'(1) In the Principle Act after section 44 Part III (meaning of development) subsection (2A) there is inserted—

''(2) The following operations or uses of land shall not be taken for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land—

(a) the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building works which—

(i) affect only the interior of the building, or

(ii) do not materially affect the external appearance of the building

(iii) do not materially increase the overall retail sales floor area of the building by more than 10%

and are not works for the making good war damage or works begun after 5 December 1968 for the alteration of a building by providing additional space in its underground.''.'—[Matthew Green.]

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 new clause 33—Planning permission for increasing the floor area of large shops—

'After section 57 (Planning Permission required for Development) of the principal Act there is inserted the following section—

''57A Planning Permission for increase the Floor area of Large Shops

(1) Planning permission is required for works which increase by more than the specified amount the area of large shops.

(2) Permission given by a local planning authority for such works may be conditional upon all or a proportion of the additional area being devoted to the sale of local produce.

(3) In this section

(a) 'large shops' has the same meaning as in the Shops Act 1994;

(b) 'the specified amount' means 25 per cent, or increases which aggregate to 25 per cent, of the area available for retailing for which permission has been granted;

(c) 'local produce' has such meaning as the local planning authority shall determine.''.'.

New clause 28 is about a matter that Friends of the Earth brought to my attention a few months ago. It concerns Asda, which is owned by Wal-Mart, and its use of a loophole in the planning system to increase dramatically the retail floor space of 40 of its stores by installing mezzanine floors. In many stores, that would double the floor space. It can do that without seeking planning permission because planning law excludes internal building works from the definition of development that requires planning permission. Such works can go ahead provided that they do not affect the external appearance of the building however significant their other impacts may be.

The addition of significant areas of retail floor space—equivalent to a new store in some cases—may have a significant negative impact on high street stores, and may lead to increased traffic, noise and

disturbance, yet local planning authorities will have no opportunity to assess those impacts, and local communities will not be given the chance to become involved.

Asda installed its first mezzanine floor in York, and its second such floor is under construction in Sheffield. That floor will add 33,000 sq ft of retail space with the specific, and declared, aim of expanding its range of non-food goods, which will change the nature of the store, and will pose a new threat to local non-food shops. An Asda spokesman is on record as saying that the non-food range in the York mezzanine is encouraging people to drive to the store from further afield. That is hardly a worthy environmental aim. It makes a mockery of the intention behind PPG6 on retailing, which seeks to maintain diversity of local shops, and sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres by protecting them from the negative effects of large-scale out-of-town developments.

However, it is not just small shops that are risk. At the moment, Asda is installing mezzanine floors, but any one of a number of supermarket or DIY chains could follow suit. Doing so gives Asda a competitive advantage because, by chance, it built high in the past. There could be a lower store next door that does not have the opportunity to put in a mezzanine floor, so other big retailers could suffer just as much as smaller retailers. The issue is therefore not about the small fighting the big, but about fairness and where the planning system ought to come in.

The new clause deals with section 55 of the 1990 Act, which creates a broad definition of development and provides for various qualified exceptions. The new clause extends the qualification to the exceptions in subsection (2) to exclude the material increase of retail floor area. Such increases would constitute development and therefore be subject to planning control. The inclusion of a 10 per cent. margin allows for minor operational changes to premises that would not pose a significant risk to the local community. The Minister may say that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to pursue those aims, but if so, we would like him to reassure us that the Government plan to close the relevant loophole another way.

New clause 33, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has tabled, is similar and has a caveat that if more floor space is granted, some of it must used to sell local produce. On the face of it, that is a super idea, but it is difficult, when giving planning permission, to dictate exactly where something being sold was purchased from in the first place. Although I share the sentiments, the proposal is a difficult concept in planning terms.

It is only a matter of fairness that the loophole is closed, before we see a race to develop mezzanine floors. One group of stores is doing so now, but I am sure that others will follow.

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on whether he considers the new clause to cover the eventuality where an out-of-town store not only compartmentalises but departmentalises? Departmentalising is developing an alternative high street in a flat floor store through either filling in an atrium or compartmentalising the existing flat floor permission by extending to mezzanine and creating additional stores, thereby taking the high street as a whole out of town, rather than just building sheds out of town.

The hon. Gentleman has raised another potential loophole that I do not think the new clause, which deals with the increase of retail floor space, covers. I have even heard that, at some stores, there have been projects to dig down and put in new floors below the ground level of the existing shop. Again, that does not require planning permission, but goes against the spirit of using the planning system to ensure fairness across the retail sector.

The idea is not that there should not be mezzanine floors, but that proposals for them should come before the planning committee and be considered like anything else. If there is good reason for them, they will be granted planning permission. Such proposals would also require environmental impact assessments and probably traffic impact assessments, because, given the size of some mezzanine floors, the doubling of a floor space could easily lead to a significant increase in traffic to a certain store.

If the new clause were accepted, all that would be considered. The new clause does not mean, ''No mezzanine floors,'' but, ''Let us have mezzanine floors only where they have gone through the planning process.''

I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the clause, which is of interest to my constituents as one of the stores is in my constituency. It has now been built, and is open and operating. I speak from first-hand experience, as I had a tour round it with the manager only a few weeks ago to examine the situation. There are significant benefits to Asda being in my constituency; for example, it tries to enable people without transport to get to the store by putting on free community buses. I should declare an interest, in that Asda occasionally offers me space to conduct my surgeries in the store.

There are problems, however, which the hon. Gentleman rightly identified. What was initially a major and very large food retail outlet with some non-food goods has almost become a food store and a mini department store in the same building. It is a massive development. The mezzanine floor stretches virtually the entire length of the original store. It has almost doubled the capacity, and has changed the nature of the store as well as the amount of floor space.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly mentioned the highway implications. There have been significant traffic problems from the very beginning when the store first opened in the mid-1990s, which have been of real concern to the people who live closest to the store,

and to others simply trying to get home in the evening. The back-up created by people queuing to get into the store and people trying to get out of it caused significant traffic problems even before the new development took place. Imagine the repercussions since the mezzanine floor was constructed. Traffic is considerably heavier, yet there has been no analysis or plan to deal with it, because there has been no requirement for the store to sit down with the highways authority and the planning authority to work out these problems, because there is no need for planning permission.

The planning permission system is now changing the way in which cars can enter the store. There is slip road off the Sheffield Parkway, which itself has significant environmental consequences for constituents of mine who live nearest to the store. Again, that slip road was an afterthought, rather than an integral part of the plan to build extra floor space.

I am not saying that the mezzanine floor should not have been developed and that the store is not a good facility for the many people who want to shop there, or that Asda does not try to respond to community issues. As a fundamental principle, however, there should be a requirement for such a development to go through the planning process before it takes place. The local community should have a right to have its views taken into account, and the local planning authority should be able to take a decision about whether such a large expansion of floor space is appropriate. As I understand it, existing planning law does not allow that to happen. It is clearly the view of the planning office in Sheffield that it had no right to intervene. I do not know whether the new clause is technically the right way to go about making that requirement, but something must be done to ensure that such expansions go through the planning process.

I will not repeat the remarks made by the hon. Members for Ludlow and for Sheffield, Attercliffe about my new clause, because proposed new subsections (1) and (3)(a) and (b) aim to achieve the same objective as the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, and because he drew on the brief submitted by Friends of the Earth, which I had intended to use. It will expedite proceedings if I do not go over that brief again. The only reason why I tabled a new clause in a different form was because I did not understand the one with which Friends of the Earth had supplied us.

I did, however, want to add something to it. I wholly concur that there is nothing wrong with mezzanine floors, but they do significantly affect the flow of both traffic and people around towns. I have added, in my proposed new section 57A (2), a requirement for an entitlement for the local authority to make the grant of an application subject to

''all or a proportion of the additional area—'' perhaps it is inconceivable that it would be all of it—

''being devoted to the sale of local produce'', and subsection (3)(c) would allow the local authority to define what it meant by local produce.

I specified that because local farmers in particular, but other producers as well, find it difficult to acquire outlets. Although many supermarkets have, at least in theory, a commitment to the sale of local produce, the local produce that they sell is often mixed up with other produce from elsewhere in England or the world. Sometimes, it is difficult to tell whether the produce that is on sale as such is, in fact, local produce. It is fair for the local authority to take account of that, for the economic benefit and regeneration of the area.

I shall give two examples. Sainsbury's is very kind to me. It allows me to hold my surgery in its entrance, and is helpful at several different times of year. On one occasion when I visited the Sainsbury's supermarket in my constituency, I found a row of shelves that claimed to be devoted to local produce. Although there were some local products on other shelves, such as cider from Godshill and wine from Rosemary vineyard, the only other example on those shelves full of goods that were claimed to be local produce—apart from one pack of biscuits, which were definitely made on the island—was fudge with a postcard of Newport town centre on the outside. When I examined it, I discovered that it was made in Torquay: most people on the Isle of Wight do not consider that to be local.

I have permitted local authorities to set their own definitions because although in my constituency nothing is not local if it does not happen on the island, I am sure that there are constituencies in which something is regarded as local if it comes from within 30 or 40 miles. The definition that has been adopted by the farmers market movement is 30 miles—but places 30 miles from parts of my constituency are not local at all.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning farmers markets. Farmers markets have to get approval from the local council—but putting in 33,000 sq ft of mezzanine floor does not.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too wide of the discussion.

I hope that I shall not be out of order if I say that the hon. Gentleman would be right if he were talking about any development that was not within one of those stores. There is an imbalance between a development outwith one of the stores that happens to have room for a mezzanine floor, and one within. I should like to hear the Minister's response to the point about local produce, because that issue is of great interest not only to farmers but to consumers. If I say that on the ''Today'' programme of 15 October it was revealed that farmers are now getting 10p a pint for milk, but the Co-op charges 38p a pint, it will be evident to the Minister that there is room for members of the public to obtain their supplies at considerably less cost if the outlets are available. I would have no objection to the bigger stores, in particular, being obliged to provide such outlets.

I am attracted to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, and to most of the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the

Member for Isle of Wight. Will the hon. Member for Ludlow confirm that he would exclude any increase in floor area of less than 10 per cent?

I can confirm that. The provision would affect only increases in retail floor area of more than 10 per cent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight talks in terms of 25 per cent. I do not suggest that 17.5 per cent. is a happy compromise, but I stress that there must be an exclusion for a relatively minor increase in floor size.

Secondly, I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight about introducing the subsection relating to local produce. My reasons are almost the same as he has given in its favour: I have looked at some of the supposed local produce at the farmers market not far from where I live, which has to obtain permission from the local authority to take place every Friday morning. Local produce? Frozen chickens might have come from 3 miles down the road, but I very much doubt it. My serious point is that it would be impossible for a local authority to police such a condition if it were incorporated in the new clause.

I shall address first the issue of local produce, which is raised in new clause 33, and then the broader points that have been made about mezzanine floors. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight seems to be proposing that a form of protectionism be built into the planning laws—one can imagine the trade barriers looming as one approaches the Isle of Wight across the water. I understand his enthusiasm for local produce, but that would build into planning law proposals that would fundamentally undermine the single market and the concept of a free market in traded goods. I know that the Conservative party has shifted its position on a number of issues, but for it to ditch its keenness for the market in favour of a form of protectionism would be an interesting development.

If retailers want to support local producers they can do so, and there may be good reasons for that. To specify in planning law that there should be restrictions that support the produce from particular areas would be to undermine the single market in traded goods; it would create systems in planning legislation that made it impossible to provide alternative goods from elsewhere in a single market in the affected shops or mezzanines. It is hard to tell how we might justify that, given the impact that the single market has had on improved competition and economic growth.

Implicit in some of the things that the hon. Gentleman said was a concern about competition and big supermarkets. Those concerns are probably best addressed in debates about competition and fair trading—that is a better forum for such matters than planning legislation and, as he will know, the Office of

Fair Trading has considered those issues with regard to major retailers. Therefore, I strongly resist the proposals in new clause 33 concerning local produce.

On the broader issue of mezzanine development, I understand the concerns raised by hon. Members. It is possible for local planning authorities to control the addition of mezzanine floors. When planning permission specifies a maximum floor space, any proposal to increase that amount materially, regardless of whether the original has already been built, will require permission. To make it clear: if the original planning permission specifies a maximum floor space, putting in a mezzanine floor that would substantially increase that floor space will require planning permission.

A recent case was reported in Planning magazine on 3 October. An Asda mezzanine in Staffordshire gained a lawful development certificate despite the existence of a condition on the outline permission restricting the retail floor space of the building. The inspector concluded that

''had the intention been to preclude any internal works then the condition should have said so directly so that it would be clear to future occupiers that planning permission would be required for such works.''

The inspector said that, since the wording did not make that clear, it would be ''unreasonable'' to interpret the condition in the manner sought by the council. Clearly, the council sought that interpretation and failed.

I am aware of that case. I cannot comment on it because it is within the period of statutory challenge so it would still be possible for a case to be made challenging the decision. I can, however, clearly set out our interpretation of the legal position and the powers available to local planning authorities. If I am given a moment to clarify things, I may be able to say something more to reassure the hon. Gentleman on his original concerns.

Local planning authorities can control development when the planning permission specifies a maximum floor space. When there is a limit and a mezzanine floor is built without permission, the local planning authority could take enforcement action. When there is no limit in the original planning consent, the local authority could seek to modify the original consent, although that could involve compensation.

We understand that most retail planning permissions—certainly most major retail planning permissions—specify the maximum floor space. I want to consider further what proportion of cases do not have a maximum floor space specified in the planning permission, and therefore whether the matter is likely to be a serious concern in relation to cases in which there are not maximum floor space restrictions.

I hear what the Minister says about investigating which categories of planning permission involve provisions limiting floor space that can be enforced. I suspect that the older, in-town supermarkets will have no maximum specified. When

the more modern, out-of-town supermarkets were being built, people had become a bit more sophisticated, and limits were imposed. However, in some of our bigger inner cities the traffic impact is likely to be greater and less controllable.

I hear the hon. Gentleman's point. I simply do not know whether that is the case, but it is one of the issues that I want to consider further. I am also keen to consider whether there is a need to clarify the position so that everyone is clearly aware of our interpretation of the powers that planning authorities have in this area and of the need to get planning permission for a mezzanine floor when planning permission specifies a maximum floor space.

The Government are clearly of the view that if a maximum floor space is specified within the planning permission, and if someone wants to build a mezzanine floor, planning permission will be required. On those grounds, I urge that the new clause be withdrawn.

I am not convinced by the Minister's arguments that the law does not need tightening up and that this is a case of interpretation. Certainly, there are insufficient safeguards with many stores that were built without any conditions being attached. There is a danger that unless prompt action is taken, stores will rapidly get their mezzanine floors before any steps can be taken to put in new controls that might prevent them.

I am disappointed that the Minister does not think that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for strengthening the law. This would be a timely way of ensuring that we act before advantage is taken of that loophole. Let us bear in mind that this had not come up as an issue 12 months ago, and a number of stores have now had mezzanines put in. We can foresee that in another 12 months that will have happened in many other stores throughout the country. We do not have time to deliberate on the matter.

I might be inclined to press the new clause to a vote, but I do not think that we have the numbers. As usual, we can do the maths in Committee. None the less, we would like something stronger from the Minister before Report, because we may have to return to the matter; if it is not dealt with promptly, we will not be able to solve the problem at all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.