HC Deb 25 January 1967 vol 739 cc1700-3
Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 70, line 35, at the end to insert: (4) For the purposes of this section where planning permission (in this subsection called 'the earlier permission') has been granted subject to a condition requiring subsequent approval on any matter, and subsequent thereto a further planning permission (in this subsection called the later permission') has been granted which substantially satisfies the condition in the earlier permission, the later permission shall be deemed to be approval on the matters reserved in the earlier permission notwithstanding that the later permission is in the form of a grant of planning permission. This Clause deals with projects of material development begun but not completed before the first appointed day. We know that if we begin a project of material development before the appointed day there is relief from levy. The question is: what project is begun by some act on the land? If there are 20 plots on which 20 houses are to be built, is the digging of a trench on one plot the start of a project of material development for all the 20, or only for the one?

2.15 a.m.

This sort of problem is dealt with in Clause 67 but dealt with by reference to the planning permission under which that project of material development, whatever act it may be, is started. Clause 67(2) refers to one or more planning permissions in force on the first appointed day". It begins: If the existing operations, or some of those operations, are authorised by one or more planning permissions in force on the first appointed day, then for the purposes of this Part of this Act.… It describes what is the project started by any type of development on the land. It refers to a planning permission in force on a certain date.

One has to turn to the interpretation Clause to see exactly what is meant by planning permission. Clause 99(3) discovers a distinction between outline planning permission and detailed planning permission. Outline planning permission is not itself sufficient as planning permission within Clause 67. If in that outline planning permission, certain development is conditionally allowed, if it still has to be approved at a later date, and if it is approved at a later date, it has a retrospective effect to the date of the outline planning permission.

Suppose that a developer gets outline planning permission in January, 1966. He digs a trench in February, 1966. After the appointed day, those operations which needed further approval of the local authority are duly approved. I understand that permission then dates back to the granting of outline permission so that on the appointed day he had planning permission sufficient for Clause 67. The difficulty is that some local authorities do not deal with it in that way. Having granted outline planning permission saying, "This is subject to our approval of the colour in which he paints the house", or whatever it may be, they do not give an approval at a later date and say, "This is the approval which we gave you under outline planning permission some months ago"; they issue a fresh planning permission. This means that the planning permission under which he is operating may have been given after the appointed day instead of referring back to the original outline planning permission in which conditions were made. This is merely a form of procedure from one local authority to another; one will approve what is done in the original planning permission, another will issue a new permission.

The Amendment provides that the new permission shall be treated as an approval of the original permission, as indeed, in effect, it is. It is adequately described in the Amendment, and it is a purely practical matter which should be put right. One could say, had there been time, long before the Act came into operation, that local authorities must issue planning permissions in such a form in future. One could have said, "If you have given outline planning permission you must not give another, fresh planning permission; you must approve what you have already allowed in outline". But there has not been time to do that, and we have to cope with the position of the local authority which carries on the practice of issuing a new permission for an outline planning permission. The Amendment would avoid the difficulties which will arise out of that to the developer and it would bring the planning permission within Clause 67.

Mr. Willey

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has raised a point which was previously raised with me. He referred to the practice of some planning authorities, and I accept what he said about that. When I discussed this matter with the National Federation of Building Trade Employers some time ago, I said that the developer could compel the authorities to give approvals rather than new permissions, whatever the form of the application; that the form of the application was irrelevant. Since any cases that might arise will largely affect large-scale developments, these large developers are likely to be well advised about their rights under planning law. I received no further representations from the National Federation and I had assumed, therefore, that although, as the hon. Gentleman said, there were difficulties, no further difficulties had arisen—although, of course, I would do whatever I could to help if difficulties did arise.

Mr. Graham Page

The representations which I have had have come from the Law Society, which drafted the Amendment, so that the Law Society sees some difficulty here. Could the problem be solved by the right hon. Gentleman sending out a circular to local authorities telling them to issue approvals rather than new planning permissions?

Mr. Willey

I will certainly consider taking that action. I was aware that the Amendment had come from a good source. It was received rather late, but I do not complain about it being a starred Amendment. If the matter had been further pursued with us we might have considered taking some steps in the Bill. However, as far as I know the difficulties which arose are not so acute now. As I said, I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

In the short time in which we have had to look into the Amendment we have carefully considered it, but I am advised that it would present certain difficulties in two respects; first, because it would affect other parts of the Bill and, secondly, because it is not satisfactory as it stands. I assure the House that I am aware of this matter and that, if necessary, I am prepared to take further steps to help should difficulty arise.

Mr. Graham Page

With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the words so restored in the Bill, by leave, withdrawn.