I beg to move amendment No. 17, in

clause 46, page 34, line 22, leave out first 'In'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 18 to 22.

Amendment No. 19 provides that where planning permission is granted and subsequently challenged in a court of law, the duration of the permission or consent will be from the date of grant until three years, or another period as directed by the determining authority, after completion of the legal proceedings. It might be helpful if I explain that in more detail.

A decision to grant planning permission, taken by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State on appeal, can be challenged in the courts. It has been suggested to us that there has been a significant rise in the number of such challenges in recent years by objectors and competitors, whose aim appears to be to delay the start of a development, or even to prevent it entirely, by running it out of time. Where a grant of planning permission is challenged, it is likely to be imprudent for the prospective developer to commence his development until the challenge has been disposed of. However, that clearly presents a potential problem, because the clause reduces the period of validity of a consent, generally from five years to three years.

Furthermore, the clause also prevents the renewal of planning permissions. We recognise that there may be cases in which the combined effect of these factors could unreasonably jeopardise a development. Where a decision to grant planning permission is

subsequently upheld by the court, it is right that the developer should be given the necessary time to implement that permission. Amendment No. 19 therefore provides for the period of consent to start again after the completion of any legal proceedings.

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are technical amendments, which are necessary as a consequence of amendment No. 19. They simply allow the provisions that I have just set out to be incorporated into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—the principal Act.

Amendment No. 22 provides that where listed buildings consent or conservation area consent is granted and subsequently challenged in a court of law, the duration of the consent will be from the date of grant until three years, or for another period as directed by the determining authority, after the completion of the legal proceedings. The amendment applies the same provisions to listed buildings consent and conservation area consent as amendment No. 19 applies in respect of planning permission, and is being introduced for the same reasons.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are technical amendments, which are necessary as a consequence of amendment No. 22. They simply allow the provisions in that amendment to be incorporated into the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The Opposition warmly welcome the amendments, as the Minister can see from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and I co-signed them. They are a very useful clarification of the system. However, the same sort of argument applies to conditions. If a planning permission is granted with conditions, it can often take up to three years to fulfil them, particularly if a complex compulsory purchase is involved. The developer then runs up against the time scale. I wonder whether, under such circumstances, the extension could be extended from, for example, the date of fulfilling a particular condition if a statutory procedure, such as compulsory purchase, were involved.

I have to confess to the hon. Gentleman that that is a new one on me. Without making a commitment, I will reflect on his observations.

That would be helpful. I did not dream the issue up out of the blue; we have received serious representations from practitioners and developers about it. The Minister must have inspiration.

Inspiration has yet again winged its way to me. I can assist the hon. Gentleman without having to reflect on his observations. I draw the attention of the Committee to the draft guidance on the part 4 regulations. In paragraph 92, entitled ''Variation from standard time limits'', it says:

''Where particularly complex development is due to take place, for example major regeneration projects, three years is unlikely to be long enough to allow developers to complete all the preparation needed before starting work. In such cases applicants should seek to agree with local planning authorities that any permission or consent

granted should be subject to a longer time limit. Applicants are advised to discuss with local planning authorities at the earliest possible stage what time limits would be appropriate. Local planning authorities should look favourably upon requests for longer periods of duration where there are valid planning grounds for such a request.''

I am aware that that is a rather long intervention, Mr. Hurst.

Order. The Minister is making the speech.

Forgive me, Mr. Hurst. I had leapt to my feet, and I was imagining—it is getting late, and we have been here a long time.

For the record, I was for a moment unsure as to the precise nature of the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold. I would like to set the record straight in case an interested party should read the record of the proceedings. The point was not new to me; it is very important.

We are aware of the concern about the three-year limit in the Bill. We set it for good reasons. As the Committee is aware, there are suspicions that once permission has been granted, developers will sit on a development without taking action for an excessively long time, for a variety of reasons. That causes difficulties for other potential developments in the area, and for the general plans and purposes of local planning authorities. We think that those suspicions are right, and in introducing the time limit we are responding to the planning profession.

We know that there will be a number of circumstances—particularly those involving large-scale regeneration and large-scale housing developments, which require complex negotiation across a raft of issues—in which three years will be an unrealistic time scale. In such circumstances, as the guidance states, we would be open to an extension of that period. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

It certainly offers considerable assistance. As always, the Minister has been very helpful. I wonder if he could be a little more specific about the circumstances under which the local authority would be expected to extend the timetable; otherwise, in practice, developers—particularly large-scale developers—would worry about not having their planning consent extended or even renewed. They would make a material start on the development, and it would lie idle while a dispute went on between the local authority and the developer, negating the benefits of the clause. If the Minister could be a little more specific, that would be helpful.

I will not go down the familiar route of ''whatifery''. I am not sure that it would be helpful if I identified specific circumstances or cases. Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the purposes of the guidance. I say again:

''Applicants are advised to discuss with local planning authorities at the earliest possible stage what time limits would be appropriate.''

We also say:

''Local planning authorities should look favourably upon requests for longer periods of duration where there are valid planning grounds for such a request.''

We cannot say fairer, nor be clearer, than that.

I warmly welcome the Government amendments, which deal with a particular concern relating to the reduction of planning consents from five to three years. In general terms, we support that reduction. For exactly the reasons that the Minister has outlined, there have been some problems with planning consents.

It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the reason that amendments have been tabled is that local planning authorities have not been using the powers that are currently available to them. At the moment, they can make planning permission less than or more than five years if they want to. The only problem is that the legislation gives five years as an indication. It is almost routine for local authorities to stick five years on every single application that comes forward. The concern that arose when most people read about the reduction was that where everything had got five years, everything would now get three years.

The legislative change is correct, but the Minister needs to do a strong selling job to local authorities to make it clear to them that they can still vary the period in both directions—from less than three years to more than three years. He has already set out the circumstances in which more than three years would be suitable. The great danger is that many planning authorities will just substitute three for five and not sufficiently follow the guidance. We need an extra strong effort to make sure that the message gets through that the duration should be suitable to the type of application.

The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. Section 91 of the principal Act states that five years is the maximum. It is perfectly possible for a planning authority to reduce the maximum to whatever level is reasonable under the circumstances. It is just that, as the hon. Gentleman says, it tends to use five years as a matter of course.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He is slightly wrong, as I do not think that five years is the maximum. Even under current legislation, a planning authority could in certain circumstances give planning permission with a period longer than five years, just as it will be able under this legislation to give planning permission of longer than three years. The problem has been that local authorities have been slightly lazy and just taken the figure in the 1990 Act as the figure to be followed. I can see that I am about to be corrected.

Section 91 of the principal Act states that subject to the provisions of that section

''the development to which it relates must be begun not later than the expiration of—

(a) five years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted or, as the case may be, deemed to be granted; or

(b) such other period (whether longer or shorter) beginning with that date as the authority concerned with the terms of planning permission may direct.''

The hon. Gentleman is correct.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification—I am slightly relieved.

I very much welcome the amendments, which deal with the particular position relating to a legal challenge. They make a great deal of sense. We agree with the intention to reduce most planning applications down from five to three years, but we need to get the message across to planning authorities that they have the discretion to vary. If we were quickly to ring up all planning officers and ask them what length of time a planning application could be, they would say five years without saying that they could vary it one way or the other. The great danger is that, if there is a similar ring-round a few years down the line, they will say that it should be three years and still not think that it could be varied in both directions. The message needs to get through that we must use the right length of time for each type of application and that three years is the norm but not the absolute.

I am delighted to detect a powerful spirit of consensus. There is a positive love-in between the Opposition parties, both of whose distinguished representatives are experts in the matters being discussed. I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that, once liberated from these proceedings, much as I love them, I will engage in a powerful selling job with all partners: local authorities and developers.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 18, in

clause 46, page 34, line 22, after 'permission)' insert 'is amended as follows—

(a)'.

No. 19, in

clause 46, page 34, line 24, at end insert—

'(b) after subsection (3) there are inserted the following subsections—

''(3A) If a decision to grant planning permission or the deemed grant of planning permission is challenged by way of judicial review or under section 288 the period of three years or other period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) begins on the day the proceedings for judicial review or under section 288 (as the case may be) are concluded.

(3B) Proceedings by way of judicial review are concluded—

(a) when permission to apply for judicial review has been refused and no further application may be made;

(b) when the court has given judgment in the matter and the time for making an appeal expires without an appeal having been made or permission to appeal is refused;

(c) when any appeal is finally determined.

(3C) Proceedings under section 288 are concluded—

(a) when the court has given judgment in the matter and the time for making an appeal expires without an appeal having been made or permission to appeal is refused;

(b) when any appeal is finally determined.

(3D) For the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) any power of the court to grant permission for an appeal out of time must be ignored.

(3E) Nothing in this section prevents the development being begun from the time the permission is granted or deemed to be granted.''.'.

No. 20, in

clause 46, page 34, line 40, leave out first 'In'.

No. 21, in

clause 46, page 34, line 41, after 'consent)', insert 'is amended as follows—

(a)'.

No. 22, in

clause 46, page 34, line 42, at end insert—

'(b) after subsection (2) there are inserted the following subsections—

''(2A) If a decision to grant listed building consent is challenged by way of judicial review or under section 63 the period of three years or other period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) begins on the day the proceedings for judicial review or under section 63 (as the case may be) are concluded.

(2B) Proceedings by way of judicial review are concluded—

(a) when permission to apply for judicial review has been refused and no further application may be made;

(b) when the court has given judgment in the matter and the time for making an appeal expires without an appeal having been made or permission to appeal is refused;

(c) when any appeal is finally determined.

(2C) Proceedings under section 63 are concluded—

(a) when the court has given judgment in the matter and the time for making an appeal expires without an appeal having been made or permission to appeal is refused;

(b) when any appeal is finally determined.

(2D) For the purposes of subsections (2B) and (2C) any power of the court to grant permission for an appeal out of time must be ignored.

(2E) Nothing in this section prevents the works being begun from the time the consent is granted.''.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.