Skip to main content

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Volume 743: debated on Monday 4 February 2013

Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

Amendment 75ZAB

Moved by

75ZAB: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—

“Planning Act 2008: further reform of highways

For section 144(3) of the Planning Act 2008 (provisions of development consent orders for highway projects) substitute—“(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to an order granting development consent which imposes charges in respect of the keeping or use of motor vehicles on roads by the application of Schedule 23 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 or Part III of the Transport Act 2000, in full or in part and with or without modifications.””

Amendment 75ZAB stands in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. This amendment comes out of a fairly recent discovery about some new roads that have received permissions under development consent orders. If the developer wishes to put a charge or toll on them then, for some reason, it has to be a fixed-toll plaza, with lots of toll booths and the old fashioned things that one sees on motorways in France, on the M6 toll, and the Dartford crossing. It seems rather odd that a developer who seeks planning permission to build a toll road needs to be told as part of getting consent that if he is going to put a toll or a charge on it then it has to be a fixed-toll point. It seems to me that that has very little to do with planning—except for the planning permission of the site—and that the method of tolling should come out of a policy from the Department for Transport. I have had a useful meeting with officials on it.

It makes me recall the debate that we have in your Lordships’ House every now and then when the American embassy refuses to pay the congestion charge because it says it is a tax. One or two other embassies do the same thing. We all get a bit upset about that and the Foreign Office tries to make the embassies pay. It is an argument, but what is a toll, what is a charge and what is a tax? It is basically something you pay for going into a tunnel or across a bridge or up a road.

I have put down the amendment because I strongly believe that the Department for Transport should now have a policy on tolling. I do not mean which roads should be tolled and which ones should not be because that is a separate issue. We have the London congestion charge, we have tolls for the Dartford tunnel and for the Birmingham northern relief road, and we have lorry road-user charging coming in. The lorry road-user charging is going to be time-based rather than distance-based, which is odd. Nobody else in Europe is going time-based but that is probably why we are. Worse still, if these all move forward, you are going to have to have separate equipment in your car or lorry for each area, road, tunnel or bridge that you wish to use because I suspect that more and more of the crossings that now have toll booths will wish to convert to taking money while you are on the move because it is so much easier and cheaper and, of course, it is quicker for the person paying.

Cheapness comes into it. Noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong but the cost of collection of the congestion charge in London is something like 30% of the amount you pay. With some of the modern electronic systems used in other cities and some motorways on the continent, you are getting down to about 5%, which means that the developer keeps more of his money. One hopes that one day the Department for Transport, maybe in its new roads policy which we were told about earlier in the Committee stage, will come up with a policy on tolling. That should include one system for the whole country—one technical system—that you can have in your car. That means a common technology and it would be much better if it was common throughout Europe. Then it would be up to the developers, the Government or whoever to decide what rate should be charged for using whatever facility you need. We want to get away from the idea that if you are getting consent for a particular crossing or something with a development consent order, it has to specify the type of toll booth, which seems to be a rather retrograde step. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

My Lords, Amendment 75ZAB stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I declare that I am chief executive of London First, a business membership organisation.

The demands on our roads are growing. In major urban centres such as London, there are severe physical limits to building more capacity, and congestion is a serious problem. I believe that road charging will be an important part of that solution as we seek to manage our resources more efficiently. A more sophisticated charging scheme will need to deliver reduced and more certain journey times. As the noble Lord mentioned, London is ahead of the pack: it already has a congestion charging zone, which is now widely accepted, including by all political parties.

This amendment would enable Transport for London to develop intelligent, barrier-free charging systems for new or existing roads or river crossings in response to the growing demand for road space. This is more than an academic point. Transport for London is currently consulting on a new tolled river crossing at Silvertown in east London. There is a real dearth of river crossings on the east side of London, in contrast to the west, and a new crossing here would help relieve the Blackwall tunnel and would support new jobs and growth in east London.

Can the noble Baroness confirm that this should apply—and the amendment does apply—well outside London? There is a plan for a new road or motorway linking Felixstowe to Birmingham—of course, I would rather it was a railway, but that is irrelevant—and there is talk of it being tolled. There are lots of other plans for tolled motorways in the offing, so am I right in thinking it would be a national system?

My Lords, I support my noble friend and the noble Baroness in this amendment. It is something that I personally feel strongly about. I live near Birmingham in the West Midlands and I use the tolled section of the motorway quite frequently on my journeys north. It is a very convenient way of missing the congestion that can be found around spaghetti junction and the Ray Hall viaduct, the elevated section of the M6—until one reaches the toll booths, where we have this medieval concept of queuing to pay, the sort of thing one did with a horse and cart centuries ago. Invariably, I find myself behind someone who has got in the wrong lane, or someone who does not have the right money or cannot find their credit card, and a lot of the time saved by using the toll road is lost as one queues to get through this barrier. Surely there has to be a better way.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, said, in this day and age it should surely be possible to have a more modern system of collecting revenue for toll roads. It is 25 years since I first went to Singapore. The authorities there managed to collect congestion charges electronically three decades ago in a way that is apparently beyond us on the Midlands motorway. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind.

Perhaps I may test the patience of the Committee for two or three more minutes while I am on this hobby-horse of the Midlands motorway. At the moment it is comparatively lorry-free because the private owners—I understand that Macquarie, the Australian company, is the main shareholder in the Midlands motorway—deliberately, as a matter of policy, price off heavy goods vehicles. Those heavy goods vehicles then use the existing M6 over the elevated section at the Ray Hall viaduct and past spaghetti junction—a section of the M6 that is regularly and expensively under repair because of those very same heavy goods vehicles which, whatever the very effective road lobby says, do not pay their true track costs and do enormous damage.

Thanks to the generosity of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister in the 1980s, Macquarie was given the concession to run the Midlands motorway in perpetuity, and can charge what it likes. The last thing it wants is a non-stop procession of heavy goods vehicles, because that damages its motorway. It is no accident that the bit of motorway infrastructure regularly under repair anywhere in the country is the left-hand lane, because that is the one used by heavy goods vehicles. It is a nonsensical situation in which the British taxpayer has paid literally hundreds of millions of pounds. I know the Ray Hall viaduct quite well; it was in my former constituency of West Bromwich East. When the former Prime Minister John Major talked about the cones hotline he had the Ray Hall viaduct and the spaghetti junction interchange in mind. Miles of it are regularly coned off because of the damage done by heavy goods vehicles, which use that section of the M6 because they are deliberately priced off the Midlands motorway.

There are two matters here that I hope the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will address. The first is the nonsensical and medieval concept of stopping to pay a toll, having used a road on which I must confess to breaking the speed limit occasionally myself. I have rarely if ever seen a police vehicle on that privately-owned section of motorway, although having said that I have no doubt I can expect to see one in the very near future. The taxpayer had to pay literally hundreds of millions of pounds because of the pricing policy on that section of toll road, which keeps off heavy goods vehicles. Both of those matters are complete nonsense. No one blames the Minister personally, but can he do anything about it?

My Lords, I wish my noble friend Lord Snape well in his quest to abolish all medieval practices in this country. I would simply point out that your Lordships may be the first victims of such a policy, so I hope he does not progress too fast.

If my noble friend will allow me to say so, at least some of us in this House have occasionally sought election.

Of course, in medieval times exit was not a permitted right. The issue here is a very simple and straightforward one, on which I hope the noble Lord can give the Committee comfort. It is as simple as whether it is possible to have a tolling regime without having to have toll booths. The reason the issue has come to the fore is the Silvertown tunnel proposal. TfL, quite rightly, does not want to have toll booths, but the legal position is unclear. TfL tells me the issue is whether the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 or the Greater London Authority Act is the relevant legal basis for tolling. If it is the one, then there is not a need for booths; if it is the other, then there might be. I think we all agree on what the public policy objective is here; we simply need the Government to give us comfort that it can be achieved.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling this amendment and for raising this issue in the House. Of course, it is always a pleasure to listen to noble Lords when they get on their hobby-horses. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Snape, will be here on Thursday afternoon to discuss the HGV Road User Levy Bill that I will propose to the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, makes a persuasive case in favour of amending Section 144(3) of the Planning Act 2008 in order to provide greater flexibility for developers wishing to include road charging provisions within the development consent order and to remove unnecessary additional processes and restrictions from the major infrastructure regime. While I cannot comment on the detail of individual cases, I share his commitment to ensuring the delivery of the crucial infrastructure that this country needs to support vital growth and jobs. I also agree with him that it is important that we take the opportunity to ensure that the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 are fit for purpose and are not inadvertently acting as a barrier to growth. This is therefore an area where I am able to consider further the case for an amendment to Section 144(3) of the Planning Act 2008.

On the noble Lord’s point about charges against diplomatic organisations, he will be aware that this is a long-running issue that we have debated many times. The Government pursue these charges vigorously with the organisations concerned. The noble Lord touched on the charging of road users, and of course on Thursday we will debate the HGV Road User Levy Bill, which partially addresses some of these problems.

I am happy to meet all noble Lords to discuss some of the wider issues relating to charging for roads. However, noble Lords will be well aware of the Government’s policy on wider road-user charging. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment and perhaps return to it on Report.

I am very grateful to the Minister for what I felt was a positive response. I did not really need much on the poor old Foreign Office’s attempt to get the Americans to pay for parking their cars here, but, on the subject of the amendment, it was good to hear that he understands the problem. I look forward to sitting down with him between now and Report and possibly encouraging the Government to come back with their own amendment, which I am sure will be much better than the one that we have drafted. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75ZAB withdrawn.

Clause 22 : Special parliamentary procedure in cases under the Planning Act 2008

Amendment 75A

Moved by

75A: Clause 22, page 22, line 39, leave out “Sections 128 and 129” and insert “In section 128”

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 75B, 77ZA, 77ZB and 77ZC. The amendments are to do with safeguarding port land.

Amendments 75A and 75B to Clause 22 are intended to preserve the possibility of special parliamentary procedure in relation to compulsory acquisition of land of certain types of transport statutory undertakers. Clause 22 relates to Section 128 of the Planning Act 2008, which provides for development consent orders authorising the compulsory acquisition of land of local authorities and statutory undertakers to be subject to special parliamentary procedure. As currently drafted, Clause 22 would repeal the whole of Section 128. The amendments would instead remove the reference to local authorities and the general reference to statutory undertakers in that section and restrict its application to land of harbour and railway undertakers. These are providers of infrastructure for public benefit, and it is important that land required for these purposes should continue to enjoy the additional level of protection which this procedure confers. Since Section 128 is not to be repealed in its entirety, Section 129 of the Planning Act, which relates to the operation of Section 128, will continue to need to apply. Amendment 75A would also remove its repeal.

Amendment 77ZA would delete subsection (4) of Clause 22, which repeals provisions which also relate to Sections 128 and 129 of the Planning Act. The proposal that these provisions remain makes repeal unnecessary.

Amendments 77ZB and 77ZC follow on from the previous amendments. Clause 23 modifies and limits the scope of special parliamentary procedure in relation to compulsory acquisition of land in certain cases where the Bill is not removing the process altogether; that is, in cases where special parliamentary procedure is triggered under what the Bill describes as a “special-acquisition provision”. It is accepted that if special parliamentary procedure is still to apply under Section 128 of the Planning Act in relation to land of transport undertakers, it should be subject to the same limitations. These amendments would include Section 128 in the definition of special-acquisition provision. This means that the modifications to the procedures would apply to any case in which special parliamentary procedure was triggered by Section 128.

These are in the way of probing amendments. I am seeking assurance that the Government realise the importance of safeguarding port land. If the Minister can give me reassurance on this, and says that the amendments are unnecessary and that the Government are content with the status quo, I will be happy with that. I beg to move.

My Lords, I start by thanking the Ministers—the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon—for taking the time to see me with their officials last Thursday to talk about the amendments I have tabled to Clause 23 in the next group and also about my objections to the inclusion of Clause 22 in the Bill.

Your Lordships may recall that I spoke about special parliamentary procedure—SPP—at Second Reading. That was based on my experience of serving on the Rookery South Joint Committee. I shall not repeat the arguments that I used then, other than to repeat the point that SPP has been triggered very rarely—only three times since 1990. While the eventual majority decisions of the Rookery South Joint Committee were not ones I supported—both the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and I felt that the promoters of the resource recovery facility had a case to answer in terms of demonstrating the need for such a large project—I believe that the public interest was served in our deliberating in a Joint Committee. Had this Bill been an Act last year, with Clauses 22 and 23 contained within it, the Rookery South Joint Committee would not have taken place.

Since Second Reading, I have been sent two pieces of briefing on why Clause 22 should be removed from the Bill. The first relates to a battle against road-builders in High Wycombe in 1965. The redoubtable Kate Ashbrook, general-secretary of the Open Spaces Society, has described what happened on her blog, from which I shall quote some extracts:

“Wycombe Rye is a stretch of public open space on the east side of High Wycombe, Bucks, extending alongside the River Wye … The rye is a treasured spot, 68 acres of land vested in Wycombe District Council and its predecessor body … since 1927 … Looking at it now you might think it had always been safe. Not so. In 1962 part of the land was threatened with a compulsory purchase order, to enable the inner-relief road to be built across it”.

That road had been approved following a public inquiry. She goes on:

“There was a further inquiry into the appropriation of 2.4 acres of open space, but on the inspector’s recommendation, the minister”—

of the day—

“confirmed the appropriation order, under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, on 5 February 1965. Fortunately no land was offered in exchange, so the order was subject to special parliamentary procedure … That meant that objectors could petition parliament and present their case to a joint committee of both houses ... Magnificently, the committee ruled that the orders be annulled. The rye has remained intact to this day, saved by legislation which gives parliament the final say on the theft of open space where no suitable alternative is provided”.

However, that protection will disappear if Clause 22 remains in the Bill because,

“instead of such cases being referred to a parliamentary committee, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government himself can decide the fate of open space. In future, when compulsory purchase of open space is proposed for development which the government thinks should go ahead quickly, and there is no suitable exchange land or that land is considered to be too expensive, the minister can cast aside SPP and rule that the development proceeds without regard to the open space”.

Powerful arguments in favour of retaining SPP have also come from the Inland Waterways Association, which makes the point that the Canal & River Trust, the body set up following the passage of the Public Bodies Act, holds the waterways it cares for in trust on behalf of the nation in perpetuity. If the CRT is threatened by a compulsory purchase proposal, it has at present the option to go down the SPP route. This, says the Inland Waterways Association, makes the authority threatening compulsory purchase treat the CRT with greater respect and encourages constructive discussion. It claims that if the Bill is passed, the CRT will lose the right to request an SPP. Will the Minister confirm whether it is right in that assertion? If it is, how does he explain the anomaly whereby the National Trust retains the right to call for an SPP on its own land but the Canal & River Trust is denied that? It appears to be the case that the Government are, by their amendment to Clause 22, strengthening the position of the National Trust but at the same time doing nothing to give protection to other bodies with heritage responsibilities. As the Inland Waterways Association puts it, how can the Minister justify the situation where the River Wey Navigation, which is owned by the National Trust and dates back to the 17th century is protected, but the River Lee Navigation, which is five centuries older, is not?

Finally, if Clauses 22 and 23 stay in the Bill, a decision, which was vested in Parliament, will now be taken by the Executive. I caution the Minister to take care in what he wishes for. One advantage from the Government’s point of view about SPP is that it cannot be subject to judicial review and does not apply to decisions taken by the Secretary of State, which can be challenged by JR and will take far longer to resolve than SPP. Certainly, if the Government are threatening open space, they should anticipate the possibility of numerous judicial reviews. I suggest that the Government should now drop Clause 22, take it back for further consideration and perhaps come forward with fresh suggestions on Report.

My Lords, Amendments 76 and 77 are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and myself, and this perhaps is the moment when I should make my contribution to the debate. I read the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, at Second Reading and his reference to Rookery South. I approach this issue from a rather different angle. If one looks at the history of that energy-from-waste project in Bedfordshire, the SPP—a post-consent process; planning consent had already been given—simply allows the objectors a further opportunity to object. A lot of people feel strongly about energy-from-waste projects.

The noble Lord says that that gives rise to parliamentary accountability. I have to say that until I had studied the briefs on these two clauses, I had been entirely unaware as a Member of Parliament of the activities of the noble Lord and some of his colleagues—the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was mentioned. I know that my noble friend Lord Brabazon has been involved in similar SPP processes and has regarded them as very long and drawn out.

This Bill is about encouraging growth and investment in the infrastructure. It really cannot make sense to continue with these, as it were, statutory procedures for delaying decisions and action on applications for which consent has already been given after the normal processes. I have to confess to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that I have not studied closely the condition of the waterways, as he obviously has, or, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the ports.

These two amendments are concerned about, as am I, the application of the special parliamentary procedure for what is called common land,

“open space, fuel or field garden allotment”.

The Planning Act currently provides that a development consent order which authorises compulsory purchase of open space land or a right over such land will be subject to the SPP unless the Secretary of State has issued a certificate confirming that certain prescribed circumstances will apply. I have already said that this is a post-consent approval stage that certainly has the potential to result in—and in some of the cases, not least that of Rookery South to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has referred, has actually resulted in—very considerable delays for a project that had already achieved planning consent. The procedure can be very costly for the applicants—and, I dare say, for some of the objectors—and hold back the provision of infrastructure projects that support economic growth.

Clause 22—I welcome it and want to make it perfectly clear that I support it—widens the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can issue a certificate confirming that a DCO which authorises the compulsory purchase of open space land or a right over such land will not be subject to SPP. However—and this is the point I wish to make to my noble friend on the Front Bench—there remains significant scope for a DCO which authorises the compulsory acquisition of open space land or a right over that land to be subject to SPP. I believe that the clause could go further and remove what could be a rather tiresome—and, from the economic point of view, obstructive—process, while still retaining a proper balance between the interests of promoters and the users of open spaces.

The amendments are aimed at limiting the scope of what is meant by “open space”. They do this by a very simple process. An open space, for the purposes of this clause—and I am not referring to some of the earlier clauses that we discussed—would be limited to land which has been formally designated as open space by the responsible local authority. All important pieces of open land are officially and formally designated by the local authority, but they cannot cover every single piece of open land. For instance, where there is a road junction in a village with a triangle of open land in the middle of it and somebody wants to improve the road system and would require some of it, in theory that could be open to the SPP because it would belong to the local authority. However, it would never have been designated as open land in that way. There are pieces of open land where boys are accustomed to go and kick a football around, but no local authority has ever thought it necessary for that to be formally designated. It just happens to be there; but why should an important road or other development be held up simply because there happens to be a procedure which is triggered by the fact that there is a compulsory purchase of open land?

My noble friend the Planning Minister in the other place, Nick Boles, got this absolutely right when he said:

“The Government believe there is a strong argument for the special parliamentary procedure to be limited to situations where there is a real need for further scrutiny by Parliament: for example, where there is a genuine need to weigh up the public interests of allowing infrastructure development to take place at the expense of the loss of certain types of very specially protected land”.—[Official Report, Commons, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 4/12/12; col. 401.]

At another point, he referred to these as essentially our “most precious” open spaces. I am not challenging that, but, of course, all the most precious open spaces fall under designations that are already very clear and would be covered by the SPP. I am talking about the informal bits of land—land that happens to be open land but which no local authority has ever thought it worth while to designate because it seemed to be so trivial—that can somehow trigger the right of the objectors to a particular piece of development to ask the Secretary of State for a special parliamentary procedure.

It is a narrow point, but if this clause is to be effective, as I hope my noble friends in government expect it to be, this modest improvement in the situation would help the Government’s intention. I hope that Ministers feel able to agree to that. What Mr Boles said on that occasion absolutely reflects what is right, and this amendment is necessary to give effect to that.

Noble Lords have different views about the precise scope of the special parliamentary procedure, which we have heard expressed in Committee, but it is important that the scope is consistently applied. It is therefore important that the Minister answers the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. Why does Clause 22(5) preserve the application of the SP procedure to proposed compulsory purchase acquisition of National Trust land, which is held inalienably, but not provide equivalent protection for land held in trust for the nation by the Canal & River Trust? Since the land is held for precisely the same purpose in both cases, why should the same legal procedure not apply to both?

My Lords, I support the amendments and the stand part debate proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and express some concern about the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

We are talking about open space. The law relating to open space is quite complex and is nothing like as simple as might be suggested. The problem is that a little bit of this particular Bill intervenes on the law on open space in one or two instances, potentially causing considerable confusion, not least about the definition of “open space”. In Clause 22 is set out the proposal that in some circumstances where it is proposed to develop on and remove open space—it does not refer to commons; the position on commons will remain the same—the special parliamentary procedure will not apply. Those circumstances are when,

“it is strongly in the public interest for the development for which the order grants consent to be capable of being begun sooner than is likely to be possible if the order were to be subject (to any extent) to special parliamentary procedure”.

It is an important bit to read out. The crucial words are,

“it is strongly in the public interest”.

That decision will have to be made by the Secretary of State, which is why what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said about the threat of a relatively large number of delaying judicial reviews is so crucial. What is and is not in the public interest is clearly debatable, and the question of whether the Secretary of State is making a reasonable judgment on what is in the public interest is clearly judicially reviewable. That is the constraint in here which means that it is poor legislation; it is vague and not very clear about what it means. It might mean different things in identical circumstances to different Secretaries of State.

There are other reasons why Clause 22 is undesirable. As the noble Lord said, there have been very few references to or uses of special parliamentary procedure. Once again in this Bill, the Government come forward wanting to do something without providing any clear evidence of why it is necessary. The first thing that the Minister has to try to do is to give us some evidence of why this is necessary in the real world, not of why, in some theoretical future, there might be a problem or two, but evidence that it has been a serious problem in the past. If it has been only in one or two cases, then that does not add up.

The other rather vague and, I believe, judicially reviewable phrase is “long-lived”. These new provisions apply to circumstances in which the removal of the open space is temporary but possibly long-lived. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what “long-lived” means. I suspect that she cannot tell us very precisely because, again, it is a matter of judgment, and it may lead to more delays than even a special parliamentary procedure.

Has the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoken to his amendments? He has not. I thought that perhaps I had been asleep and had missed him when the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, jumped in. I will speak to them, with his permission, and then he can tell me why I am wrong.

I apologise, but my noble friend may have been asleep at the point when I spoke quite heavily to the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indeed spoke to the amendments, and his name is on them, so I am justified in speaking to them. I am grateful to the noble Lord.

At the moment, open space is generally defined as any land used for the purposes of public recreation. When it is threatened with compulsory purchase, the developer must provide suitable exchange land. If no land is provided, or if it is thought to be inadequate, then the special parliamentary procedure comes in. It is true that open space is often already designated by local authorities. It includes all the land designated in local plans as open space. However, it surely includes a great deal more than that.

At the moment the protection of Parliament is afforded to all land used for public recreation, formal or informal. For example, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would remove this protection from the many thousands of acres of countryside, apart from the commons, which were mapped for access under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and which are now clearly designated as access land and, therefore, open space. They would also remove this protection from many hundreds of sites which people enjoy by custom for informal recreation.

Again, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, produce a new definition of open space, which is that it has to be designated by local authorities in addition to, and over and above, land designated in local plans. I do not know what this means. It would produce considerable new duties on local authorities to make sure that they looked again at all their open space and, inevitably, it would exclude quite a large amount of open space.

There is a suggestion that the Government now only want to protect the most precious spaces and very specially protected land, which the noble Lord referred to in his speech. However, that would be a very substantial restriction on existing definitions of open space. I am sure that, overall, that is not the Government’s wish, but if it were to be their wish, they should come forward and apply that to everything, not just to this particular provision.

The provisions have existed in their present form since the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 and were intended to protect land which is valued by people for recreation. I suggest that to introduce some kind of arbitrary distinction, which results from a new kind of designation by local authorities, is not the way forward. It would be vague and confusing, and to put out a new definition of open space just for this purpose would not be desirable at all. It would be a great confusion and would lead also to lots of judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the normal processes, but the normal processes in relation to open space are different from the normal planning processes. They are part of that but they are different.

Clause 22 already restricts the application of special parliamentary procedure to open space. It is something that I would rather did not happen. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. However, to restrict it even further, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wants, would be a very substantial step backwards.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, invited me to speak to my amendment, which was very kind of him. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, gave a very good description of it, which I do not need to repeat, but there are a couple of issues on which we ought to reflect. First, the special parliamentary procedure, which my noble friend Lord Faulkner described at Second Reading and again today, is to my mind a second attempt to oppose planning permission if you fail on the first occasion. Is that worth having and, if so, what exceptions or types of development should be included? There is also the question of the scope of the SPP. I believe that it can be very wide: for example, looking at a complete planning application again; or it could be narrowed to apply to just the particular issue that is under consideration.

I found a very interesting example of this recently on Humberside where the established port operator there, Associated British Ports, got into a bit of debate with a new company, which I think was trying to develop a port complex next door for offshore windmills or something or other. A railway line runs through the middle of the proposed development which the developer was trying to purchase so that he could install level crossings rather than having the cost of a bridge. The detail does not really matter but the issue comes back to the fact that if you are opposed to a proposed development, the SPP gives you a second round of attack, if you like, in putting your case. If you want it to go forward as quickly as possible, you will argue that the consent order process is perfectly valid and, if you do not like the outcome, I suppose that you can go for judicial review.

I also worry when my noble friend Lord Faulkner says that there have been only two or three of these cases in the past goodness knows how long, because once people discover that there is this rather arcane procedure, a lot of people might try to use it. That is not a reason for not having it but it is a reason for considering whether one needs it, the scope it should have and how long it should last. I have tabled my amendment in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, to test the waters and probe. We have had a good debate and it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for the amendments they have tabled, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Greenway, Lord Jenkin and Lord Berkeley, for setting out their proposed amendments to Clause 22. Questions have been raised about the Government’s position in putting forward Clause 22. It may be helpful if I first set out the issues that the Government are trying to address through this clause.

Clause 22 amends the provisions in the Planning Act 2008 which set out when special parliamentary procedure will apply to a development consent order which authorises the acquisition of specially protected land. It also repeals the separate certification process required in certain cases. The Planning Act 2008 brought together a range of different consent regimes for nationally significant infrastructure into a single development consent order. The overall aim of this regime is to provide a more efficient and quicker consenting regime for very large infrastructure projects. Development consent orders can include authorisation for the compulsory acquisition of land, but when certain categories of specially protected land are acquired, special parliamentary procedure can be triggered. The decision by the Secretary of State that such land is to be compulsorily acquired is then transferred to a Joint Committee of Parliament for confirmation. While the special parliamentary procedure is undertaken, the development consent cannot come into effect and work on the infrastructure project cannot start.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talked about the reasoning behind such measures. Delays to infrastructure projects can have a significant knock-on impact in delaying benefits to the local and, indeed, national economy. In the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred—the Rookery South project in which he was involved—the special parliamentary procedure was triggered for an infrastructure project under the Planning Act. The special parliamentary procedure added more than a year to the consent process. I understand that during this period no work was possible on the project, delaying the creation of up to 300 construction jobs and 80 permanent jobs that would have resulted when the project was up and running.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Has he any estimate of how long it would have taken if the decision had been taken by the Secretary of State and been subjected to judicial review, which was the alternative to the SPP?

That would be speculating but I will come to the specific issue of judicial review in a moment and perhaps address the question at that time.

In more general terms, there is also the strong argument that has been made about the threat of delay, for whatever reason, impacting on the confidence of investors and developers. We are, after all, looking at infrastructure which is supporting the economic growth of our country. In total, new infrastructure creates thousands of new jobs and billions of pounds of new investment, as we all know. Consents for such infrastructure must be provided as quickly and efficiently as possible. We cannot afford to lose those jobs and investment because of delays in finalising consents.

The Government are committed to reform of the SPP and want to ensure that in future SPP is used only in cases where there is a genuine need for further scrutiny by Parliament of a particular ministerial decision. We therefore consider that SPP under the Planning Act should be limited to cases where there is a need for further scrutiny, as I have said. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin rightly said, it should be invoked where there is a real need for further scrutiny based on public interest and, indeed, a general need to weigh up competing public interests of allowing infrastructure development and the protection of certain types of specially protected land.

Does my noble friend agree that what is set out in the Bill is not a balanced view of the public interest, as he is suggesting, but a one-sided view of it? New subsection (4A)(d) states that,

“it is strongly in the public interest for the development for which the order grants consent to be capable of being begun sooner than is likely to be possible if the order were to be subject (to any extent) to special parliamentary procedure”.

If the new subsection referred to a balance of public interest in having a development as opposed to retaining a public open space, it would achieve what the Minister says that it does. However, that is not the case. It is a very one-sided consideration of the public interest.

I thank my noble friend for his intervention, but I do not agree with him on this point. We are not seeking to do away with the procedure altogether: we are ensuring that the procedure is still in place and can be invoked where there is a genuine public interest. This is not about sweeping the procedure away, although perhaps, on this occasion, we have different ways of looking at what is in front of us.

Clause 22 would repeal those sections of the Act that require special parliamentary procedure where land belonging to a local authority or land acquired by a statutory undertaker is compulsorily acquired. Repeal of these provisions would bring the Planning Act into line with other, similar consent regimes, such as the Transport and Works Act 1992.

The Planning Act 2008 already provides extensive opportunities for representations from local people, local authorities and statutory undertakers to be made about the compulsory acquisition of land. There are also comprehensive requirements for pre-application consultation. Examination of an application provides opportunities for parties to make representations as to whether the proposed acquisition of the land should proceed. These include hearings as part of a public examination. Persons whose land is acquired can require such a hearing to take place and, importantly, relevant representations will continue to be taken into account in the recommendations made to the Secretary of State and will inform his subsequent decision. I stress that the requirement, under Section 122 of the Planning Act, for there to be a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be compulsorily acquired, will also remain unchanged. This will be a crucial factor for the Secretary of State when reaching a decision on whether to authorise the compulsory acquisition.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, very clearly set out the effect of his amendment. It would mean that transport undertakings would still see the compulsory acquisition of land acquired by them for the purposes of their undertaking being subject to SPP, but the land of other statutory undertakers and local authorities would not be. I understand the noble Lord’s concern about the removal of statutory undertakers’ land from those types of land which can give rise to SPP. It would, however, be wrong to think that such land can be compulsorily acquired without any opportunity for statutory undertakers to present their case against the acquisition before the decision is made. There are ample opportunities to do so. I therefore hope that noble Lords will understand why the Government consider there to be no need for an additional level of scrutiny for such land through special parliamentary procedure.

I move on to the other provisions in Clause 22 and will address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and supported by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. These would amend the definition of an open space used for the purposes of considering whether such land would trigger special parliamentary procedure under the Planning Act. Clause 22 also amends the provisions in the Planning Act 2008 which cover the compulsory acquisition of commons, open space land and what are known as “fuel and field garden allotments” or the compulsory acquisition of rights over those types of land. The Government have considered carefully the extent to which SPP should apply when open space is compulsorily acquired or a right over such land is acquired in respect of nationally significant infrastructure projects. At present, the main situation where the Secretary of State can decide that SPP should not apply is when replacement land is given in exchange for the land subject to the compulsory acquisition. However, the Government consider that there could be a very limited number of cases where such exchange land may not be available or, if it were available, would be available only at a prohibitive cost.

Clause 22 therefore proposes extending the circumstances, under the Planning Act 2008, in which the Secretary of State can decide that the compulsory acquisition of open space or rights over such land should not trigger SPP. The proposals would allow the Secretary of State to decide that SPP should not apply where open space is compulsorily acquired and suitable replacement land for the land being acquired is not available or available only at prohibitive cost. This would, however, apply only where it is demonstrated to be strongly in the public interest for the development to start sooner than is likely to be the case if it were subject to SPP. We expect that, in most cases, developers will continue to provide suitable replacement land to avoid the need for SPP. However, there may be limited occasions, such as in heavily urbanised areas, when such land is not available. Given the importance of infrastructure to growth, there may be cases where development should be able to proceed promptly without going through SPP.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his general support for government proposals in the Bill on infrastructure. Turning to his amendment, the current definition of open space, used in the Planning Act is,

“any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land which is a disused burial ground”.

The noble Lord’s amendment would have the effect of amending the definition of open space for the purposes of triggering SPP under the Planning Act. Such a distinction does not reflect the rationale for open space being given special status in terms of compulsory acquisition. The need for additional scrutiny through SPP in cases involving open space derives from the public use of such land and the wider public interest in its continued availability for such use. Whether such land is designated for such purposes is immaterial in this context.

Before I conclude, I will say a few brief words about the government amendments and pick up on a couple of questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. The Government are not making any changes to circumstances where compulsory acquisition of National Trust land and common land triggers SPP. These types of land are nationally and historically significant. The government amendments to Clause 22 are minor and will ensure that this remains the case. In particular, where land acquired is held both inalienably by the trust and is also a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment, SPP will continue to apply under the provisions in the Planning Act governing National Trust land, even where the Secretary of State has reached a view that it should not apply under the provisions covering commons, open space or a fuel or field garden allotment.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised the issue of the Canal and River Trust against the issues with the National Trust. The Government recognise the points he has raised. There is a special status attached to the National Trust because of the extent of the land it owns. Therefore, it occupies a special position, including its benefit in relation to SPP. That said, I hear what the noble Lord has said and it would be useful to arrange to sit down with him and the Canal and River Trust to establish exactly what the issues are and discuss the matter further.

Clause 23(10) is a minor and technical amendment that the Government are making to clarify the effect of subsection (10). As amended, this provides that Clause 23, like Clause 22, may apply to any development consent order under the Planning Act made after the clause has commenced. The amendment removes reference to other compulsory purchase orders as it is not our intention to apply the changes in Clause 23 to such orders where proceedings have started prior to commencement.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, also raised the issue of judicial review and asked a specific question about whether decisions taken which were not subject to SPP would be subject to judicial review, and whether this was the Government’s intention. Our current view is that the 2008 Act provides for judicial review of decisions on development consent orders and it is right that errors of law or procedural failures should be subject to challenge where necessary. We are not seeking to alter this, but it is important to note that judicial review will not happen in respect of every order authorising the acquisition of special land, and someone wishing to bring such a challenge would need the specific permission of the court to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, made a point about safeguarding of lands and ports. The specific matter of safeguarding policy has been taken up with Ministers in the Department for Transport. I know that my honourable friend Stephen Hammond has written specifically on this letter. I am not sure whether he has seen that particular letter but we can perhaps bring it to his attention as well.

In conclusion, the proposals set out in Clause 22 will help ensure that essential infrastructure projects are not delayed by the need for the additional scrutiny required through SPP where this is not considered necessary. Notwithstanding the point made by my noble friend Lord Greaves, we have struck a fair balance between the protection of certain types of land and the need for new infrastructure to support growth. I therefore hope that, in view of my explanations and the Government’s amendments to Clauses 22 and 23, other noble Lords will be minded to withdraw or not move their amendments.

My Lords, I have just two points. First, the Minister said that it was important in the national interest to get big infrastructure projects going. Clause 24, which we will discuss shortly, relates to business and commercial developments that may or may not be thought to be infrastructure, but which many people will think are not. This new provision for fewer special parliamentary procedures will apply to that clause also.

Secondly, when we were discussing Clause 1 some time ago, the Government were adamant that it was necessary to have such provisions in the legislation in order to make sure that planning authorities that they thought were not performing got up to speed and organised themselves. The Government said that they hoped that no planning authorities would ever come under these provisions, but they were nevertheless a necessary back-stop. However, if there is to be no back-stop of special parliamentary procedure in these cases, is it not the case that the incentive for developers to provide alternative land or open space when necessary will be less because they can simply apply to the Secretary of State, who can say, “No, you do not need to do so”? They can then do absolutely nothing about it. Surely the fact that there have been so few examples of special parliamentary procedure is because applicants for development consent have done their business and found appropriate alternative open space to replace any that they are using. The current system is working and there is a danger that there will be far less of this happening, simply because the back-stop SPP procedure will not exist.

My Lords, there has been a fairly wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments, covering ports, canals, plots of land and so on. As far as I am concerned, I am grateful for what the Minister said about ports—in particular, for his latter remark concerning the letter from the Shipping Minister in another place, which I very much look forward to seeing. I will take on board what the noble Lord said and ruminate on whether to take this matter any further but, in the mean time, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75A withdrawn.

Amendments 75B to 77ZA not moved.

Amendments 77ZAA and 77ZAB

Moved by

77ZAA: Clause 22, page 24, line 26, leave out “To ensure that” and insert “In”

77ZAB: Clause 22, page 24, line 28, leave out from “objections)” to end of line 35 and insert “after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) In a case to which this section applies and to which section 131 or 132 also applies, special parliamentary procedure—

(a) may be required by subsection (2) whether or not also required by section 131(3) or 132(2), and(b) may be required by section 131(3) or 132(2) whether or not also required by subsection (2).””

Amendments 77ZAA and 77ZAB agreed.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed.

Clause 23 : Modifications of special parliamentary procedure in certain cases

Amendments 77ZB and 77ZC not moved.

Amendment 77ZD

Moved by

77ZD: Clause 23, page 25, leave out lines 8 to 26

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 77ZE and 77ZF. I have also given notice that I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill. This is, in a sense, a continuation of our previous debate on Clause 22. Perhaps I may first respond to the Minister’s generous offer to convene a meeting with the Canal & River Trust. I am delighted to accept, as, I am sure, the trust will be; I look forward to the meeting.

I shall not repeat the arguments that I put forward regarding Clause 22 but seek simply to state that what the Government propose in Clause 23 goes further than what the two chairmen—the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place and our Chairman of Committees—recommended in their special report on the Rookery South order, when they considered the promoters’ challenges to the locus standi of the petitioners against the order. In paragraph 28 of their report, the two chairmen concluded:

“We urge the Government to amend either the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 or the Planning Act 2008—or both—so as to ensure a consistent statutory framework for the consideration of future Development Consent Orders subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure. In drawing up revised provisions, the Government will need to consult with the relevant authorities of the two Houses. In the meantime, no further orders of this type should be laid before Parliament until the statutory framework has been amended to resolve these inconsistencies”.

In its proceedings on Rookery South, the Joint Committee decided at the outset that it wished to hear evidence on the whole of each of the petitioners’ cases. The amendments proposed by Clause 23 would have prevented the Joint Committee from doing so. It is likely in future cases, once Clause 23 is in force, that any attempt to petition on issues that are not related to the acquisition of the special land are likely to be challenged at the preliminary stage before the two chairmen.

Despite that, it remains to be seen whether petitioners will be able to raise issues that are not directly related to the acquisition of the land. It has always been a central tenet of compulsory acquisition law that the applicant for the powers must demonstrate that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired compulsorily—a point made with great force by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in the previous debate. Those words are embodied in Section 122(3) of the Planning Act. In order for a petitioner to demonstrate that there is no compelling case in the public interest, he should be able to bring evidence to bear about the benefits of the proposals as a whole, compared with the injury that he will suffer when losing his land.

As I said, Clause 23 goes further than the request made by the two chairmen, who limited their remarks to the 2008 Act. No issue has been raised as regards the compatibility between the Acquisition of Land Act 1981—and other statutes that authorise compulsory acquisition—and the 1945 Act; yet the clause seeks to limit the scope of SPP in the 1981 Act and the other examples in the same way as it does for 2008 Act cases. I should be grateful if the Minister can explain why the Government have decided that this should be the case. My amendments would have the effect of limiting the changes proposed to the SPP procedure so that they apply only to development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008. I beg to move.

My Lords, I wish to put on record that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for explaining the reasoning behind his amendments. I have also noted his opposition to the Question that Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill. In my response, it might be helpful if I set out the reasons behind the approach that the Government have taken, how Clause 23 delivers that and take up some of the noble Lord’s questions.

Clause 23 amends the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945. That Act sets out the procedural requirements for any order that is subject to special parliamentary procedure. Clause 23 ensures that where a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 is subject to SPP, consideration will be limited to the order only in so far as it authorises the compulsory acquisition of special land. This is to reflect the wording and intention of the 2008 Act.

The clause also makes similar provision for certain other compulsory acquisition powers that require an order to be subject to SPP. It applies to any order involving the compulsory acquisition of specially protected land as a result of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. It also applies to the Harbours Act 1964, certain provisions of the New Towns Act 1981 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. The clause will ensure that SPP applies in the way originally intended, where legislation makes clear that an order is to be subject to this procedure to a limited extent.

The need for Clause 23 reflects an inconsistency between the 1945 Act and certain more recent legislation. This was drawn to the Government’s attention by the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means in their initial joint report on the Rookery South order which, as the noble Lord Faulkner knows well, has been subject to SPP. The Planning Act 2008 provides that a development consent order which authorises the acquisition of special land is to be subject to SPP to the extent that the order authorises acquisition of such land. Consideration of that order should therefore be limited to that part of the consent order authorising the compulsory acquisition of special land.

However, the 1945 Act does not currently make provision for Parliament to consider just part of an order. This means that decisions on matters such as whether consent for development should be granted, which have been properly decided by a Minister, are open for reconsideration by Parliament. This was not the original intention of the Planning Act 2008 or the other Acts that I have mentioned. Clause 23 seeks to resolve this inconsistency. It amends the 1945 Act so that it covers circumstances where SPP applies only to a limited extent.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, would limit the proposal in Clause 23 only to cases where authorisation for the compulsory acquisition of special land was granted under the provisions of the Planning Act. That would mean not addressing the inconsistency that currently exists between the 1945 Act and those other pieces of legislation which state that Special Parliamentary Procedure should apply to an order to a limited extent. Indeed, the amendment would create a new discrepancy in the way that similar compulsory acquisition provisions are handled. Given that this inconsistency has now been drawn to our attention, it is important to ensure that it is removed wherever it occurs.

It may be helpful to give a very brief summary of how the actual proposals in Clause 23 would work in practice. Clause 23 identifies a statutory provision that requires an order to be subject to SPP to be limited as a “special-acquisition provision”. New Section 1A of the 1945 Act provides that, where an order is subject to SPP under a special acquisition provision, that order is to be known as a “special authorisation”, in so far as it authorises the compulsory acquisition of special land or rights over such land. Paragraphs 3 to 18 of the new Section 1A set out modifications to the provisions of the 1945 Act. In many cases, these provide that references in the 1945 Act to the “order” are read as references to the “special authorisation”. The broad effect of this is that only petitions relating to the acquisition of special land may be considered by Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned at Second Reading, and he has again highlighted, the whole issue of petitioners bringing evidence to bear about the benefits of proposed projects as a whole where an order is subject to SPP. In response to that, I can say that the provisions in Clause 23 keep existing procedures in place regarding the handling of petitions. It will continue to be for the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide whether petitions can be certified as “proper to be received”.

However, under Clause 23, the provisions in the 1945 Act in respect of petitions against an order must be read so that petitions against an order are construed as petitions against a special authorisation. Petitions can only therefore be certified as being proper to be received if they are petitions against the elements of an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of special land. In any particular case, it is the two chairmen’s role to make a judgment as to whether a petition is proper to be received.

Although there has been detail, I have not gone into extended detail on the provisions in this clause. However, it does ensure that, where a provision makes clear that SPP is to be limited to the consideration of the compulsory acquisition of special land, that aim is achieved. Ensuring that such legislation operates as intended is crucial to getting in place the vital infrastructure that this country needs. I therefore hope, based on my reassurances and comments, that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is willing to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I can start with the easy bit, which is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his support. What the Minister has said is incredibly complicated. I will need to read it with great care and, I suspect, take advice from people who are much cleverer in this area than I am. I am grateful for the trouble that he has gone to in explaining the Government’s position and, indeed, the whole approach of the Government on the SPP in Clauses 22 and 23. I think that I am in a minority in your Lordships’ House about the need to preserve the significant elements of the SPP operation. However, for the moment, I am happy to withdraw the amendment if the Committee agrees.

Amendment 77ZD withdrawn.

Amendments 77ZE and 77ZF not moved.

Amendment 77ZG

Moved by

77ZG: Clause 23, page 29, line 25, leave out from “(5)” to “after” in line 27 and insert “, so far as it applies to orders granting development consent, applies to any such order made”

Amendment 77ZG agreed.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 77ZH

Moved by

77ZH: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—

“Appropriation or disposal of open space land by local authorities

(1) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended as follows.

(2) For section 122(2)(b), substitute—

“(b) the council has complied with section 127A.”(3) In section 122(2A), for the words after “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.

(4) In section 123(2A), for the words after “disposing of the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.

(5) In section 126(4)(b), for the words “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.

(6) In section 126(4A), for the words after “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.

(7) After section 127 insert—

“127A Conditions attaching to appropriation or disposal of certain lands

(1) When a local authority proposes to appropriate or dispose of land under this section—

(a) the authority shall give notice of its intention—(i) by advertisement in two consecutive weeks in at least one newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated,(ii) on the authority’s website,(iii) by notices in prominent positions on the land,(iv) by serving a copy of the notice on every other local authority and planning authority whose area includes or is adjacent to that area, and(v) by serving a copy of the notice on every voluntary body known to have a concern for the maintenance of the land or adjacent land for the benefit of the public, nature conservation or historic interest;(b) the notice shall indicate the location and boundaries of the land and of any land to be given in exchange and where further information and plans may be inspected or copies obtained;(c) subject to subsection (2), unless the land to be appropriated or disposed of does not exceed 250 square yards (209 square metres) land must be provided in exchange that is not less in area and is equally advantageous to the public, to be vested in the local authority subject to the like rights, trusts and incidents that attach to the land to be appropriated or disposed of;(d) the notice shall provide for a period of not less than 28 days from the date of publication of its first advertisement and display during which objections or representations can be made to the authority; and(e) if the authority decides to amend its proposal, this shall be subject to further notice in accordance with paragraphs (a) to (d).(2) If the local authority considers that land in exchange for that to be appropriated or disposed of under this section is wholly or partly unnecessary, the notice must state this and give the reasons for the statement.

(3) If a proposal under this section remains subject to objection and is not withdrawn after the local authority has considered the representations received, it shall be referred to the Secretary of State for decision.””

My Lords, Amendment 77ZH introduces a new clause to provide a new procedure for the appropriation and disposal of open space land by local authorities. This does not apply to common land, for which there is already a different and better system.

The proposed new clause is a slightly modified version of the amendment I moved during the Committee stage of the Localism Bill on 28 June 2011. It amends the present Local Government Act 1972 procedure for the appropriation or disposal of non-common land open space, which dates from amendments made in 1980 to simplify the previous procedure. A local authority has merely to publish its intention in a local newspaper in two consecutive weeks and invite objections for its consideration. This can be done in private—for example, by a cabinet member who is under no obligation to give reasons for, or even publish, the decision. There is no right of appeal by the objectors. The land can then be used, sold or let for other uses free of all existing open space trusts and without regard to the fact that a park or recreation ground may have been gifted to or acquired cheaply—often, perhaps, with major contributions from public appeals—by the council’s predecessor on trust for the perpetual enjoyment of the public.

The trust may have been imposed for a particular open space in a local Act of Parliament which authorised its acquisition, but most of these open spaces are now held under the general trust in Section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906. Others were acquired or appropriated under Acts which do not specify a trust. However, high judicial authority has decided that all are held on trust for the benefit of the public and are not simply council property easily available for any of its services or to sell off.

The leading judgment is known as the Brockwell Park case, which noble Lords will remember discussing during proceedings on the Localism Bill. The House of Lords decided Lambeth Overseers v London County Council in 1897. This was summarised by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, as follows:

“One sentence was sufficient to dispose of the case—namely, that the public, for whom the County Council were merely custodians or trustees, were not rateable occupiers, and that there was no beneficial occupation of the property whatever”.

In the fuller judgment, Lord Herschell drew a parallel with the then recent Court of Appeal decision in relation to Putney Bridge. In other words, what is applicable to a highway is equally applicable to a park. However, the procedure for extinguishing any type of highway, whether motorway or public footpath, is by no means simple.

In a further judgement, slightly more recently in October 2012, the Court of Appeal held in Barkas v North Yorkshire County Council that land laid out and maintained as a recreation ground under Housing Act powers was,

“appropriated for the purpose of public recreation”,

and therefore local inhabitants indulge in lawful sports and pastimes by right and not as of right, as would be necessary to prove for the creation of a town or village green. This decision confirms that, if land acquired under other Acts for regeneration or major development is allocated for recreational purposes, it becomes equated with land acquired specifically for those purposes.

The present wording in the Local Government Act positively encourages breaking a trust imposed by the Open Spaces Act, never mind one implied by other Acts. If the land had been owned privately subject to a similar trust, it would be deemed to be held for charitable purposes and its use could not be so easily changed. It is surely wrong for a public authority to be encouraged in this manner, often in contradiction to its own planning policies. The proposed new clause is intended to rectify the situation.

During the Committee stage of the Localism Bill, my noble friend Lady Hanham was rather anxious about the provision for land in exchange. However, this was a standard requirement before the Local Government Act was amended in 1980 and remains where Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 applies. This is when compulsory purchase powers are used and in certain other cases such as for the appropriation of commons under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is an important disincentive to choosing open space as a cheap and easy solution for obtaining other development requirements. Where major regeneration is proposed, it is accepted that compulsory powers should be used to obtain the full site required. This may include new or enlarged open space under the CPO.

This is a complicated matter. I am grateful to the Open Spaces Society for its assistance in proposing this amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for explaining his proposed new clause. He is of course greatly concerned with the protection of open spaces such as commons and what are known as “fuel and field garden allotments”. I am sure that that sentiment resonates with many in the Committee. My noble friend also explained that when a local authority, including a parish or town council, wishes to appropriate this type of land for another purpose or to dispose of it, notification procedures should be beefed up and exchange land should be provided. His main point is that the present arrangements are inadequate and that more protection is required to prevent open space and other similar land from being lost to development.

The system that my noble friend seeks to amend concerns two types of land and two types of transaction. The types of land are commons, including town and village greens, and open space. The transactions are appropriation and disposal. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that the legislation that governs all of this is not confined to the Local Government Act 1972, which this amendment seeks to change. Significant elements are contained within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. For commons, I think that my noble friend already has most of what he wants. Appropriation of common land larger than 250 square yards requires an order to be made by the local authority and then confirmed by the Secretary of State. Exchange land must also be provided, on pain of special parliamentary procedure—which we have just debated extensively—in the same way as for compulsory purchase orders.

In many cases, disposals also need the consent of the Secretary of State. For open space, the publicity and related arrangements for the consideration of objections are the same for both appropriation and disposal. If local authorities fail to consider objections properly, they run the risk that their decision will be challenged in the courts. Although protection for open space may appear lacking in legislation, this is not the whole story. Open space has had strong protection in the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 74 states that existing open space should not be built on unless an assessment has been made to show that the land is clearly surplus and, moreover, that the loss should be replaced by the equivalent or better provision. It is therefore the Government’s view that the protection of open spaces should be through the planning system and not front-loaded on to the procedures for appropriating or disposing of land. I hope that my noble friend will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I might be persuaded to withdraw my amendment when I have said one or two more things. One difficulty we are having in this Committee is that the Government are trying to deal with issues such as open spaces just through the planning system when in practice, as the Minister said, there are different laws that relate to open space, commons and so on. This is precisely the problem that we had when we talked about the registration of town and village greens: trying to align two clearly separate systems. You cannot simply say that the planning system is the way to deal with this.

I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us that the National Planning Policy Framework strongly proposes that, wherever possible, open spaces should not be built on, but that is not the purpose of this amendment. It is about buying and selling open space, not about the planning regime that refers to it. However, I am grateful for what the Minister said. I will carefully look at his response and again take advice. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 77ZH withdrawn.

Clause 24 : Bringing business and commercial projects within Planning Act 2008 regime

Amendment 77ZJ

Moved by

77ZJ: Clause 24, page 29, line 32, after “may” insert “, subject to regulations excluding sites of special environmental or historic importance,”

My Lords, I will speak to the six amendments in this group standing in my name. The question before us is what projects should be considered nationally significant and therefore subject to the Planning Act 2008, as amended in this Bill, and therefore subject to a national rather than a local planning consent regime. The 2008 Act permits this change to projects of national significance in respect of infrastructure. Clause 24 extends this to business and commercial schemes.

The thrust of my amendments is that Parliament should not give the Secretary of State such wide-ranging powers without defining their extent carefully in the Bill. In the Bill, discretion as to what constitutes national significance is left almost entirely to the Secretary of State. The only substantial limitation is that regulations may not encompass projects that include residential dwellings. My amendments are all probing and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the substantial points underlying each.

Amendment 77ZJ would exclude from the new arrangements sites of special environmental or historic importance. Amendment 77AB would exclude developments that involve surface mineral extraction or quarrying. Such applications arouse especially strong local feeling, and to circumvent local planning entirely for such schemes is bound to give rise to acute concern. Amendments 77AA, 77AC and 77BA would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to define what is meant by business or commercial and to permit the bypassing of a local authority, because Amendment 77ZA and other amendments in my name specify the definition in the Bill.

Amendment 77ZA seeks to define business and commercial projects of national significance, rather than leaving it entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Under my amendments, these projects could be subject to the national process only if they are in specific areas—largely those set out in annexe A of the Government’s consultation on what should constitute nationally significant infrastructure projects in the business and commercial sphere.

That leads me to the Government’s consultation on those projects. The Government will no doubt respond to my amendment by saying that they have consulted both on categories of development and on thresholds within those categories in terms of the number of square metres that might apply in determining whether a commercial or business development application is of national significance. Last week, the Government published their analysis of the responses. However, they have not yet said how they intend to proceed. A key issue for us in this debate is to know what the Government’s response will be to the consultation that they carried out on types of development and thresholds. I will welcome the Minister’s response to the question of what the Government intend to do in respect of the types of development and thresholds set out in annexe A of the consultation. If the Minister is not able to give me a response now, I would be very grateful if he would write to noble Lords before Report. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 78 in this group, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It is yet another attempt to change the definition of what type of project could be included in the extent of the Planning Act. It relates to commercial and business developments that require consent under the national significant infrastructure regime.

The issue that I would like to raise is that of mixed-use schemes that have some housing or retail element. They should be able to take advantage of the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects. Any retail element is excluded from the proposed list of development types set out in annexe A of the recent CLG consultation on extending the Planning Act regime. I imagine that this could always be reversed if the Government were minded to do so, but the Bill prevents any housing element being included in regulations.

I believe there is a large number of potentially significant business and commercial developments that will have some retail and certainly some housing element in them, even if it is only a caretaker. In theory, if there is just one property in a development, it cannot qualify for going down the nationally significant route. It is important for such developments to be able to include some housing element and to go for the nationally significant approach. An awful lot of time and cost could be saved if this were possible. The original prohibition of housing was well intentioned, and clearly big housing projects are not what the nationally significant definition is for, but it is a problem because if there were just one or two houses in a big development, it would be excluded.

That is what this probing amendment seeks to achieve. I hope that the Minister is willing to look at this again. Perhaps we can discuss whether there is some better wording that could be applied on Report.

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to set out in the Bill the types of development and development sites which can and cannot be considered nationally significant under Clause 24. A number of specific amendments have been moved, and I will attempt to address the issues in each.

As noble Lords are aware, the purpose of Clause 24 is to extend the existing powers within the Planning Act to direct sub-threshold forms of energy, waste, transport, water and waste-water schemes into the Planning Act regime, to new forms of business and commercial development. Our intention is not to bring new development into the regime automatically but to provide an alternative planning route where proposed development is of national significance. We have recently consulted on the types of business and commercial developments, and we are now in the process of considering the responses to that consultation.

Amendments 77ZJ and 77AB would rule out proposed schemes using the regime if they were on sites of special environmental or historic importance or if they involved minerals extraction, or quarrying. These amendments would apply equally to the existing types of infrastructure, such as energy, transport and water, as well as to new forms of business and commercial schemes.

An example of the effect of Amendment 77ZJ is that a sub-threshold energy scheme of national significance that might otherwise be considered via the Planning Act route could not be the subject of a direction if part of the site had an environmental designation. We do not consider this to be a sensible approach. If a scheme is of national significance and is directed into the regime, the Secretary of State will have to consider all the issues that are important and relevant, including any impacts on the historic or natural environment, before reaching his decision. To exclude large tracts of land without consideration of the planning merits or otherwise of the proposed development could discourage developers bringing forward much needed infrastructure or economic developments.

I will explain our thinking on minerals a little bit more. As we recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework, minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and quality of life. Without minerals, our building industry would grind to a halt. It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. We therefore consider that some minerals schemes could be capable of being of national significance, but again we wish to consider the consultation responses before we reach final conclusions about the forms of development.

Amendments 78ZA, 77AA, 77AC and 77BA seek to place the types of commercial and business development in the Bill. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, broadly agrees with the types of development on which the Government consulted recently in connection with the proposals to extend the infrastructure planning regime to business and commercial projects. Nevertheless, we consider that this amendment is premature. We believe that a broad range of types of development of national significance could benefit from using the infrastructure planning regime and that further public and parliamentary scrutiny on how this new power should be used is appropriate. That is why we are now considering the responses to this consultation and why the accompanying regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 78, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin, also seeks to remove the exclusion in the Bill on dwellings from being prescribed in regulations. I listened carefully to the remarks made on this point by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Government have a clear position that planning for housing should remain a core responsibility of local councils. As the Government set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, local councils should be planning to deliver a wide choice of high-quality homes and wider opportunities for home ownership and creating sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

Many of the responses to the consultation exercise that we carried out recently supported the exclusion of housing from the infrastructure planning regime. Again, we are considering these responses, but we believe that housing should be and remain a core responsibility of local authorities.

I did not intervene in the debate, because the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made the point. When will the Government publish the full response to the consultation? It has been represented to me that there were quite a lot of objections to the exclusion of housing. Of course one agrees that housing cannot be a main purpose of an application that goes directly to the Planning Inspectorate, but there are a lot of mixed developments now that usefully and importantly will include a housing aspect. It ought to be possible for an applicant to use the new procedure to have his application referred directly to the inspectorate.

My Lords, I think that I made clear in my remarks that we are considering the results of the consultation that has just taken place. At present, the intention is to continue to have housing dealt with by local authorities. We are analysing the responses at the moment. While we already have a summary of the issues, we will publish a full response in due course. The summary of the issues may be helpful to us for the next stage.

I hope that noble Lords will agree the Government have set out a sensible approach that will enable new forms of nationally significant development to benefit from the Planning Act regime, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment, and that other noble Lords do not press the amendments in their names, mainly probing as I understand them to be.

My Lords, I did not quite catch what the Minister said. Will a published summary of the issues encompass a summary of the Government’s views and their response to the consultation, and did she say we would perhaps have that before Report? Some of us did not put down detailed amendments on Clause 24 because we were waiting for some clearer indication of exactly what it means in detail. If we do not get at least a summary or broad overview of the Government’s views on this before Report, we might be tempted to take up more time on Report by putting new amendments down than the Minister would perhaps prefer.

The other questions I wanted to ask were about minerals. Will Clause 24 make a difference, for example, to the way in which planning permission or development consent is given for things such as quarries in national parks—the quarrying of limestone in the Peak District, for example—which are highly controversial and at the moment are done by the local planning authority, the national park? Are decisions like that going to be moved to the Secretary of State and the infrastructure planning regime?

The other question was specifically about the development of fracking for unconventional gas, which is going ahead slowly in Lancashire. Lots of different consents have to be obtained for that, notably from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which takes place at a national level. However, the development that has taken place so far and the scale of it means that the planning permission, as I understand it, is the responsibility of the county council; in the case of the fracking that is taking place, or is about to resume, at the moment on an experimental basis in Lancashire, that will be Lancashire County Council.

It seems to me that with something like fracking, there are two crucial sets of decisions to be made. One is the question of whether the drilling, the fracking and the extraction of the gas should be allowed to take place. Then there are all the environmental issues related to that on the surface, such as the screening of developments and whether pipes from the different wellheads, which are quite close to each other, should be underground, overground or whatever, which is a matter of the local landscape and local planning. I would be quite appalled if the decisions over that kind of local planning were taken away from the local planning authority—in this case Lancashire County Council, as it is a minerals development—and put in the hands of a national authority, which I really do not think would have the local understanding or the ability to do the job properly. There are two separate issues there. Would it be possible for them to be separated, because they are dealing with quite different aspects, and for the decisions about whether the drilling and fracking goes ahead—and I should say that it seems to me that this is development which ought, at least on a pilot basis, to proceed as far as a viable commercial scheme—to be taken nationally through the infrastructure planning process but for the local details of the environmental protection and amelioration connected with it, and how that works on the surface, to be left with the local planning authority?

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those questions. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked about the summary of responses. We have that summary of responses, and I think it has already gone to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis; if not, it is on its way. We can make sure that Members of the Committee receive a copy and will put it in the Library, so that it will be available for consideration at the next stage.

We are thinking about the responses to the consultation and whether fracking should be included in the infrastructure planning regime or, as the noble Lord said, stay with the local planning authority. At the moment, a request will have to be made to the Secretary of State to use the major planning infrastructure regime, and the Secretary of State will be interested in it only if the whole proposal was going to raise issues of national rather than local significance. Fracking is a developing area and things may change but, as I understand it, that is the situation at the moment. I hope with those explanations that the noble Lord may be willing to withdraw his amendment and that noble Lords will not press the others when the time comes.

I will perhaps take up the question of fracking with the Minister outside the Chamber. However, the important thing before Report is not to get the summary of responses—although that would obviously be useful—but to get the Government’s view of the responses and their view of the way forward.

I understood that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was getting at. I have committed to giving him the summary of the responses and have been told that the Government’s response will come in due course. That does not sound to me as if it will come before Report, but if it does, I will let noble Lords know that it is coming.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises a point of some substance. I have read the summary of responses which the noble Baroness very kindly sent to me a short while ago. It is supremely uninformative. Question 3 asks:

“Do you agree with our assessment of the factors that the Secretary of State would need to take into account when considering whether a project is nationally significant?”.

The summary of responses says:

“A number of respondents thought the assessment factors were broadly right whilst others commented that they were not detailed enough or were not supported at all”.

I could go through them, but it is a profound exercise in waffle and does not really help us very much. To be fair to the Government, in annexe A of their consultation paper, they set out both specific types of development and very specific criteria in terms of the square metreage for the thresholds that would need to be met before these projects are deemed to be of national significance. That is crucial in informing our view as to whether we think this clause should proceed without requiring further limitation, although I think there is quite a strong preference for seeking to put provisions in the Bill. It would be extremely helpful if the noble Baroness were able, before Report, to indicate whether the Government stick by their proposals in annexe A or are minded to amend them in any form. If that does not come before Report, we will of course have no chance to assess the Government’s intended course of action before this Bill becomes law.

My instinct would say that if it is there, then the Government are going to introduce it and are probably not going to amend it. If there is any change to that, I will let the noble Lord and the Committee know.

Amendment 77ZJ withdrawn.

Amendment 77ZK

Moved by

77ZK: Clause 24, page 29, line 35, at end insert—

“( ) The Secretary of State must publish his reasons for giving a direction under this section.”

My Lords, the amendment standing in my name in this group is very simple. It would require the Secretary of State to publish the reason that a planning decision is to be made centrally, including why the application is regarded as nationally significant. This is a simple case of transparency and accountability. If the Secretary of State is to be granted the wide powers contained in this Bill, it is only right that their use should be open to scrutiny case by case. If the local authority is to have its planning role set aside, it seems only fair to tell it why. Just as planning inspectors have to give reasons for their decisions, it seems entirely consistent and transparent that the Secretary of State should have to give reasons for deeming a development proposal to be of national significance. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 77A, 77B and 78A, and to the question of whether Clause 24 should stand part of the Bill, which are down in the Marshalled List in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am afraid mine will not be quite as swift and simple as the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, because I want to give a pretty full exposition of why Clause 24 should be deleted, or at least amended in a way that would remove the extension of the major infrastructure regime to business and commercial projects.

I am afraid that my subtext will be the same as for previous amendments I have put forward: this is another unnecessary clause in an unnecessary Bill. We still lack evidence of substantial numbers of large-scale projects being delayed under the current system. Using DCLG’s own statistics, local authorities are already determining and approving 87% of relevant, large-scale, major applications that might fall within the categories of Clause 24 within one year, which is the same period as the fast-track timetable that DCLG heralded when the Bill was published. Once again, we urge the Minister to present to the House the evidence for substantial delays or other reasons that would justify Clause 24.

The Minister Nick Boles, when briefing Peers, very kindly indicated that there would be only 10 to 20 applications to the Secretary of State each year under Clause 24. Therefore, one could take the view that it is hardly worth legislating for, especially as this is a centralising proposal that flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to localism. The Secretary of State has call-in powers if necessary. Indeed, if local authorities struggle with some of these larger-scale proposals, the Planning Advisory Service is available to support them. What additional benefits does the Minister believe are provided by the provisions in the clause beyond those already available?

Clause 24 is all the more unsatisfactory because of the point already raised by the noble Lords, Lord Adnois and Lord Greaves, about the consultation on how business and commercial developments will be defined in terms of type and scale. It has only just been completed. I, too, have read the summary of responses and, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, it was not hugely illuminating. Indeed, all the types of development that the consultation proposed would have major local impacts and need to be dealt with by local government. I add my voice to those who already urge the Minister that we see not only the summary of responses, but the Government’s reply and their intentions in terms of the clause, before Report. I ask the Minister to commit to producing the Government response before Report—otherwise we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.

Of particular concern is that the proposals under Clause 24 also include the extractive industries: deep-mined coal, large onshore gas, oil and other mining and quarrying above certain thresholds. They would be brought within the major infrastructure planning system without robust guarantees that the considerable environmental impacts of these developments can be addressed through the planning system. They are usually dealt with through specific local, national park or county-level policies and procedures governing mineral planning issues. It is also unsatisfactory to propose that deep-mined coal be included in the proposed fast-track process because this seems at odds with the presumption against new coal that is included in the National Planning Policy Framework. It does not say much for commitment to addressing climate change if we regard these types of energy generation as sufficiently important to bypass the normal planning system.

One could say that there might be safeguards for decisions made under the national infrastructure procedure. National policy statements are the main basis on which nationally significant infrastructure projects on energy, transport, water or waste are decided. These have major advantages in that they are scrutinised by Parliament before being agreed. However, we do not yet know as a result of the consultation process whether Ministers will change their minds about formulating national policy statements for business or commercial schemes. The consultation was on the basis that there would be no national policy statements for these schemes, but I see from the consultation response summary that there has been some pressure to develop further national policy statements in these areas. Can the Minister give the House some clarification on the Government’s position on national policy statements for business and commercial schemes, and could we have that clarification before Report?

There is a fundamental problem with the clause because it tries to imply that there is national significance for business and commercial schemes that are intrinsically local. Concocting national policy statements for these areas of business and commerce will be pretty difficult because they are not really national in their significance. It seems that they are being artificially designated simply to enable developers to chance their luck with the Secretary of State rather than the local planning authority. Of course, the Minister will say in response that there are other safeguards surrounding the impacts of business and commercial projects decided under the major infrastructure proposals. These include local plans and the National Planning Policy Framework.

However, a letter that the Minister sent, clarifying the Government’s position on the local plan, still made it pretty clear that there is no legal requirement for the Secretary of State to give weight to the local plan. Therefore, in the absence of a national policy statement, the Secretary of State can legally give weight to almost anything. Even where there is a local plan, the Secretary of State’s consideration will take account of a whole range of factors, only one of which will be the local plan. That is a considerable departure from the principle of the planning system, which is of a plan-led approach. At the very minimum, will the Minister undertake to look at amending the clause to ensure that the local plan is afforded pre-eminence in the absence of a national policy statement?

The other safeguard that the Minister will no doubt want to put forward is the role of the NPPF. The Government made it clear in the consultation document that, in the absence of a national policy statement, the NPPF and other local policy and material consideration could form the policy framework for decision-making on these schemes. However, in practical terms, the NPPF does not lend itself to the national infrastructure planning process. It was written to inform the decisions of local planning authorities in their plan-making and development management functions under the Town and Country Planning Acts. Throughout the NPPF, the references to the planning system and planning law are really references to the Town and Country Planning Acts, not to the 2008 national infrastructure regime. The very wording of the NPPF says that local authorities should do this and should do that, not that the Secretary of State should do this and should do that. This makes the NPPF difficult to apply outside the specific context of local planning. To give one example, the presumption in favour of sustainable development could not be applied to the Secretary of State’s decisions under the national infrastructure procedure because the whole of this policy in the NPPF is set in the context of what local authorities will do in the local plan.

Therefore, the Secretary of State might not have a national policy statement to guide him, can choose to give as little or great weight to the local plan as he may, and the NPPF does not give him much help, if my analysis is correct. This does not exactly seem a policy and plan-led decision system, which gives certainty to developers, fairness to local interests and swiftness to decisions.

I could go on for hours about Clause 24—some might say I already have—but there are a few other things that I should like to put as weights in the scale. The process itself for national infrastructure planning is not particularly satisfactory in the absence of a national policy statement or a pre-eminent authoritative local plan for a number of reasons. Local authorities can be asked for a local impact statement but these are pretty expensive and complex, and there is no requirement on the local authority to produce one. Depending on the volume of these cases, we might well find that local authorities become less and less keen, as they are not the deciding authority, to produce these.

There is also a particular issue with developers making significant changes to their applications following the pre-application consultation. That is admirable in that developers are responding to local input, but the big problems with the national infrastructure procedural hearings are that they are very tightly timetabled and there are no formal rights to cross-examine developers. There are real questions about whether there is real community involvement when such changes are happening through the NSIP procedure. This is particularly so since the decisions will not be made by the democratically elected local planning authority.

I may be about to pre-empt something that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, may say—I am sorry for putting words into his mouth if he does not intend to say this—but I must admit that when he capitulated on Clause 1 and said it would not affect very many councils so it was probably not worth arguing against, I had a bad night afterwards. Just because a clause will not affect many people, that does not make bad law good law, so I encourage him not to capitulate in future.

Let us also look at volume. The Minister has said that this provision is not likely to involve more than 10 to 20 cases per year. I, too, am concerned about volume for a number of reasons; for example, the shale gas fracking issue, where we know that potentially 800 well-heads are predicted in the north-west. These are well-heads of a limited duration; they move on fairly rapidly after a few years, so multiple applications are likely to come up in the future. In the light of predictions—for example, Friends of the Earth believes that there is a potential pool of projects of all sorts that could well come within the criteria, which are currently being consulted on and might total between 300 and 500 per year—it would be useful to know whether Ministers are still of the view that only 10 to 20 applications per year would come through under this process.

My concern is that one might live with a very small number of projects if one were the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but one would not live with a very large number of projects if one believed that this clause was not a good clause. This would also raise the question, which I leave with the Minister, of whether sufficient resources and measures are being put in place to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate can cope.

I hope that noble Lords are totally convinced by my long exposition of why Clause 24 is pretty horrible and should be amended.

My Lords, I was going to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on her brilliant speech that meant that I did not have to say anything at all, really—until she started challenging me, as her supporter on this amendment, in her last few remarks. I do not think I did capitulate on Clause 1; I think it was on Clause 5 that I came to the view that it was not going to make any difference to anybody in practice. I will review that, but I certainly still feel fairly resolute about Clause 1, which I think is fundamentally wrong in principle no matter how many councils it affects.

As far as shale gas is concerned, my view is there should be a limited-scale commercial pilot, which inevitably would be in the west Lancashire plain, before anything else happens. I think that will take quite a few years to get under way. I certainly would not be in favour of the large-scale development of shale gas in this country until that pilot had taken place and we could assess whether or not some of the worst fears are true. I suspect that some of the worst fears are not true but equally, we must assess the environmental and landscape implications, which are perhaps not quite as important as the more fundamental questions about the effects of the drilling, but are nevertheless very important. That is my view on shale gas. As I said in the previous group, I am in favour of as much of that decision-making as possible remaining at a local, Lancashire level, even though the basic consents for the actual operation would be taken at national level by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and perhaps others.

I have one or two points to add to what the noble Baroness said. First, if there are 20 or 25 a year, the Government ought to come clean and tell us which commercial and business developments they believe have been stopped or significantly delayed in the past year or two years—or whatever period they choose—thus making this proposal necessary. Again, this would provide us with some hard evidence on the ground of ways in which the present system is preventing commercial and business developments taking place.

Of course, the Government would have to say which of those developments that have been delayed or, particularly, stopped they think ought to go ahead, and then people can judge this by outcomes. We can talk about processes until we are blue in the face but what most people are interested in are the actual outcomes of the planning process. Therefore, my question for the Government is: if this proposed new system had been in place for the past two years, what would have been different? If the answer is, “Not very much”, we are wasting our time here talking about it, quite frankly.

To underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about the underlying planning policies that will guide the Secretary of State in his decisions, the whole infrastructure planning process, as set out in the 2008 Act, originally through the Infrastructure Planning Commission, was based on a series of national policy statements, which were government policy and were originally intended to guide the Infrastructure Planning Commission in its decisions. Just as local plans are there to guide local planning authorities in their decisions, the national policy statements were there, in different policy areas, to guide the Infrastructure Planning Commission in its work.

Now that the infrastructure planning process is being undertaken by the Secretary of State, the system has a fundamental fault at the heart of it, and I am increasingly of the view that the Government have got themselves into a bit of a mess by giving the powers of the Infrastructure Planning Commission to the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State who will make the policies and then make the development control decisions—presumably on the basis of the policies he has determined. There is something fundamentally wrong with that system, not least in that a decision is produced and there is no appeal process other than judicial review.

If there are not to be any of these national policy statements in relation to commercial and business development, where is the underlying planning policy coming from? Is it made up on the hoof by the Secretary of State or does it genuinely come from local plans? If it genuinely comes from local plans, why do we need to nationalise the system? As the noble Baroness eloquently explained, it is clearly not in the National Planning Policy Framework. The framework is very clearly set out as planning guidance from the Secretary of State, as policy, to local planning authorities making the decisions. That is its legal basis. That is what it is, and it replaces what the Government will say was about three feet of planning policy guidance that came in the old PPSs and PPGs. That has all gone; we have now got the National Planning Policy Framework. It is not an adequate basis for making decisions on big, nationally significant projects, whether they are on infrastructure or whether they are these new business and commercial ones that have been made by the Secretary of State.

The Government are in a bit of a mess over this. It is not clear on what basis the Secretary of State is going to make his decisions, which again is an invitation to more judicial review of decisions that are made.

I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his interesting excursion into these matters. The Government’s decision—which has of course now been accepted by Parliament—is that the NSIPs should not go to an IPA which is then able to make the decisions itself, because the IPA is not accountable to anybody. To have the IPA—or, as it is now, the inspectorate—simply making recommendations and the Secretary of State then making the decisions seems to me constitutionally very much better. I am not going to take this further.

When we were talking earlier about national policy statements, I stressed to my noble friend Lord Ahmad that I think the Government will quite soon have to think of a national policy statement for shale oil—for unconventional oil—because questions are now being raised in the House. They are being raised widely in the relevant community outside.

I do not know quite which world the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, lives in. I have been the recipient of a number of complaints about the difficulty firms have in making developments which seem to me to be absolutely essential, and indeed are so under the national policy. There was an incident in which I sought help for an electricity substation, for which it was absolutely necessary to bring ashore the product—the electricity— from what was intended to be a large offshore wind farm. I am not sure whether even that has yet been granted. I was the recipient of at least two complaints about the provision of underground gas storage. Again, people have an absurd idea of what these things may be. Those are the kind of big decisions, big applications, which have been seriously held up. I think therefore that it is absolutely right for an applicant to say that the application should be heard under the NSIP procedure.

There is also the different problem raised by Amendment 78B. This has been put to me by the National Grid, which obviously has very considerable experience of dealing with applications which may arouse a good deal of opposition. The case is a very simple one; it is in fact seeking consistency. Under the new proposals for commercial development, only the applicant is entitled to ask the Secretary of State to make a referral to the inspectorate, whereas for all previous applications the application can be made by anyone, in addition, of course, to the promoter. One must ask whether it is right that, concerning the new category of business and commercial project, only the applicant is able to refer. Why does this not apply to all the other bodies? The argument for consistency seems really quite overwhelming.

My noble friend Lord Attlee will remember that I raised exactly the same point when we were discussing the Localism Bill 18 months ago. He stated that,

“it may be that third parties with expertise in particular areas, such as environmental requirements, possess information which they think may elevate a proposed development from one of sub-national significance to one of national significance. It would not be right to prevent such bodies drawing this information to the attention of the Secretary of State”. – [Official Report, 17/10/11; col. 107.]

Well, that is an argument. However, he of course pointed out that that amendment would enable someone to draw key information to the Secretary of State’s attention if it has not already come to light. The Secretary of State can then of course direct that the matter goes direct to the inspectorate under the NSIP procedure. On that occasion I was trying to break new ground, but that is not the case under this Bill. As I said a few moments ago, under this Bill only the promoter can take that step in relation to business and commercial projects, and I am puzzled as to why. My amendment therefore simply seeks to bring all the existing applications into line with the new one for business and commercial projects. I hope that my noble friend will view this as a pretty reasonable request.

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s contention that this clause do not stand part of the Bill. I will not repeat the questions raised by noble Lords, which I feel deserve an answer from my noble friend the Minister. I am sure that we will get answers, because she has shown herself throughout this process to be very open and willing to engage with us.

The one issue I would like to expand on a little further is that of fracking, and bringing that into the fast track process. The Minister rightly said that this is a developing area, and it is therefore important that this House has time to consider all the possible implications. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others, I think it is appropriate for the Government to introduce a national planning policy statement for this. As my noble friend Lord Greaves said, this is an important new area with major implications, particularly in the north-west. Given the scale of fracking and the Government’s commitment to press ahead with it, it would seem illogical not to give the Planning Inspectorate further clarity as it takes this issue forward.

The Minister said that there will be between 10 and 20 cases a year, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She cited evidence given by Friends of the Earth; I choose instead to cite evidence given to the House of Lords inquiry into EU energy policy last month, when Professor Jonathan Stern of the Oxford Institute gave his assessment of the implications of fracking in the United Kingdom. In the committee’s evidence session, Professor Stern stated:

“The US drills 45,000 wells every year of which 80% are fracked... people in Europe just do not understand the scale on which the drilling has taken place. In the future, it may be possible to reduce the scale of that drilling but I think what you can say is, if in any specific country you have drilled 100 wells, you may know something about the resource base. If you are going to produce shale gas on any scale, you probably need to be drilling somewhere between 300 and 500 wells a year, every year”.

I quote those figures because I think it is beholden upon my noble friend to answer—and I am sure she will do her best to do so—why the Government seem to think there will only be 10 to 20 cases emerging through this fast-tracking process if fracking is brought forward. There is a disparity which needs urgent clarification. Yes, it is a developing area, but if the Government are going to proceed with fracking, and take it forward as part of the energy mix in the short to medium term, then not only is there a case for a national policy statement, but there needs to be far greater clarity about the implications—particularly the resource implications—that would accrue for the Planning Inspectorate.

I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this rather interesting and short debate. I will try to pick up some of the matters raised, either as we go through or subsequently. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain the Government’s rationale for Clause 24 and the reforms within it. As we have said on many occasions, one of the Government’s top priorities is to get the economy growing by creating the right conditions for growth. This includes ensuring that the planning system is operating in the most efficient and effective way. Clause 24 will support this aim by allowing developers of nationally significant business and commercial development to request to use the streamlined planning regime set out in the Planning Act 2008.

The noble Baroness’s Amendments 77A, 77B and 78A would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to issue a direction for prescribed forms of business and commercial development in response to a request from a developer. I have listened to views expressed that business and commercial planning applications should be determined by the local planning authority, and we have no difficulty with that. The Government agree that that is the right approach in the vast majority of cases. However, there will also be a small number of projects that will be of national economic importance and, in certain circumstances, it will be right that a decision on such proposals is taken at the national level by democratically elected Ministers.

We are not proposing that that should be a mandatory route for developers; it is optional. Developers of major projects will choose to request to use the infrastructure planning regime only if it offers other benefits which the local authority cannot provide, such as statutory timetabling—the noble Baroness asked me what it would be—and the one-stop shop, which will be useful where multiple consents are required.

Any request made to use the infrastructure planning regime will also be subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State, who will have to be satisfied that the proposed project is of national significance. Under Section 35(10) of the Planning Act, the Secretary of State is required to give reasons for his decision when making a direction, and that requirement is carried forward in new Section 35ZA(10) in Clause 24. That is why we cannot accept Amendment 77ZK, which is unnecessary.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin spoke to Amendment 78B, which would limit who can make a request that an application or proposed application for energy, transport, waste, water or waste water projects below the Planning Act thresholds should be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime. I understand why the amendment has been tabled and am sympathetic to its aims, but perhaps I may explain why we have set out a different approach in the Bill for business and commercial schemes.

The Planning Act sets specific thresholds for energy, transport, water, waste and waste water projects. Any proposal for a development which meets those thresholds must seek planning consent through the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime. Section 35 of the Planning Act allows a request to be made to use the regime for projects which are below the thresholds. We have not sought to limit who can make a Section 35 request for infrastructure projects as we recognise that other parties may hold information which could indicate that the project was one of national significance and should be directed into the regime. However, for business and commercial schemes, the Government have been very clear that for developers of major schemes this is an optional route. Therefore, the limitation on who can make a request is not there. We believe that it should be for a developer or applicant to determine whether the advantages of using the infrastructure planning regime outweigh the usual route of making a planning application to the local planning authority. The Secretary of State will direct a project into the regime only if he considers that it is of national significance.

Concerns have been expressed that if we do not accept the amendment the Secretary of State will be inundated with requests from third parties, or that there will be delay to the application being submitted or to the local authority decision-making process. We think that this is unlikely. We are aware of only a very small number of such requests having been made to date. The impact assessment states that the figure is likely to be between 10 and 20 a year. We will have to see how that works out.

If an application or proposed application is directed into the nationally significant infrastructure regime, this does not mean that local opinions will be ignored. Developers will have to consult local communities, and local authorities will continue to play an important role. The consultation requirements of the Planning Act, as noble Lords will know, are rigorous. Local authorities will also be invited to prepare a local impact report. The Secretary of State must have regard to the report as well as to other matters that are both important and relevant in making his decision on the development consent order application. The local plan, for example, is likely to be both important and relevant, as indeed is the National Planning Policy Framework.

It is essential that sustainable development should go ahead with the minimum of delay. That is why we have brought forward this new power. We also think that it is appropriate to have further public and parliamentary scrutiny on how this new power should be used. That is why we have consulted recently on the types of development and why the regulations that follow and prescribe the types of development will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Other matters were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who tabled some of the amendments in this group, has had a letter from my honourable friend Nick Boles which I think addresses most of the questions that she raised, but I understand why she would want those responses on the record.

All the points that I made earlier were taken in the Minister’s letter. Having read it very carefully, I think that he confirmed that the local plan was just one weight in the scales and not pre-eminent and that the Secretary of State would take a whole range of other things that into account. That means that the local plan has been sidelined. I was therefore unconvinced.

If there are letters floating around which are being debated here, I wonder whether we might all have sight of them.

My Lords, the letter in question was to the noble Baroness. If she is happy for it to be made available to the Committee, then, of course, I would be happy, too. I presume that my honourable friend at the other end was expecting at least most of it to be made public because it is a very public response to the questions asked. I do not think that there would be any disagreement with my saying that the local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework are both likely to be important and relevant in these matters. We have issued a consultation paper on extending the regime to business and commercial schemes, seeking views on whether one or more national policy statements should be prepared. These matters are relevant to today’s debate and the answers are the Government’s answers.

I do not think that moving business and commercial applications to the infrastructure regime will be a blow to local authorities. As I have said, we expect only a small number of applications to come forward and for most of them to be dealt with by local authorities.

I was also asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, whether we had any evidence that change is necessary. Over the past four financial years, the proportion of large-scale major applications for commercial and industrial projects taking more than 52 weeks to be decided by local authorities has increased from 8% to 13%, which is quite a significant rise.

We are not proposing to make mandatory this route for developers—it is optional—and there will be a timetabled approach. Developers will have to decide for themselves whether to use the infrastructure regime.

As we set out in our recent consultation document on the new business and commercial category of development, the Government do not consider the case to be strong for one or more national policy statements for this category of development. The consultation closed in January and we are considering the responses to that, including on whether national policy statements should be prepared. I think that we will discuss those later during our consideration of the Bill.

I was asked whether there will be sufficient resources. We are discussing the resource implications with the Planning Inspectorate at the moment.

We also had a question on fracking, which has come up quite a bit through the course of the Bill. It is clearly a developing situation. The information that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, gave us was interesting and begins to put a scale on what the ultimate development could be. At present, fracking applications will not be taken out of the hands of local authorities. Any developer will have to consult the local community and local people and the local authority will have the right of determination. A request would have to be made to the Secretary of State to use the infrastructure regime and he would agree to such a request only where the proposal raised issues of national significance. It may be that national significance and fracking will be one and the same but that gives an indication that at present we would expect this to be dealt with locally and local people would have a big say in what was to happen.

I think that covers the questions I was asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also asked about fracking and, as I said, gave us very helpful figures from the report. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether she would be happy for the letter from my honourable friend Nick Boles to be circulated. If so, I will make it available but if she does not wish that we will no doubt discuss the issues again at a later stage.

Can the Minister respond to an issue raised by a number of noble Lords on the question of when we might hear the Government’s response to the consultation? It is very important for a variety of reasons that that happens before the Report stage. “In due course” does not seem a terribly firm timescale.

We have a number of consultations coming through to fruition, so I am not able to stand here now and say that the Government’s response will be available by Report. I hope that we will have an indication of what more we can discuss on this. If the response can be made available then I will certainly see that it is but I am not in a position to say that it will be. I note what the noble Baroness said.

I listened with great care to what my noble friend said on the question of who can make an application to the Secretary of State for an NSIP treatment. I will read very carefully what she said but, having listened, I am still puzzled as to why there is a difference between the existing applications and the new ones for business and commercial. Perhaps I might leave that there. I will read very carefully what she said and decide how we should proceed after that.

On the question of proposed types of development and thresholds, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pressed the Minister, I took the Minister to have made a significant statement earlier when she said that if there was to be a notable departure from the proposals set out in annexe A of the consultation document she thought it likely the Government would come forward and tell the House that before we passed this legislation into law. I am sure we will study carefully in Hansard tomorrow what the noble Baroness said but that was quite a significant statement. We look forward to the noble Baroness coming forward and telling noble Lords of the Government’s intentions if they intend to depart from the proposed types of developments and thresholds set out in annexe A.

Unless I missed it, I do not think that the noble Baroness replied to my amendment at all, which would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons why a planning decision is to be decided centrally, including why the application is regarded as nationally significant. I thought that was a very reasonable and extremely constructive amendment and that she might even be able to accept it.

I would like to ask a question that the Minister might want to write to us about in some detail. She mentioned the figure of 13% of, I assume, major applications or perhaps some other kind of big applications that took more than 52 weeks. It would be a help to know whether they were major applications as defined at the moment. That is typical of the very general statistics that the Government give when we ask for evidence. How many of those applications would have gone to be decided at national level under the new system or how many would have been likely to go to that level? How many of the 87% of presumably major applications that were dealt with within 52 weeks would also have gone to national level? If we are expecting only an additional 20 or 25 in the commercial business categories, does that equate to 13% or what does it equate to? Some more detailed figures and statistics on these matters would be extremely helpful. I would also find it extremely helpful to have a list of just five or six applications dealt with in the past year which in future would come to national level, so that I can get my mind round what sort of developments they are and what sort of outcomes there might be.

I hope I did not speed over the amendment or that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, had not gone to sleep with excitement over it. I said that the Secretary of State is required to give reasons for his decision when making a direction. That requirement is carried forward in Clause 24. That is why I said I was not able to accept his amendment: it is not necessary.

Will my noble friend comment on my request for some more detailed statistical information on these matters?

If I can get what my noble friend requires, I will make sure he and the Committee get that before Report.

Amendment 77ZK withdrawn.

Amendment 77A to 77BA not moved.

My Lords, just before I resume the House, I alert speakers in the debate that, as we now have a speaker in the gap, there are no spare minutes at all. Please would Back-Bench speakers ensure that they sit down as soon as the clock says “5”, and preferably while it still shows “4”, so that the Minister has his allocated time to respond?

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.28 pm.