 41 is a purely technical clause, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said. It does no more than standardise the form and ''electronify''—or whatever the word is—the system to meet people's needs.

If standardising and prescribing the nature of the forms on which applications have to be written or submitted in order to be taken seriously and legitimately by the planning authorities is a ''bureaucratic jackboot'' tendency, so be it. It will streamline and aid all those involved in the planning system, from the applicant through to the local planning authorities and the wider communities who want to know what the application is about and what form it is presented in. In that context, I ask that clause 41 stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

The Minister did his best and I congratulate him, but I am no more convinced having heard his explanation. It is not his fault, but the clause is completely unnecessary. I have counted, and found

that any practitioner will have to refer to at least six underlying Acts in considering the clause. That is the problem. Every time we amend an Act people have to refer to the previous Act, and also the Act that it amended. Far from simplifying and consolidating the system, which is what I thought the Minister would say in explanation of this clause, it makes the whole system far more complicated. The clause is unnecessary and existing regulations are already sufficient and safe. The existing provision refers to the Secretary of State and the local authority. If the regulations cannot prescribe the form and manner in which the application must be made—that is, the simplest thing to do with planning applications—there must be something wrong with all of us.

I strongly suggest that this is tinkering. It is bureaucratic and unnecessary, and I urge my hon. Friends—and Labour Members—to vote to strike out the clause. We could then at least make this Bill marginally less bad than it is.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 4.

Division number 18 Adults Abused in Childhood — Clause 41 - applications for planning permission and certain consents

Aye: 8 MPs

No: 4 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.