I beg to move Amendment No. 110, in page 19, line 24, leave out 'or otherwise' and insert 'with the authority or as specified in subsection (1B)'.

With this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 111, in page 19, line 36, at end insert— '(1B) Any person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority may unilaterally enter into an obligation (referred to in this section as a "unilateral undertaking") where a local planning authority has been unwilling to enter into an obligation by agreement and an appeal has been made to the Secretary of State under section 78.'.

This Amendment has the support of many organisations which are deeply disturbed by the growing influence of planning gain on decisions made by local planning authorities. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has been in the vanguard of this campaign, but other organisations and individuals have also expressed that concern.

Agreements drawn up by local authorities and developers—renamed "planning obligations" in the Bill—have a role in the planning system, but not as a means of assisting the granting of planning permissions which would not otherwise have been granted.

In Committee we opposed the principle contained in Clause 12 to allow developers to enter into "unilateral undertakings". The priority should be opening up the processes of planning gain to public debate, rather than encouraging even more agreements to be drawn up behind closed doors without even local authority involvement.

Earlier amendments to delete this aspect from the Bill were unsuccessful. In view of the Government's commitment to the process, we have sought an amendment which would achieve the Government's aims but would reduce some of the problems that have been widely feared.

Both the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Law Society believe that a greater distinction between planning obligations by agreement and unilateral undertakings should be made in the Bill and that unilateral undertakings should be used only when negotiations with the local authority have broken down.

The Government have said at all stages of the Bill in both Houses that they view unilateral undertakings as a specific mechanism for enabling a log jam to be broken. I believe that those were the words used in Committee, where the Minister said: We see the provision in clause 12 very much as the exception and are in favour of agreements being negotiated with the local authority … The provision is a safety valve that can be used when recalcitrant local authorities obstruct otherwise sensible developments."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 April 1991; c. 114.] However, the Government have done nothing to reflect that on the face of the Bill, nor have they promised to clarify planning policy guidance.

If unilateral undertakings are only appropriate when the mechanism for achieving planning obligations by agreement has broken down, that should be clearly shown in the Bill. Our amendment would achieve that by ensuring that all obligations were entered into by agreement, unless a local authority refused to negotiate and an appeal was lodged. Unilateral undertakings would be allowed only in respect of a planning appeal, which is exactly what the Government have argued. I therefore ask the Government for a clear commitment that new planning guidance will be issued which will carefully define the circumstances within which unilateral undertakings would be appropriate and the basis on which they would be considered by the Secretary of State and his inspectors. I hope that the Government will take a positive attitude towards these amendments.

I do not think that there is a wide gulf between the two sides on this subject. I can confirm that I do not foresee that these facilities will be used other than on appeal, and I hope to explain why the amendments, especially No. 111 might be unhelpful.

In Committee and in Another place, there were extensive debates about provisions in Clause 12 for entering into a planning obligation by means of a unilateral undertaking—there have been four debates on unilateral undertakings here and in another place.

I confirm that we expect such undertakings to be used mainly at appeal, in situations where there is a planning objection to the development proposal, which can only be resolved by a planning obligation under section 106, and where the parties are not able to reach agreement about how to resolve the objection. Clearly, when they could reach agreement before going to appeal, unilateral undertakings would not be needed.

In Committee, I gave some examples of where the provisions might be helpful, and I do not propose to repeat them. However, I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is no longer pressing his objection, in principle, to unilateral undertakings. The principle is conceded in the amendments, but he seeks to ring-fence them by allowing them only on an appeal.

If I may clarify that matter, we have accepted that the Government are not going to move from unilateral undertakings, so we have sought to deal with it in that way.

I recognise that realism has broken out.

The amendments would allow unilateral undertakings to be made only in the circumstances described in the last two lines of Amendment 111.

The amendment is unnecessary, because the main use of the undertakings, as an alternative means of entering into a planning obligation, will be at the appeal stage anyway. We expect that recourse to undertakings will be relatively infrequent and that obligations will generally be entered into by agreement. I confirm that, in my view, that is the preferred course. We propose to reinforce that in policy guidance.

The amendment is undesirable because it would create some inflexibility. Amendment No. 111 would prevent a developer from making a unilateral undertaking until after he had lodged an appeal. As the Bill stands, a developer could make an undertaking at any stage. Such an undertaking might, by clarifying what the developer was prepared to offer, facilitate agreement between the two parties.

Alternatively, the local planning authority might be prepared to grant permission on the basis that the undertaking had removed the outstanding objections to the development proposal. The undertaking would become, in effect and possibly in fact, an agreement. There can be nothing objectionable about that process, and amendment No. 111 would preclude it. Against that background, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.

I thank the Minister for his response and for the way in which he seems to believe Clause 12 should be interpreted.

The Minister said that he expected to issue planning guidance on this matter, although he gave no sign of how quickly it might be achieved. Before making a final response, could he give me some idea of the time scale involved?

I cannot give a specific date, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He is anxious that there should be guidance. Guidance on this part of the Bill will be issued as soon as practicable after Royal Assent. It would help if we confirmed in guidance our view that unilateral undertakings should be used principally on appeal. I hope the hon. Gentleman feels that he can accept that assurance.

I am anxious to help the Minister, but he will appreciate that our problem is that we object in principle to the use of unilateral undertakings. We had hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment; then we should have been satisfied. Having accepted that the Government would not move on the principle, we hoped that the amendment would be passed without a vote. The Government, however, have said nothing about the time scale for the planning guidance, so there is an important issue of principle at stake, and we must press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 251.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 20, line 1 at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A)'

No. 26, in page 20, line 7 leave out `to the extent of his derivative interest' and insert— '(3A) The instrument by which a planning obligation is entered into may provide that a person shall not be bound by the obligation in respect of any period during which he no longer has an interest in the land.' No. 27, in page 20, line 9 leave out from `injunction' to end of line 11

No. 28, in page 20, line 46 at end insert—

1. `(10A) Regulations may provide for the charging on the land of—
   1. (a) any sum or sums required to be paid under a planning obligation; and
   2. (b) any expenses recoverable by a local planning authority under subsection (5)(b),
   and this section and sections 106A and 106B shall have effect subject to any such regulations.'

No. 29, in page 23, line 8 leave out from 'into' to end of line 15 and insert 'an obligation falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 106(1) (in this section referred to as a "planning obligation") enforceable to the extent mentioned in subsection (2A).

1. (2) A planning obligation may not be entered into except by an instrument executed as a deed which—
1. (a) states that the obligation is a planning obligation for the purposes of this section;
2. (b) identifies the land in relation to which the obligation is entered into;
3. (c) identifies the appropriate authority who are entering into the obligation and states what the Crown or Duchy interest in the land is; and
4. (d) identifies the local planning authority by whom the obligation is enforceable.
2. (2A) A planning obligation entered into under this section is enforceable—
1. (a) against any person with a private interest deriving from the Crown or Duchy interest stated in accordance with subsection (2)(c);
2. (b) by the authority identified in accordance with subsection (2)(d).
3. (2B) Subject to subsection (3), subsections (2), (3A) to (7) and (9) to (11) of section 106 and sections 106A and 106B apply to a planning obligation entered into under this section as they apply to a planning obligation entered into under that section.'