Amendments made: No. 5, in

clause 40, page 23, line 34, leave out from 'the' to 'of' in line 35 and insert

'principal Act after section 61D (effect of revision or revocation of development order on incomplete development) (inserted by section [Effect of revision or revocation of development order on incomplete development]'.

No. 6, in

clause 40, page 23, line 38, leave out '61D' and insert '61E'.—[Keith Hill.]

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in

clause 40, page 24, line 14, leave out from 'of' to end of line 15 and insert

'—

(a) the period of three years starting on the day the local planning authority issue the statement of development principles, or

(b) such other period starting on that day as that authority direct.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 205, in

clause 40, page 24, line 16, leave out subsection (5).

Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

I understand that in an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Cotswold put forward an amendment to clause 40. He sought to delete subsection (6) of proposed new section 61D, which states:

''If a statement of development principles is issued outline planning permission (within the meaning of section 92) must not be granted for a similar development before the end of the relevant period.''

That period is before three weeks, or such other period as the local planning authority directs.

Subsection (6) was originally intended to avoid overcomplicating the planning process by preventing the situation whereby a developer can seek a statement of development principles that is followed by outline planning permission, which is then followed by an application for approval of reserved matters. However, as my predecessor on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said previously, we see merit in the earlier amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold.

I am aware that subsection (6) has proved unpopular. I and previous planning Ministers have received a number of representations suggesting that the provision could be used as a spoiling tactic by competitors who wish to prevent a developer from seeking outline planning permission. There have been arguments that it might be useful for a developer to hold both a statement and outline planning permission, particularly if the statement was sought at a very early stage. It has also been suggested that no one would ever apply for a statement if it prevented

people from subsequently applying for outline planning permission.

We have listened to the arguments and found them persuasive. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be able to accept amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are technical amendments brought forward as a result of amendment No. 8. The amendments do not change any of the Bill's provisions, but simply tidy up the drafting of the clause. Subsection (6), the provision which is to be removed, refers to ''the relevant period''. Following its removal, amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are needed to delete the notion of a ''relevant period'' from the remainder of the clause and instead make the durational provisions a part of new subsection (4).

I now turn to the non-Government amendments. May I pause for a second there, Mr. Hurst, to confirm that I am in order in continuing to speak to amendment No. 205?

The Minister should reply to it if the hon. Member who tabled it mentions it during the debate.

I welcome the inclusion of Government amendments Nos. 7 to 9. There were clearly significant problems, which were highlighted by Opposition Members and Government Back Benchers in the first Committee, with the abolition of outline planning permission. The Minister has listed a number of the problems, and I welcome the amendments.

Amendment No. 205 has been tabled by Conservative Members, and I shall be happy to listen to their arguments. I should like to ask you, Mr. Hurst, whether there is likely to be a clause stand part debate or whether I can use this group of amendments as a suitable vehicle to discuss the statement of development principles.

The hon. Gentleman would be wise to keep to the amendments. I shall make a decision during the course of the debate as to whether it will be appropriate to have a clause stand part debate.

I thank you for that clarification, Mr. Hurst.

Having dealt with one problem, the Government have got themselves into another with their amendments. The problem concerns the relevant status of outline planning permission and the statement of development principles. Let me give an example, which will not be hypothetical. A member of the public seeks to purchase a house. The investment is substantial and they want to make sure that the surrounding area will remain greenfield. New section 61D(1) states that

''A local planning authority must issue a statement of development principles in relation to a proposed development in their area if they are requested to do so by any person.''

The person does not have to have an interest in the piece of land in question. Somebody who is about to purchase a house could ask for a statement of development principles on the adjoining land. They could say, ''I want to know whether it is possible to build a factory or houses on that land.'' They could receive a statement of development principles from the council that stated, ''Houses will not be permitted

because this is greenfield.'' That would be a possible outcome of a statement of development principles.

The person purchases the house in those circumstances. Now outline planning permissions are back, the statement of development principles will presumably have been issued by the officers of the council. It will not have come from the committee because it is a statement of principles rather than a planning decision. A few months after the person has bought the house, the adjoining field is put up for housing and outline permission is sought. That would be contrary to the local development document, but there could be good reasons for that. Perhaps the planning committee decided to overrule their planning officers—it happens—and granted permission. To all intents and purposes, the statement of development principles, which was issued only a few months before, would be utterly worthless.

Somebody could make a major financial investment in an adjoining property on the grounds that the council has just issued them with a statement of development principles. That is why I ask about the status of statements of development principles and outline planning permissions or, indeed, full planning permissions. Although we know that the statement of development principles is a material consideration in a planning permission—it is not a material consideration in an outline planning permission, although the Government may want to introduce that by amending the Bill—it is only a material consideration. Of course, there are many other material considerations.

I urged that our debate on clause 40 was brought forward because of this genuine worry. The Government have done the right thing in allowing outline planning permission for exactly the reasons that the Minister gave. However, in doing so, they created additional problems that have not yet been thought through to ensure that the system works.

I understand what the Government are trying to achieve with statements of development principles, but they could be worthless—people just will not bother to apply for them—or, perhaps worse than that, they could be misleading. The Government may envisage the statements generally being sought by land developers, but I believe that people with an interest in adjoining land will be the major users. They will see a statement of development principles as a means of getting a statement about the piece of land next to them. On the basis of that they may make financial investments, borrow against it or extend their mortgage on a property.

All of that could be affected, because the statement of development principles is not a strong document. It does not say, ''and all planning permissions will follow in line''. Someone is fairly certain to get planning permission if they follow the conditions in an outline planning permission, which is stronger. Hence, a reason that the Minister did not give for the restoration of outline planning permission is that there are many developers whose land values are based on existing outline planning permissions. They have borrowings against them. If such permissions were, to all intents and purposes, abolished overnight, many

developers would suddenly discover that they were close to insolvency. That was another concern that was raised about the removal of outline planning permission.

The Minister has done exactly the right thing, but he has left a hole. I hope that he can find a way of closing it. The simplest way—not necessarily the way forward—would be to remove the whole clause. If there were no statements of development principles, there would still be outline planning permission, and the system would work. That is the Government's fall-back position. The system would still work if clause 40 were removed.

There is good intent behind the statement of development principles, but there must be a strong clarification of its status and how it relates to outline planning permission, planning permission and local development documents. A statement could be issued on a piece of land and then a revision, which, I hope, would now happen much more quickly, could be made of a local development document. If the local development document related to the piece of land, it would instantly change. At present, that can happen with a local plan, but it could take two and a half years or more—and that is quick for changing a local plan—during which period the person would have plenty of time to get involved.

I foresee that local development documents will move faster than that. The council could issue a statement of development principles and then begin the revision process on a local development document a month later. A year later, everything will have changed and the value of the property will have been materially affected.

We accept that changes in the planning system can materially affect the value of properties. The concern is that statements of development principles will give people a false sense of certainty. The relative merits of the different components of the system must be made clear.

Order. It is my intention to allow a short break from our deliberations. Accordingly, I suspend the Committee until 5.20 pm.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

The Opposition have received many representations on this matter. It might be worth recording what clause 40 is intended to do. The Government's explanatory memorandum states:

''Clause 40 introduces a new procedure for any person wishing to obtain an indication from a local planning authority as to whether a proposed development would be acceptable in principle. On application, an authority will be required to issue a statement of development principles which will indicate whether or not the authority agree with the principle of all or part of the proposed development. The statement will not be a consent''—

I stress that—but, as the hon. Member for Ludlow made clear,

''its existence will be a material consideration for the purpose of determining a future planning application for similar development.''

While considering clause 40, we would have liked to consider my amendment No. 206. It relates to schedule 3, which abolishes section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which relates to outline planning permission. Schedule 6 also removes section 92 from the principal Act.

Having considered the matter, we would like clause 40 to be abolished altogether. We do not see the merits of the statement of development principles. We cannot see that it speeds up the present system or makes it more transparent, and we have had many representations in relation to that. However, having had our original amendment to abolish subsection (6) graciously accepted—that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and I co-signed Government amendment No. 8; it has been a long time coming, but we won this small concession from the Government, for which I am grateful—it would be helpful to hear from the Minister about the Government's proposals in relation to abolishing outline planning permission.

I shall respond to that invitation. I am aware of the anxieties of developers and house builders about statements of development principles and outline planning permissions. I know that developers see the latter as—I think the phrase has already been used—the bankable asset in the process. I am continuing to consider these matters.

I am not sure that that gets us very far. Developers will still believe that it is in the Government's mind to abolish outline planning permission. Outline planning permission has been available since 1950. It allows the planning authority to give a decision in principle and to reserve details for approval subsequently. Outline planning permission can be granted only for the erection of a building. Reserved matters include the site, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping.

We have been told of a problem by a huge range of people. The statement of development principles is not a bankable asset. There is no certainty about it and one cannot raise finance on it. Let us consider a large-scale development: perhaps one of the supermarket chains wants to build a supermarket. It will go along to the landowner and say that it would like to do that. Under the old system, the local authority would grant outline planning permission, which would have a duration of five years. The supermarket would then be able to go away and get funding on the basis of that outline planning permission. The statement of development principles will not provide people with that certainty. Therefore, far from speeding up the system, the statement of development principles will slow it down and make matters more difficult, particularly in terms of regeneration.

We have received representations stating that, where it is necessary to accumulate large blocks of property to carry out urban regeneration, developers have already been through the compulsory purchase procedure that is in the Bill, and that that can sometimes take three years on its own. The developer then has to sort out whether he needs to

renew the consent. Permission is not straightforward or cheap, and a great deal of investment, in terms of time and money, is required to obtain it.

I am grateful that the Government have had a change of heart and deleted the ''lockout'' in subsection (6). It will be possible, if a statement of development principles has been issued, to obtain an outline planning permission for the time being. Those developers that have not got that far, however, will never know whether the Government will announce the abolition of the outline planning permission. In a way, the Government's lack of clarity makes the situation even more difficult.

I discussed another aspect of the statement of development principles with the planning officer in Wandsworth. Bearing in mind the fact that anyone can apply for a planning application on any piece of land, a number of people will visit the local planning authority to obtain a statement of development principles in order to freeze a particular piece of land and stop its future development. They know that the current council will not allow development on it, that it will produce the statement of development principles to that effect, and that no one will be able to apply for another statement or an outline planning permission for at least two years, under subsection (5). We tabled amendment No. 205, which would delete subsection (5), so that there would not be the lockout period of two years. It makes eminent sense, and I plead with with the Minister that, as well as deleting subsection (6), we should delete subsection (5).

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a double danger? First, people will seek a statement of development principles to block development. Secondly, given that outline planning permission has been reinstated, anybody could obtain an outline that would overrule a statement of development principles. They would have laboured under the false sense of certainty that there would be no development. The provision is in danger of working both ways.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. His scenario is a very real possibility.

I want to tease out why the Government have introduced the statement of development principles at all. The only reason I can think of is that there are a number of extant outline planning permissions on which development is not taking place.

We will discuss clause 46 and the duration of consent, but, if the Government are determined to reduce the period of consent for all planning permissions—not only outline permissions—from three to five years, they will prod a lot of people into putting more energy into developing sites. What, however, needs remedying? How many extant outline planning permissions are there; how far are they responsible for slowing down the planning system; and how will the introduction of the statement of development principles speed up the system?

By deleting subsection (6) and retaining outline planning permission with the statement of development principles, we have one eighth of a loaf. There is great concern among practitioners,

developers, retailers and wholesalers that the statement of development principles is not the answer. It will slow down the system and make it more difficult for them to develop difficult city centre sites. I have a particular worry over regeneration and assembling land with compulsory purchase when the compulsory purchase procedure is going to take a long time, and the poor developer, having got his outline planning permission, is then going to run up against time. Will he apply for another outline planning permission, or for a detailed planning permission? The uncertainty of the present situation will make things very difficult for such developers.

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and to the Committee for not having heard his first few words on the amendment, but I find the arguments against the statement of development principles not entirely convincing. I am interested in what the hon. Member for Ludlow has to say. There should be a clear understanding, on purchases of land, that simply making a statement of development principles, issued on the land that surrounds it and protects the view, is worthless. The hon. Gentleman used the word ''worthless'', and let us be absolutely clear that it is indeed worthless so that no one reading this debate, as I am sure many future prospective purchasers of houses will do, reads the first part of his remarks and thinks, ''Gosh, what a jolly good wheeze'' and does not notice that it is worthless for the purposes that he described.

When I served as a councillor, what the Government call a statement of development principles was known as a planning brief. It was drawn up by the local authority on a piece of land or small area, and set out the sort of considerations that it would have in mind should an application for that land come forward. The initiative could then be taken by a developer, who had perhaps had discussions with the planning officers behind closed doors. That was a way of bringing out into the open the element of those discussions that was of interest to local people, without disclosing what might be confidential. It had the great merit that local people did not feel that those matters were being dealt with behind closed doors, where a deal was being signed between developers and planning officers that the local people were out of until, bang, there was an outline application, or even a more detailed one.

Such matters were dealt with by planning committees or sometimes by the whole council—and we still did not meet for more than two half days a week. A planning brief, as we called it, would be issued that said that the council was thinking about a certain level of extra traffic, a certain sort of massing, a certain sort of landscaping, perhaps a three-storey building being reduced to two storeys where it abutted an existing listed building, and such and such a provision for car parking—car parking was quite popular with planners in those days. That gave a good picture for the planning committee to discuss. There might be consideration of transport access, bicycle parking, or footpaths and pedestrian access.

What happens in local authorities that do not have a development brief system? I shall tell the Committee, because mine is one. Suddenly an application pops up. It is discussed by the planners and the developer behind closed doors and the local residents are faced with a detailed planning application. I shall give an example: the Whippingham trailer park. My constituency needs a place where trailers—the back ends of articulated lorries—can be held preparatory to putting them on to ferries. A lorry cannot drive straight on to a ferry if it is not there; there must be a holding place. Both Wightlink and Red Funnel have great difficulty finding sufficient capacity at the ferry terminals in Fishbourne and East Cowes respectively for such trailer parking, because they are in the middle of towns. For a long time, there has been a need for a trailer park—a need that is recognised by the transport portfolio holder on my local authority, the transportation officers and the planning department. The only place it is not recognised is the unitary development plan. Somehow, the local authority managed to develop a unitary development plan without deciding where the trailer park would be. It was left entirely to private enterprise, to which I have no objection, to take the initiative and find a site. Presumably it has bought an option on the site.

We will bang in an application for that, which will be determined in six weeks, in accordance with Government guidelines. It is a detailed application. However, there has been no public consultation, and there will be none until the application is submitted. Consequently, members of the public have not had the opportunity to have their say about the level of lighting; the quality of the landscaping; whether access should be from a road called Racecourse road or from East Cowes road; or the additional traffic that will be brought into Wootton because Wootton village is between the proposed Whippingham trailer park and Fishbourne. Those issues must now be dealt with in the application. One must have good reasons to reject an application, but not to amend a planning brief.

All major applications of that sort would benefit from planning briefs. I accept that the Government do not propose that, but it would greatly enhance public participation in the planning process if the public could express their views on what would or would not be acceptable on a site before the formality of an application intrudes.

When those proposals are submitted, the owner, or whoever is making the application for Whippingham trailer park, will go through a statement of development principles. Under the Government's comprehensive performance assessment targets, 90 per cent. of all applications will be delegated to officers—almost all statements of development principles are likely to be delegated to officers—who will then issue a statement of development principles without consulting their committees. Once they have issued those statements of development principles, with no public consultation, the committee will have great difficulty

in turning down a full application because a statement of development principles is a material consideration.

I accept that entirely. That is why I had hoped that the officers, and the members, would not be so foolish as to delegate such sensitive requests to officers. As I understand it—the Minister is nodding; I have been told that it is useful to mention it if the Minister is nodding—it is wise that sensitive requests should not be dealt with by officers behind closed doors, but by the committee, with a full public consultation in advance.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware from what I said that I do not completely oppose the concept of statements of development principles. He has done the Committee a service by outlining a way in which they could work well, although I must say that his outline is not what the Government have envisaged. He may have given them a way to introduce statements of development principles, which would work in the way that he described without the worry of whether they have any value, as I described. He may well have provided the Government and their advisers with a route forward in that difficult area.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Minister was nodding so enthusiastically that I took it to be a commitment to introduce the necessary amendments on Report. He is not nodding now.

I shall never nod again.

None the less, I genuinely hope that the Minister will take that point. I had not read the clause in sufficient detail to know whether what I am saying is in line with it; that is for other Members to interpret. I hope that these statements will be encouraged and that when they are requested, their consideration will be public business. I am interested in the fact that any person can seek a statement of development principles. I am sure that we shall have interesting applications in future.

Yet again, the Committee has seen the fruits of the 18 years that the hon. Gentleman spent on Oxford city council. I was genuinely interested in his reference to a planning brief. However, I am a nodder by nature—I am an empathiser. While I caution him not to read too much into my body language, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has got it right.

We have seen in the proposal for statements of development principles benefits both for the community, in the sense that he described, and for the developer. Let me immediately offer him this reassurance and attempt to add a little more precision to it. We expect there to be the same amount of public involvement in the drawing up of statements of development principles as there is for planning applications. Indeed, requirements are set out in the draft for the part 4 regulations under the Bill. They lie in paragraph 43, which I shall quote:

''A local planning authority must carry out the same consultation and publicity as it would for an application for planning permission.''

That is so that its decision in respect of the statement of development principles is informed in the same way

as any subsequent application for planning permission.

A local planning authority must take into account any representations received—it is intended that there should be involvement and transparency in those matters. As well as benefits for the community, we have also seen in the proposals benefits for the developer. The clause is intended to allow potential developers to ascertain the acceptability of the principle of a proposed development on a particular site without requiring the local planning authority to examine the detail. Its purpose is similar to outline planning permission, but it does not grant the applicant any consent to do the works. It is about half way between an officer's informed view and an outline planning permission. It offers advantages over outline planning permission, where issues such as quality and design are not always considered effectively, and where there have been concerns about approval being given before an environmental impact assessment has been carried out.

It is our intention that the new procedure will at first supplement, and might eventually replace, outline planning permission. As we have always said, we will not abolish outline planning permission until we are sure that statements of development principles are successful. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the Committee.

The hon. Member for Ludlow asked about the status of a statement of development principles and possible subsequent outline planning permission. Let me try to explain. A local planning authority must, when considering an application for a statement of development principles or an outline planning permission, have regard to the development plan set out in new section 61D(2). A statement of development principles in respect of the same site would be a material consideration for a subsequent application for outline planning permission. Draft guidance explaining that further has been issued this month. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

I am still somewhat concerned about the status of the statement of development principles. Let me put it another way. Let us suppose that a developer were to obtain a statement of development principles, but then went for, but was refused, outline planning permission for something similar to the originally proposed project. Let us say that the officer dealt with the developer the first time, but that the committee then refused the outline planning permission, perhaps against the advice of the officer. Would there then be grounds for an appeal against the committee's decision, because there was a material consideration involved? Does the statement have weight in that sense, even if it does not have any legal weight in the sense that outline planning does in financial terms?

The hon. Gentleman asks the precise question: does the statement have weight in that sense? The answer is that it does. Outline planning permission is a planning permission, so a statement of development principles will be a material consideration for outline planning applications.

I have attempted twice to clarify the issue. I am not sure that I can say much more than what I have said, but I have at least attempted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's questions.

It would be helpful to those listening to our debates or reading the proceedings if the Minister said why he needed to introduce the new concept. He has said that the proposals will lead to a halfway house between the officer's informal view and outline planning permission. What is the advantage of the new system, and what is the problem with the existing system?

The hon. Gentleman has heard my explanation and the interesting views of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. The proposals will give the developer the benefit of exploring the possibilities of a development and understanding what conditions there may be, yet without having to work through the mass of detail and make the huge investment that an application for planning permission normally requires. The provisions will help to rationalise the process and make it more cost-efficient. They will open up the prospect of an engagement on all sides. That way, the planners, the planning committee and the would-be developer can understand what might be required without the massive investment in time, space and finance needed to work up a complete project. That is the argument.

I have previously asked the Minister about a developer, and he confirmed that the developer going to an appeal would be a consideration if the application was subsequently turned out. To return to the situation that I described earlier, if an adjoining landowner or householder seeks and obtains a statement of development principles from the officer that a field will stay green field, but a month later the planning committee grants an outline or full planning permission to somebody on that land—again, perhaps against the advice of the officers—could the adjoining landowners seek judicial review, given that the Minister is not minded to favour limited third-party right of appeal? I want the system to succeed, but such cases could discredit it.

Again, let me attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman by reminding him that all such developments will occur in the context of the local development framework, which we debated at considerable length in relation to new clause 49. All proposals and designations will be subject to exactly the sort of detailed process of community involvement and pre-application discussions that we have talked about already. To be frank, I find the scenario depicted by the hon. Member for Ludlow of an application out of the blue and a sudden, unexpected granting of that application improbable against the backdrop of what we have debated and what we are seeking to set in place. All I can do is repeat for the third time that the statement of development principle will be a material consideration in relation to any application.

I will now go on to deal with amendment No. 205, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold. Amendment No. 205 would prevent a local planning authority from declining to issue a statement where it had issued a statement disagreeing with the principle of all or part of a similar development within the previous two years.

I can understand the concern that an authority might decline to issue a statement even where a potential developer has changed some factors of a proposed development in order to address concerns raised by the local planning authority in the first statement. However, it would be illogical to require an authority to deal with repeated requests for statements of development principles when, elsewhere in the Bill, we are proposing to provide them with the power to decline to determine repeated requests for planning permission.

If an authority issues a statement disagreeing with all or part of the proposed development it will need to include in the statement its reasons why the development is unacceptable. If a developer subsequently amends his or her proposals in order to meet these concerns, it would be unreasonable for the local planning authority to argue that the development was substantially the same and therefore decline to issue a statement.

By now, the Committee will have seen the secondary legislation package which accompanies part 4, which we issued for consultation on 13 October. That includes draft guidance on this point. It makes it clear that, where a potential developer has amended the proposed development in order to meet concerns raised by the local planning authority in the first statement, a local planning authority should not decline to issue a statement of development principles.

For that reason, which I hope reassures the hon. Member for Cotswold—who is nodding and one must always make it clear when a member of the Committee is nodding—I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

I have to say yes—the Minister's assurance is very helpful. It clarifies subsection (5). I want one other greater clarification from the Minister. I am sorry to labour the point, but when we have dealt with it we can move on. The Minister says that it is his intention to abolish outline planning permission at some stage, or at least that is my understanding given what he has said. Would he explain to the Committee how he will consult before taking that decision so that those using the planning system know at what point outline planning permission is likely to be abolished?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a proper consultation before any such move is made, but let me say in the meantime that we intend to run the systems side by side, and it will be only when we are satisfied that the statement of relevant principles is a sustainable arrangement that we shall move over to that system. Let me also reiterate for the sake of clarity that I am aware of the

representations and concerns that are being expressed on those matters, and I continue to take them into consideration.

We have had an extremely useful debate. The Minister's explanations have been very helpful. We will study his words with care. Under those circumstances, if I need to, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman is right: he does not need to withdraw his amendment if it has not been moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 8, in

clause 40, page 24, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.

No. 9, in

clause 40, page 24, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.—[Keith Hill.]

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.