'In the principal Act after section 61C (planning permission granted by local development orders) (inserted by section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2003) there is inserted the following section—

''61D Effect of revision or revocation of development order on incomplete development

(1) A development order or local development order may include provision permitting the completion of development if—

(a) planning permission is granted by the order in respect of the development, and

(b) the planning permission is withdrawn at a time after the development is started but before it is completed.

(2) Planning permission granted by a development order is withdrawn—

(a) if the order is revoked;

(b) if the order is amended so that it ceases to grant planning permission in respect of the development or materially changes any condition or limitation to which the grant of permission is subject;

(c) by the issue of a direction under powers conferred by the order.

(3) Planning permission granted by a local development order is withdrawn—

(a) if the order is revoked under section 61A(6) or 61B(8);

(b) if the order is revised in pursuance of paragraph 2 of Schedule 4A so that it ceases to grant planning permission in respect of the development or materially changes any condition or limitation to which the grant of permission is subject;

(c) by the issue of a direction under powers conferred by the order.

(4) The power under this section to include provision in a development order or a local development order may be exercised differently for different purposes.''.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 5, 6, 31 and 32.

I understand that in the earlier proceedings of the Committee, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) tabled an amendment in respect of clause 39 and recommended that developers who had started work permitted by a local development order should be allowed to complete that work, notwithstanding the subsequent revocation of the order. The provision for an LDO allows local planning authorities to expand on the permitted development rights set nationally in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 by introducing local permitted development rights. For example, a local authority with a policy of reducing the number of offices in a town centre and encouraging more shops might choose to make such convergence the subject of an LDO, meaning that a separate planning application would not be required. The object of the provision for a local planning authority is to reduce the burden of dealing with a number of applications of the type to which permission is almost always given.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spelthorne for that recommendation, and as my hon. Friend the previous Minister said we are sympathetic to its aims. It is important for developers to have the certainty that if they have started but not completed work that they were permitted to carry out at the time at which they stopped, they will be able to complete it even if the permitted development rights are subsequently removed. New clause 4 will therefore allow the Secretary of State to include in a development order, and local planning authorities to include in a local development order, a provision enabling the completion of development for which planning permission has been granted by the order and which

has been started but not completed before that planning permission is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 32 is related and it provides that compensation provisions do not apply where a development order includes a provision allowing the completion of work that has started before permission is withdrawn. The purpose of that is to make it clear that a developer who can complete development that was previously permitted cannot also claim compensation in relation to the withdrawal of the permission. As a result, a developer can complete his or her development or apply for planning permission, but if it is refused he or she will not be entitled to compensation.

Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 31 are a consequence of new clause 4, which will introduce a proposed new section 61D to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There is already a new section 61D, so references to it need to be changed to 61E. Amendments Nos. 6 and 31 will change the number in the references to the proposed new section that will be introduced by clause 40 from 61D to 61E. Amendment No. 5 makes it clear that the proposed new section that will be introduced by clause 40 should be inserted in the 1990 Act after new section 61D, not 61C as stated in the Bill.

We start on a good note. I am pleased to see that the Government have given due weight to the sensible suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, which has given rise to new clause 4. That is why we, the official Opposition, have co-signed the Government's amendment in that respect and are pleased that they have taken notice. If a development has started and planning permission is subsequently revoked, it is eminently sensible that it should be possible for it to continue. Otherwise one would have the absurd situation whereby a development that was halfway through would have to be stopped and might remain derelict for many years.

We also welcome amendment No. 6, which will have the opposite effect. If the development has started and planning permission is subsequently revoked, one would not expect compensation to be paid. We also welcome the consequential amendment No. 5, and amendments Nos. 31 and 32.

I have one question for the Minister on the new clause. He says that the purpose of local development orders is to allow the local planning authority to permit a class of development. In other words, they would expand the existing permission under the 1995 order, but can a local development order be used to restrict the rights under that order? My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has tabled an amendment in relation to agricultural subdivisions, although we are not discussing that now—I merely use it as an example and do not want to get on to that debate. However, there is a problem with issuing article 4 directions to restrict the 1995 order, so it would be useful to know whether local authorities could use the relevant mechanism to restrict a class of permitted development rights as well as expand it.

I welcome the new clause and the four amendments. It was welcome that the hon. Member for Spelthorne spotted the point in question during our previous proceedings—I think that it was one of the few occasions on which he did not mention terminal 5 at Heathrow and we were probably grateful for that at the time. However, he was right to raise the issue and the Government were right to bring it forward. The provisions deal with an anomaly that would have existed in the Bill in its original form, so I am glad to see them.

I want to raise one point. Incidentally, perhaps it would be appropriate to declare at the outset what I perceive to be inverted interests. I am member of the Royal Institute of British Architects and a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, although I have just applied for retired status in both august bodies. I am an honorary member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Landscape Institute and a few others that do not regularly come to mind, but I shall put them down on a piece of paper if necessary. I do not think that those are declarable interests because I used to pay to belong to the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Town Planning Institute—I wished that it was the other way round, but it never was.

It is obvious that I am not a lawyer, but, even if the Bill is technically correct, I am worried, as a layman, about proposed new section 61D(1), which new clause 4 will insert in the principal Act. It states:

''A development order or local development order may include provision permitting the completion of development''.

I agree with what the Minister is trying to do and I supported my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne when he first raised the issue in Committee, but surely the subsection should state that a relevant order must, rather than may, include provision permitting the completion of development.

The word ''may'', which would leave the option to the local planning authority, would not be satisfactory. Some planning authorities might, for political reasons, not want a development to be permitted even though it had started. I should be grateful if the Minister could look into that point and reassure me that t every planning authority would have an obligation to allow such developments to be completed once they had been started.

Unlike my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Ludlow, I have a little difficulty with the new clause, because I do not understand it. That might in some circumstances be regarded as a reason to shut up, but I should like to go through the provision so that the Minister can explain whether I have understood it correctly.

Subsection (1) of the proposed new section 61D states:

''A development order . . . may include provision permitting the completion of the development''.

Subsection (2), however, states:

''Planning permission granted by a development order is withdrawn—

(a) if the order is revoked''.

Does that include the planning permission covered by subsection (1), enabling the development to be completed? A normal reading of subsection (2) would be that if the order were revoked and planning permission were withdrawn that would include the permission to complete the development after the order was revoked.

I am sure that the Committee will be fascinated by the expression ''inverted interests'', used by my erstwhile fellow Barnetonian the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—an idea that presents great opportunities for speculation. In the course of our proceedings it will become obvious that, like him, I am not a lawyer.

It seems to me that all the hon. Members who have spoken have raised essentially the same matter. The hon. Member for Cotswold asked whether a local development order could be used to restrict a class of developments, and the answer is yes. The hon. Members for Chipping Barnet and for Isle of Wight raised questions about the completion of a project once it had been started. Once a development has commenced, the developer will of course have the right to complete it. That is clear. Issues arise, of course, about the definition of ''started'', and those are dealt with in section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

It would be for the local planning authority to decide whether development had started in a particular case. For example, a development of 20 units might have been started, but work might have begun on only five units. The question then is: would the entire development retain its permission, or would permission be granted only for the five units where development had started? In the first instance, that will be for local planning authorities to decide. Ultimately, however, it will be for the courts to determine permission in the light of particular circumstances. The long and short of it is that a developer who has lawfully commenced the work has the lawful right to complete it, provided that there is clear agreement about the extent of the development. The local planning authority could exert some rights if, for example, the work was to be carried out over a period of time in a series of stages involving a different set of units. That seems to be to be a reasonable proposition in the context of the rights of local planning authorities and the local democratic process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. I must apologise to the Committee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has reminded me, I failed to declare my interests. I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and practised as a planning surveyor, among other things. I also have properties, which are declared in the Register of Members' Interests. Those properties are not currently covered by the Bill, but they could be at some point in the future.

The Committee will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman.