HL Deb 21 February 1991 vol 526 cc655-712
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

[Amendment No. 90 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 91: After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:

("Crown land development by the Crown

. For Part XIII of the principal Act there is substituted—

"Crown land and development by the Crown.

293. (1) The provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to—

  1. (a) Crown land; and
  2. (b) the development of any land by or on behalf of the Crown or by or on behalf of the Crown jointly with any other persons
subject to regulations made by virtue of this section.

(2) The regulations may in relation to such land or such development—

  1. (a) provide for any of those provisions to apply subject to prescribed exceptions or modifications or not to apply;
  2. (b) make new provision as to any matter dealt with in any of those provisions or statutory instruments thereunder;
  3. (c) make different provision in relation to different classes of land or development or different circumstances or events.

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2), the regulations may provide—

  1. (a) for appeals in relation to such land or such development to be made to and determined by an independent person or body; and
  2. (b) for the procedure to be followed on such appeals.

(4) In this section—

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 91 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 92 and 224. In these amendments we return to the important matter of the inclusion or otherwise of Crown land in planning law. At Committee stage we had a wide-ranging debate on a rather wide-ranging group of amendments, only one or two of which related directly to the issue of Crown land. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 91 and 224 is to secure a greater degree of planning control over Crown land. The purpose of Amendment No. 92 is to secure a greater degree of planning control over the land of statutory undertakers. I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 91 and 224 first.

Noble Lords who are observant in these matters will see that the amendments have the same intention although they are rather different in wording and in length. One is the simple version and the other is the long-winded version. My bitter experience in these matters has shown that the simple versions never work and that the long-winded versions do not always work or sometimes need to be improved in order to be acceptable in legislation. Nevertheless we have produced a simple version as well as the more long-winded version.

Crown lands are defined in Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the consolidation Act, as land in which there is a Crown interest; namely, an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty but for the purpose of a government department.

There has been a continuing process over the years of increasing the degree of planning control over Crown land. The significant regulation in this respect is Regulation 18/84, which provides that for the first time it is possible for government departments and other Crown bodies to apply for planning permission. There are provisions under the 1990 Act now that certain planning powers may be exercised in relation to Crown land. For example, development plans may include proposals relating to the use of Crown land, and a building which is on Crown land can now be listed for the first time.

But the situation is by no means good enough. Many of the planning controls which exist over Crown land are subject to consultation procedures rather than to direct controls; in other words, it is a requirement that the body concerned should consult the local planning authority and seek to reach agreement with it rather than obtain permission in the normal way. In many cases that works perfectly well, certainly for the major government departments and Crown bodies. Local authorities would acknowledge that there has been a great deal of excellent compliance with those procedures.

But government is changing. It has been the tendency in government, particularly in the past few years, for government agencies to achieve greater independence. The Next Steps agencies and many other public bodies are no longer in the same line of command relationship with government departments. They have a good deal more independence and it is much more difficult to secure the degree of control which would ensure that they involve themselves properly in consultation procedures.

Unfortunately, there is evidence that a number of government bodies working on Crown land do not adequately consult their local authorities. I shall restrict my evidence to one particular case; namely, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office radio transmitter station at Orford Ness in Suffolk. That is a development carried out in an area of outstanding natural beauty. There is a high frequency radio transmitter station with 23 separate masts. It was given consent by the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1985, despite strong objections from Suffolk County Council and from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. Nobody denied that there was a need for a transmitter, but an alternative location had been proposed.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that sometimes—I mean this very seriously —radio transmitters are themselves items of great beauty and can be said to enhance the surroundings?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am not sure that I do agree, no. Living close to Hampstead Heath, as I do, I have seen some which are less ugly than others; but I do not know that I would agree that they are items of outstanding beauty. Certainly Suffolk County Council, which was the responsible authority in this case, did not think so and had proposed an alternative site which was not in an area of outstanding natural beauty and which was technically acceptable. It was overriden by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment.

For fear of raising other such questions, I shall not continue with other examples; but it is clear that there are occasions, and could be many more, when it is necessary to apply normal controls to Crown land. Perhaps I may give one or two illustrations of the need for controls over the land of statutory undertakers. These are more urban examples, but for all that they are very real in environmental terms. Statutory undertakers are also undergoing change. Historically they have been public bodies, as British Rail and British Waterways Board still are. But they now include privatised bodies and a deliberate decision was taken by the Government to continue, for the benefit of the privatised electricity companies, the same degree of exemption from planning controls that they had when they were under public control. That is despite the fact that these electricity companies now have their prime statutory duty to their shareholders and not to the community and therefore have the duty to maximise their profits almost regardless of environmental issues.

The first example that I want to give to the House is that of the Port of Tyne Authority at Jarrow Slake on the Tyne. The Port of Tyne Authority uses the slake to stockpile coal in heaps of up to 20 metres high, which is very damaging in terms of the dust and the traffic generated as well as an intrusion on an area which includes St. Paul's conservation area and St. Paul's monastery, the home of the Venerable Bede. The local authority would never have given permission for such a use without very stringent controls.

The same is true in Sefton, where the Merseyside Docks and Harbour Company is importing and storing substantial amounts of coke and coal on the banks at the edge of the dock close to residential and business premises. There again, Sefton Borough Council would never have given planning permission for that development.

I suggest to the House that the exemptions both for Crown land and statutory undertakings are now an anomaly. Because of the changes in the way in which the public service now operates on Crown land and because of the fact that statutory undertakings are increasingly being privatised and are no longer under the same form of central control, it is an anomaly that they should be exempt from planning regulations; and it is also an anomaly because of the general trend of planning law, which I believe to be right, that there should be as few exemptions from planning control as possible if the planning laws are to operate effectively.

I am sorry that I have had to give those reasons at some length, but I hope that they will convince the House that these amendments should be agreed to. I beg to move.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)

My Lords, as the noble Lord indicated, his amendments, Amendments Nos. 91 and 224, necessarily go together, one being very much shorter than the other, as he indicated. For example, Amendment No. 224 would substitute for Part XIII the very brief provision that the 1990 Act should bind the Crown except as provided in the development order.

I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord said and picked up his note of pessimism with regard to the shorter of his amendments, but I am still not entirely clear which of the two he prefers. It may be that he would be happy to see either of them accepted. If that is his hope or expectation, I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint him.

The changes that we propose as regards development by local authorities have been carefully thought out after extensive consultation. There is an appreciation that not everyone will be pleased, but what has been sought to be achieved is, as much as possible, a sensible balance.

I reiterate what I said at Committee stage about the present arrangements for the Crown to obtain planning clearance for its development proposals. As the noble Lord and others will be aware, the special procedure is set out in Department of the Environment Circular 18/84. I think that it provides the necessary safeguards while preserving the rights and privileges of the Crown. Crown bodies send local planning authorities a notice of their proposed development; the development proposal is then considered in similar fashion to a planning application —and that is true in relation to a notice of publicity for example. I accept that, as he indicated, the authority does not grant or refuse permission, but rather signifies whether or not it finds the proposal acceptable, including whether it believes that planning conditions are necessary. Indeed, in the example that he gave of the radio mast—I do not enter into any question of the desirability or otherwise of radio masts —it is quite clear that the planning authority was very well aware of what was going on and made its views known in the most open fashion.

Furthermore, if the authority has unresolved objections, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether planning clearance shall be given. He may take his decision after receiving written representations or after holding a meeting between the parties, or indeed there may be a non-statutory public inquiry. In that regard the Crown is very much like any other applicant. If the planning authority is not satisfied, the matter goes to the Secretary of State for resolution.

There will always be planning decisions and planning matters which do not satisfy everyone. However, it is the Government's view that there are few complaints about those arrangements which are considered generally to work well. For that reason we see no need to change them.

Amendment No. 92 provides the opportunity to discuss the role of statutory undertakers within the planning system. The noble Lord makes a reasonable point. The role of some statutory undertakers has changed in recent times. It is not true to say that the role of all statutory undertakers has changed. The noble Lord's proposal is nothing if not ambitious. One short section repeals all 22 sections of Part XI of the 1990 Act and two other sections.

I was interested to hear what he had to say about the actions of some statutory undertakers in the examples that he gave. I am sure that there are grounds for criticising them from time to time. The noble Lord's comments in this debate will be carefully borne in mind when the General Development Order is next reviewed. He will not be surprised if I say that a change of the magnitude he proposes would not be introduced without very wide consultation both within government and outside, not least with the statutory undertakers themselves and bearing in mind, as he rightly pointed out, that in recent times some of them have had a change in function.

After this short debate, which followed an earlier debate in Committee, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will forgive me when I say that I find his arguments contradictory. He admits that the cases which I have cited in support of my argument may have some validity, but he did not appear to realise that in the case of Orford Ness the local planning authority, although consulted, did not have the power to deny planning permission for that very damaging development.

The noble and learned Lord admits that the role and structure of government departments, the users of Crown land, is changing. He admits that the status of statutory undertakers—I referred to some, not all, statutory undertakers—is changing. He denies the central proposition behind my amendments, that so far as possible the planning laws should be on the same basis for all land use and that exception should be only in the most exceptional circumstances.

My amendments provide perfectly well for exceptions to be made; for example, for reasons of national security. Such exceptions could be provided for in regulations. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate proposes not that we take the opportunity of a major planning Bill to extend the effectiveness of our planning legislation but to undertake such major changes in future revisions of the General Development Order. He agrees that those changes are wide-ranging and of considerable importance. I disagree. If there are to be such changes, and if they are as important as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I agree that they are, they should be made by Parliament and not by changes to the General Development Order.

The noble and learned Lord called my amendments nothing if not ambitious. However, he did not criticise the wording. I am not convinced that the amendments have been satisfactorily answered and that the case against them has been satisfactorily argued. I believe that it is appropriate that I seek the opinion of the House.

3.44 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Ardwick, L. Carter, L.
Attlee, E. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Aylestone, L. Clinton-Davis, L.
Banks, L. David, B.
Birk, B. Diamond, L.
Blackstone, B. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Ennals, L.
Bottomley, L. Ewart-Biggs, B.
Brightman, L. Falkland, V.
Broadbridge, L. Fitt, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Gallacher, L. [Teller.]
Callaghan of Cardiff, L. Gibson, L.
Campbell of Eskan, L. Gladwyn, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.] Mishcon, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Gregson, L. Nicol, B.
Grimond, L. Ogmore, L.
Hacking, L. Oram, L.
Hampton, L. Peston, L.
Hanworth, V. Phillips, B.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Hirshfield, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Hooson, L. Rochester, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Roskill, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Ross of Newport, L.
Hunt, L. Sainsbury, L.
Ilchester, E. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Irvine of Lairg, L. Serota, B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Stallard, L.
John-Mackie, L. Stedman, B.
Kagan, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Kennet, L. Strabolgi, L.
Kissin, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Listowel, E. Turner of Camden, B.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Underhill, L.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Varley, L.
Longford, E. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Macaulay of Bragar, L. Walpole, L.
McGregor of Durris, L. White, B.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
McNair, L. Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Mayhew, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Milner of Leeds, L. Wrenbury, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aldington, L. Henley, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Hertford, M.
Arran, E. Hives, L.
Astor, V. Holderness, L.
Auckland, L. Howe, E.
Bellwin, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Beloff, L. Jeffreys, L.
Belstead, L. Kinnaird, L.
Bessborough, E. Knollys, V.
Birdwood, L. Lauderdale, E.
Blake, L. Layton, L.
Blatch, B. Long, V.
Blyth, L. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Boardman, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Borthwick, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Malmesbury, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Mancroft, L.
Brigstocke, B. Merrivale, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Mersey, V.
Butterworth, L. Milverton, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Morris, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Mottistone, L.
Carnock, L. Mountevans, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Cockfield, L. Munster, E.
Coleraine, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Colnbrook, L. Nelson, E.
Cottesloe, L. Norrie, L.
Cox, B. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Cumberlege, B. Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Dacre of Glanton, L. Orkney, E.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Orr-Ewing, L.
Denham, L. Oxfuird, V.
Elles, B. Palmer, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Elton, L. Pender, L.
Fortescue, E. Platt of Writtle, B.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Quinton, L.
Gainford, L. Radnor, E.
Gainsborough, E. Reay, L.
Geddes, L. Renton, L.
Grantchester, L. Richardson, L.
Harmsworth, L. Rodney, L.
Romney, E. Strathspey, L.
St. John of Fawsley, L. Sudeley, L.
Sandys, L. Terrington, L.
Selkirk, E. Teviot, L.
Shannon, E. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L. Trefgarne, L.
Stanley of Alderley, L. Trumpington, B.
Strathclyde, L. Tryon, L.
Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.] Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Waddington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.52 p.m.

[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 93: After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:

("Demolition

. Schedule 1A to this Act (which provides for the control of demolition) shall have effect.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 100. We believe that the amendment raises a major issue. That might be the only uncontroversial statement that I shall make this afternoon. As was said by Mr. David Widdicombe when acting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench on 11th January, it is a question of whether: demolition constituted development". He said that it was a ghost that haunted planning law, and continued: time has now come for that ghost to be laid to rest". With your Lordships' support, and if the Minister is minded to accept the amendment, we may help to lay that ghost to rest today.

The issue of whether development and demolition are coterminous raises three questions. First, is demolition development? Secondly, if it is, can it be enforced by planning control? Thirdly, if it can, should that control be exercised? As regards the first question, I am sure that your Lordships will recall the wording of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and note its wide sweep. Section 12(1) states: 'development' means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change of use". It appears to be the case that, since demolition falls within the scope of building operations—that is, operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on a building business—or is part of engineering operations, or clearly affects the external appearance of a building, demolition is development. That is what Mr. David Widdicombe ruled.

The second question was: can the control of development be enforced? That is problematic. If an unauthorised development has taken place involving construction—for instance, a second house on back land—the local authority can require it to be pulled down. However, once the property has been demolished there is the minor difficulty of how to reinstate it. I wish to remind the House that in every conservation area in the country demolition falls within the planning framework.

There are 7,000 conservation areas embracing more than 1 million properties. In all those areas demolition requires prior authorisation. I am not aware of any difficulty that has been caused by that control in any conservation area. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that there have been none. To my knowledge there is no problem about treating demolition as development and making that stick in a conservation area. Once people know that they must obtain planning approval they seek it. Therefore, I suggest that the issue of control or of reinstatement is no different in kind within or without the conservation area.

Is there a difference in scale? The Minister might suggest that this is an inappropriate way forward because of the work load involved when one compares the 1 million properties inside conservation areas with the number outside. Noble Lords will know that prior notification of demolition is already required. Therefore, the necessary administrative arrangements for handling the provision are already in place. As the planning system handles the more minor issues of planning development, construction and significant alteration outside conservation areas, I can see no difficulty in bringing the less extensive, less onerous but visually more significant issue of demolition within the planning system. The additional workload will net be onerous. My consultations show that the local authorities and their planning officers confirm that to be the case.

I hope that that matter will become clear when we consider the likely categories of demolition that will be involved were your Lordships minded to accept the amendment. Legal advice suggests that there might be five categories. The first is demolition on the grounds of health and safety; in other words, where property is dilapidated. Such demolitions are already allowed in conservation areas. No problems are associated with complexity or workload. Issues that may arise within conservation areas about dilapidation are now caught by statutory repair notices or building at risk notices. But there are no differences in kind and problem within or outside a conservation area. If a building requires demolition on the grounds of health and safety, that is done within conservation areas and can be done outside such areas.

The second category is the demolition of unwanted small structures within the curtilage. But, again, such minor works are already exempt from the necessity of planning approval within conservation areas if the structures are unlisted. If the requirement does not already apply within a conservation area there can be no need to apply it outside.

The third category is where there is partial demolition as part of an alteration. However, the alteration already requires planning consent within and without the conservation area. Again, there is no problem.

The fourth category is where full demolition is sought prior to authorised development. But, again, where development is authorised there is no problem. Therefore, in the vast majority of situations where demolition will arise there need be no problem; it is already permitted within conservation areas, or the controls will extend.

The problem lies with the fifth category, as the Minister indicated in Committee, which is demolition prior to proposals for speculative development. The amendment seeks to control that category of demolition because, as I have said, the other categories are already within planning or, under the amendment, will remain exempt. The fifth category is the smallest category and it presents the least onerous workload. However, it causes the greatest damage to the streetscape and presents the greatest threat to sensible planning.

Why should that be so? Such demolition without authorisation can have a noticeable effect on the streetscape and character of the area. In Committee I quoted my own experience. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to that again. We were trying to prevent a developer from knocking down a large Victorian house in a suburban street. He was hoping that the resulting bomb site would so disfigure the street that he would obtain permission for his three storey block of flats. That had already happened along the road. By getting the trees around the house listed, we thwarted the scheme. That street is now in a conservation area and when another builder tried a similar scheme in the same area, he was stopped. However, your Lordships will recognise the faint absurdity of listing trees, which are a renewable source, but not protecting from unauthorised demolition Victorian and Edwardian houses which make up the streetscape of our cities.

In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that such speculative demolition is designed to force a planning authority's hand. A local authority may subsequently choose to give planning consent to development, when it would prefer to refuse it, merely because that is a more acceptable alternative to having a dangerous vacant site covered with rubble which invites the tipping of rubbish and generates rats.

The Minister may issue policy guidance that demolition should not be the presumption in favour of subsequent development. Such guidance would be welcome. However, that will make very little difference. In reality, when faced with a dirty and possibly dangerous bombed-out site, the local authority may well agree that a development is the lesser of two evils, however unacceptable that development would otherwise be.

Even if the local authority remain stalwart and refuse consent for development, the developer can still go to the Secretary of State who may agree that almost any development on that site is better than leaving it as it is—a vacant tip. The Secretary of State may well be right. I remind the Minister that as the development plan is not a primary consideration, the developer can count on that too.

We all agree that there is a problem that is not extensive and does not generate an onerous workload. However, we all agree that where it occurs it can be a significant problem. Policy guidance, welcome though that is, will not remedy that problem.

What can be done? Clearly it is possible to cover the country in conservation areas, but that would debase the language and stretch eligibility for grant too thinly. I suggest that there are two options. The first, along the lines of Mr. Widdicombe's ruling, would be to have demolition regarded as development. The second would be that the special consent already required for demolition in conservation areas should apply to all property outside. I suggest that both of those are practicable ways forward. The workload is modest and there is in place already a system of prior notification. The cost would be modest and the gains immense.

I repeat that this amendment will not ban demolition. It merely requires it to be authorised as happens now with demolition prior to agreed development. Demolition outside conservation areas will be brought within the same planning framework as demolition within those areas. Demolition for speculative development will be treated in the same way as demolition for agreed development. Acceptance of such an amendment would mean the closure of the largest existing loopholes in regard to the protection of our streetscape and villages. I beg to move.

4 p.m.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, I raised this matter in Committee. In response to my amendment which I still support—I shall certainly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness—the reply from the Government Front Bench was that the control which we sought against all forms of demolition of buildings was too sweeping, too wide and would clog the system.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has certainly done her stuff. She has made out a much better case than I did. If arguments well put in this House result in votes, then she should succeed. After all, as long ago as 1974 Mr. George Dobry QC, in the report Control of Demolition, recommended that demolition should be brought under planning controls. That was 16 or 17 years ago. Since that time there have been many flagrant breaches.

My Amendment No. 241 restricts the control to demolition of dwelling houses, which I believe concerns many people. I put forward that proposal only as a substitute. I hope that the Government will see some sense in this matter and accept my proposal if they feel that this amendment goes too wide by suggesting overall control. I do not believe that it is. Nevertheless, if the control were restricted to dwelling houses that would be a step in the right direction.

If examples are needed—and there are plenty of them—I draw attention to Tottenham town centre where an Asda supermarket has been developed. The supermarket owners wanted to pull down a terrace of Victorian houses in order to extend the car park. They acquired the houses at fair prices with which the owners were happy but the general public and the planning authority wanted the properties, which were in an attractive Victorian terrace, to be restored. Therefore, the planning application was refused. Immediately a bulldozer pulled down the houses and a fresh application to extend the car park over that area was granted. That sort of action is diabolical and the Government should not permit that to happen.

In Committee I gave examples of properties in north London, particularly in the Harrow area. Government supporters in the other place have been promoting private legislation to try to persuade the Government of the merits of the case. It may be that at present there will be a pause because development is not very popular, but it will return. Certainly the supermarket scenario will continue because there are many under construction at present. It is time to act. The Government should not wait for the appeal against the decision recently made in the courts. This Bill presents a wonderful opportunity to write the provision into legislation. I hope that the Government will at least support the control of demolition of private residential houses.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I am not thrilled with this amendment. It will cause delay. Although such cases may arise in the south of England I cannot wait to see the demolition of parts of Hollyhead and Amlwch. I should not like to see any delay which I believe this amendment may cause.

The Earl of Lytton

My Lords, the noble Baroness eloquently explained the merits of bringing demolition under the planning control provisions, but I do not wish to speak about that. However, she made a comment which greatly disturbs me. If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she made reference to a case where use was made of tree preservation orders in order to prevent some other activities taking place —in that instance, the redevelopment and, perhaps not in the intended way, the demolition of property which it was felt appropriate to keep.

That fills me with horror. That has been one of my anxieties. Local planning authorities are using orders such as tree preservation orders for purposes which are totally outwith the concept of the facility provided by that order-making provision. I hope that the Minister will take note of that and that the Government will make it their business to make sure that in future these provisions will not be misused. I believe that it is an abuse of a statutory power. I hope that I did not misunderstand the noble Baroness because I was concerned to hear confirmation in this House that such a measure is being used in what I consider to be a wholly inappropriate fashion.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I explained our general position on the issue of control over demolition in Committee. We recognise fully that there is anxiety in some areas about what may be called speculative demolition; that is, demolition carried out in the hope of securing permission for more intensive and profitable redevelopment.

We consulted last year on a number of options for tackling the issue. The responses to our consultation paper did not produce evidence of a general and widespread problem, nor did they indicate a consensus on what should be done about it. We believe that much can be done, where a problem does arise, by the inclusion of suitable policies in local plans and unitary development plans. If plans make quite clear what the planning authority's policy will be on the redevelopment of cleared sites, a developer is much less likely to feel that he has something to gain by carrying out demolition in the first place. We intend to give new policy guidance on these matters in an updated planning policy guidance note on housing which will be published shortly.

On the question of legislative change, I said that we are not at this stage convinced that such change is necessary; but if we were to go down that road, I am quite sure that it would have to be on a basis which enabled selective controls over demolition to be imposed in some areas but not in others. The present amendments go some way towards recognising this last point: the draft schedule of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would, as I understand it, permit a selective approach. But I have to say again that we remain to be convinced of the need for legislative change of this kind.

One issue which has to be considered in this context is the precise significance of the existing law. As the noble Baroness pointed out, in January a judgment was given in the High Court which apparently supported the view that certain types of demolition are already subject to planning controls. We have been waiting for the full transcript of that judgment before deciding whether any clarification or reinforcement of the existing law is desirable. I hope that transcript will be available shortly, so that we can take a view on the general implications of that judgment, and on the case for the sort of amendment which the noble Lord is proposing.

The noble Baroness quite rightly set out the scenario of the demolition issue in conservation areas. I agree that it is not a problem in those areas in regard to the mechanisms for exercising control over demolition. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, gave a specific example regarding houses that were demolished and then applications submitted for a car park. It is that kind of case which is the subject of the Widdicombe determination. It is the specific transcript of that case that we wish to examine before considering the matter further.

In regard to the issue of the tendency of planning authorities to give permission rather than be left with what I believe the noble Baroness referred to as "bomb sites" or their equivalent, the argument is predicated on the assumption of a feeble response to the problem by planning authorities. Why should they allow their arms to be twisted by demolition? They are quite free to restrict permission to the replacement of what was knocked down. On rare occasions that does happen. It is not so long ago that somebody had to rebuild something that was knocked down.

The noble Baroness referred also to the risk that the Secretary of State may allow development on appeal. We made it clear that we will normally be guided by the local plan, and that when the new development and structure plans are in place, within the context of strategic guidance, the system will become even more effective.

It is important that local planning authorities use the powers already at their disposal. In the meantime I do not think we can usefully take this discussion further forward. However, I will take the noble Lord's proposals away and consider them in detail alongside the transcript of the recent High Court judgment when it is available. I say that without at this stage committing the Government to bringing forward amendments of their own—though no doubt the matter will be raised again when the Bill reaches another place. On the basis of that assurance I hope the amendments will not be pressed.

4.15 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for his support. I would certainly have been happy to support his amendment as a fall-back position of reduced scope which would have caught the worst cases.

Perhaps I may refer to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that the provision may cause delay. On the contrary, at the moment it seems to us that given the fact that demolition without advanced planning permission for redevelopment is speculative, and is therefore a two-stage process, the existing system generates more delay than would be the case were demolition part of an authorised planning bid. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will accept that the amendment would not add to delay; it would streamline proposals and procedures.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the issue of trees. Perhaps I could respond first by saying that these were very nice trees and there existed a perfectly legitimate ground for their being preserved. However, this was a situation where the developer was trying to beat the declaration of the conservation area timetable. It was with that concern that we were attempting to stop him demolishing a house and leaving us with a bomb site.

I shall turn to the Minister's comments. I welcome her concern. I have to say that, given that she is usually a robust and sturdy defender of the Government position, we did not see in her comments quite the normal robustness and sturdiness that we are customarily led to expect. I could not help but feel that the Minister would be more comfortable on this occasion making our case rather than trying to reject it.

The Minister accepts the problem and recognises that policy guidance is needed to deal with it; she believes that planning authorities should not permit their arms to be twisted, and suggests that local authorities have weapons at their disposal to control it. I say that they do not. At the end of the day once that demolition has taken place and if a developer will not reinstate but prefers to leave the site derelict, there is nothing but nothing a local authority can do. That is the loop-hole; that is the problem; that is where the writ does not run and where they do not have powers at their disposal. It is to meet that situation that we ask the Minister to give local authorities the powers that she wishes they had to deal with the problem she recognises to meet the concerns we all share.

Having said that, I wish I could judge how serious the Minister is—I do not in any sense challenge her good faith or integrity in this House. I wish I could judge how substantially the Minister will be requiring her civil servants to look at the problem. It is of such significance that I would normally seek the view of the House. I shall not do so if there is a realistic possibility that at Third Reading the Minister may be able to give us a way forward; for example, by saying that after a year policy guidance has not produced the required effect and that she will consider legislation.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. With the leave of the House, perhaps I could say that once we have seen the transcript and made a proper interpretation of it, as far as the department is concerned, for this kind of matter we will need to have regard to what it will mean in case law. If it is determined that certain kinds of demolition come into the planning system, then the objective of the noble Baroness will be met.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, in the light of that response—having read the transcript we may wish to come back at Third Reading—reluctantly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 [Mines and waste]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 94: Page 77, line 1, leave out paragraph 12.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 94 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 240. A provision is required to apply the Bill's provisions to the Isles of Scilly. In the process of drafting it became evident that it would be desirable to replace the existing rather complex provisions of the 1990 Act applying particular clauses to the Isles with a general section enabling the Secretary of State to make the necessary provision by order. Amendment No. 240, to which Amendment No. 94 is a consequential, is in a form which is now more or less standard for this purpose, including the requirement for the council of the Isles to be consulted before an order is made. We have consulted the council and understand that the amendment will be welcomed. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, my only concern with regard to Amendment No. 240, as the noble Viscount said, is that the Council of the Isles of Scilly will be consulted. In subparagraph (2) it says, An order under this section may in particular provide for the exercise by the Council of the Isles of Scilly of any functions exercisable by a local planning authority or mineral planning authority". Surely the amendment should say that an order, shall provide for the exercise by the Council of the Isles of Scilly of some specified functions exercisable by a local planning authority"; otherwise the amendment provides that the Council of the Isles of Scilly has no mineral planning authority powers at all.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, the amendment proposes the deletion of paragraph 12 and is conditional on Amendment No. 240 being accepted. It enables the Secretary of State to modify and adapt the principal Act in its application to the Isles of Scilly. Paragraph 12 of the schedule sought to amend only subparagraph (1) of Section 319, which applies—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, before the noble Viscount proceeds further, I must say that his answer so far has been totally wide of the mark. I was not criticising the paving amendment but the substantive amendment.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, in practice the council has functions and will have the power to make its own planning decisions.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 95: Page 77, line 3, at end insert: (" . In section 324(8) (rights of entry) after "minerals" there shall be added "or waste".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. This is a probing amendment simply to see whether planning officers have the necessary power to go on to land to check for the presence of waste materials that may have been buried in it. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, Amendment No. 95 concerns the right of any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State or by a local planning authority to enter any land for the purpose of surveying it in connection with the preparation of a plan, an application for the permission for the use of the land or for serving an order. The current right confers a power to search and bore for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the subsoil or the presence of minerals in it. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to give the right to the local planning authority to search and bore for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of waste in land.

It is an interesting proposal. However, it is important to bear in mind the duties and powers of the proposed waste regulation authorities to inspect land to ascertain the presence and nature of waste that may cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. This duty is formulated in Section 61 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Furthermore, Article 18 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 requires local planning authorities to consult the relevant waste disposal authority before granting planning permission for development within 250 metres of land which is or has been within the previous 30 years used for the deposit of refuse or waste.

In those circumstances it seems that existing powers might be adequate. However, the proposed amendment raises issues concerning the relationship between local planning authorities and the proposed waste regulation authorities. I should like the opportunity of considering this matter further. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, that is a generous response which has clarified the situation very well. I hope that the consideration that is now to be given to it will take place. If it is not clear at the moment whether planning officers should discuss the issue with the other authorities, then guidance will be given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 96: Page 77, line 27, after ("(2)") insert ("(3)").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 97, 101 and 102. These are all necessary drafting amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 97: Page 77, line 28, leave out ("both places") and insert ("each place")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 98: Page 80, line 25, at end insert:

  1. ("18.—(1) This paragraph applies to permissions for mineral extraction continued in effect by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 and Schedule 24 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 so far as continued in effect by that paragraph in so far as it relates to those provisions ("the relevant provisions").
  2. (2) The relevant provisions are hereby repealed and, subject to subsection (2) any permission in force thereunder shall cease to have effect at the end of 12 months beginning from the passing of this Act.
  3. (3) The Secretary of State shall within the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, after consulting with bodies appearing to him to represent the interests of the mineral extraction industry and of mineral planning authorities, by order grant permission for such classes of development permitted under the relevant provisions as he considers expedient, subject to such conditions as he considers expedient.
  4. (4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), to the extent that any development falling within sub-paragraph (1) is not granted permission by order under sub-paragraph (3) or is so granted subject to conditions more stringent than those attached to the original permission, the occupier of the land affected by that permission shall be deemed to have applied to the mineral planning authority under Part III of the principal Act for unconditional permission to carry out such development.
  5. (5) An application under sub-paragraph (4) of this section shall only be deemed to have been lodged with the mineral planning authority if and when the occupier of such land serves on the mineral planning authority a copy of the original permission which was continued in force under the relevant provisions, not being later than the end of the period of 12 months from the date of the passing of this Act".).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 99. The purpose of these amendments is to bring consents for mineral working granted in the 1940s—that is, the interim development orders—into the control of mineral planning authorities. In Committee the House considered a number of amendments designed to strengthen control over mineral working. Two related to consents granted under IDOs. These orders were a form of planning control which immediately preceded the introduction of the modern planning system in 1948. Between 1943 and 1948 a large number of these consents were granted by the then local authorities.

These consents have been automatically continued in force by successive planning Acts. There are two difficulties. First, the authorities were not in a position to impose the sorts of conditions which would be normal today governing the programme of working, access to the sites, restoration and aftercare. Some of these consents are very vague, giving a general right to work minerals, unspecified over several hundred acres. Secondly, local planning authorities often cannot even assess the size of the problem because there is no requirement to register the IDOs. Due to local government reorganisation the records of many authorities no longer exist.

In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, was helpful and sympathetic. In replying to Amendment No. 89 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, the noble Baroness went rather further and gave an undertaking last Tuesday to bring forward amendments that would go some way to improve the situation. We are grateful for that. I want to move Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 in order to explore the situation a little further.

There is general agreement that the first priority is to create a register and require all the owners of these old consents to come forward and produce them to the planning authority on pain of losing the benefit of the consents. However, a register will not of itself solve the problem and the noble Baroness recognised that. I refer to Hansard of 19th February at col. 541. It will merely provide information on the extent of the problem and the location of the land subject to IDOs. A chance should not be lost to incorporate into the present Bill a framework within which that solution can be identified and implemented without recourse to further primary legislation.

Ideally, from an environmental point of view, one would want to wipe out all these old consents, enabling planning authorities to start afresh, granting permission or imposing conditions that are entirely acceptable and in accordance with today's environmental standards. Of course, the conservation bodies feel strongly on this matter knowing of the damage that has been done to sites of special scientific interest. The Unstarred Question introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on 9th May 1990 on peat resources went into the damage that modern methods of extracting peat can cause.

The minerals industry is understandably concerned at these proposals. Since consideration of the amendments during Committee, the British Aggregate Construction Minerals Industries (BACMI) has made the following points in defence of IDOs. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, spoke about this on Tuesday. He accepted BACMI's arguments rather more readily than we do. I wish to put the points that it makes and our responses to them.

First, BACMI's IDOs are valid planning permissions granted under the final stages of a developing planning system which evolved into the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. That is true as far as it goes. However, it ignores the fact that, unlike planning applications submitted under the 1947 Act, there was no requirement to register the IDOs. Secondly, it states that IDOs usually have rudimentary planning conditions. These are often no more rudimentary than any planning permission granted in the 1950s. For this reason the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 gave local planning authorities power to modify and update planning conditions or suspend or prohibit further working, subject to the payment of compensation. Limited powers are also available to local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to impose planning conditions on an operator's entire quarry where a new planning permission is granted to extend that quarry. That is BACMI's point.

However, this argument ignores the fact that all the conditions imposed on IDOs were very rudimentary. They were even more rudimentary than the condition imposed on applications in the 1950s. BACMI also ignores the fact that while the 1981 Act gave mineral planning authorities power to review minerals workings and, where environmentally damaging, to revoke the permissions, there was a requirement to pay compensation which means that no local planning authorities can afford to implement this part of the Act. This power, therefore, is not an effective power.

The second problem with BACMI's argument is that, while an extension to an existing quarry will enable a local planning authority to impose conditions to ameliorate any problems which are associated with any part of the quarry, this does not apply when there is no requirement for the quarry to obtain planning permission for development. In these cases, quarries may continue to operate even though they cause severe environmental problems. One particular case is the problem of inappropriate access arrangements whereby quarries with the benefit of IDO permissions use an access, lined by houses, which is unsuitable for the lorry movements generated. There is nothing a local planning authority can do in these circumstances to force a determined minerals operator to improve the access arrangements. In addition, the existence of IDOs prevent local authorities from limiting the depths to which a quarry or other mineral undertaking may be worked.

Thirdly, BACMI argues that quarries subject to IDOs have to operate to modern environmental standards as they are subject to control over noise, dust, smoke, fumes, blast, vibration, restoration, aftercare, traffic, and so on. In response to that we say that local planning authorities do not argue that all quarries subject to IDOs cause environmental problems. The vast majority operate satisfactorily. However, the case still stands that much land granted permissions under IDOs is still not developed. BACMI also ignores the fact that if quarry operators are willing to talk to other regulatory bodies over environmental standards why are they so reluctant to talk to planning departments about reviews of their planning positions?

Fourthly, BACMI argues that some very large quarries are fully reliant on IDOs. Such investment may be put at risk by the proposal that all IDOs should expire and require reapplication for permission. In other cases, BACMI argues that IDO sites not currently worked are viewed by quarry companies as a reserve. Our response here is that the aim of this amendment is not to put quarries out of business but to subject them to greater environmental control. The argument in relation to reserve sites is fallacious. The analogy should be that between mineral operators and house builders. Land with planning permission for housing that remains undeveloped after five years loses its planning permission. Why should mineral operators be in a different position?

At Committee stage, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, Amendment No. 107, tried to introduce this five-year stop point, but that was not accepted. Much land subject to minerals permission under the IDOs remains undeveloped since the 1940s. Development of this land for minerals extraction should be subject to planning permission to ensure that any developments undertaken on the land are subject to updated environmental conditions. It should be borne in mind that when IDO permissions were given quarrying was basically undertaken to supply local needs. In the past 40 years conditions have changed markedly with the construction of motorways and with the extension of market areas so that quarries are now larger and are more environmentally disruptive.

Fifthly, BACMI argues that any reduction in the area of land subject to IDOs will require an equal tonnage of new quarrying permissions to be granted elsewhere to ensure that government policies on maintenance of land banks are fulfilled. In this statement BACMI ignores the fact that large areas of IDO permissions are unrecorded and unknown so that they do not figure in any assessment of reserves. It also assumes that local planning authorities will turn down planning permission for developments on all lands subject to IDOs. This is not so. What local authorities would do is to impose conditions which are suitable for the environmental standards of the 1990s. That will result in some additional costs to operators.

It may be unrealistic to expect these competing arguments to be resolved within the timescale of the passage of the Bill, but the Bill should empower the Secretary of State to arrive at such a resolution after giving both sides a proper hearing. The amendment accordingly inserts a new paragraph at the end of Schedule 1. All consents would cease to have effect six months after Royal Assent unless by then the original consent had been produced to the mineral planning authority which would compile a register. I understand that the Minister has agreed to do that.

The Secretary of State would then have a further 18 months in which to consult the industry and the authorities to decide how far to continue those consents in force, subject to what conditions and how far they should be allowed to lapse. He will do that by order. At the end of that period any consents which had not been continued would lapse and the provisions which kept them alive would be finally repealed.

In moving this amendment I should like to say that the conservation bodies—the NCC, the CPRE and the RSPB—as well as the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities are all anxious that something should be done. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, as I indicated to your Lordships on the first day of Report, the Government intend to bring forward amendments during the passage of the Bill to provide that holders of IDO permissions must apply to the appropriate mineral planning authority for the permission to be registered, or lose their consents. We shall be consulting on the details of that and on the proposal that applications for registration of IDO permissions should be accompanied by schemes of operating, restoration and, where appropriate, aftercare conditions for the approval of the mineral planning authority.

My honourable friend in another place is today answering a Question on this very matter. I rather hope that copies of the consultation paper will have been placed in the Library of another place and by now, I hope, in the Library of this House. We take the view that it would be sensible to use the opportunity of registration to apply conditions, and we believe that responsible operators share that view. Provision to appeal to the Secretary of State would be necessary, both against refusal or the imposition of unreasonable conditions by the authority, and to resolve disputes about the validity and extension of permissions. Our consultation paper will also cover the impact of the proposals on the compensation rights of operators and we will consider the responses before we take a firm decision.

Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 would both require the Secretary of State to grant permitted development rights for such IDO permissions and subject to such conditions as, after consultation, he thought fit. While I appreciate the good intention behind the amendments, I do not think it would be a sensible way to proceed. The problems of individual sites should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the authorities primarily responsible. It would not be right to derogate from mineral planning authorities' responsibilities in this way. We have considered carefully whether it would be right to take statutory measures now to deal with the problems of unworked land and IDO permission boundaries. While we fully appreciate the strength of feelings on this issue and the legitimate concerns expressed, we are not convinced that it would be right to expropriate legitimate mineral working rights without a detailed examination of all the implications and full and considered consultation on any proposed changes.

We shall therefore look at these issues very closely in our comprehensive review of the existing powers available to mineral planning authorities for dealing with inadequate permissions. We shall be considering also whether we can reach conclusions on the compensation aspects in advance of the general findings of the review. In the meantime, we intend to invite the industry, in the context of agreeing a scheme of operating and restoration conditions with the mineral planning authority, to discuss an adjustment to the boundaries of its rights where appropriate.

These proposals are subject to consultation with representatives of the local authorities—a point that I know was made very well by the noble Baroness—environmental groups, the industry and landowners. They aim to provide the right balance between the needs of the country for a secure and effective supply of minerals, together with information about where these sites are worked, and ensuring that the minerals are extracted in an environmentally sensitive way. It would be wrong to deny the right of those likely to be affected by any changes the opportunity to express their views and have them taken into account before any final decisions are made.

The time for consultation will, of necessity, be short, but I am sure that interested parties will have been following our debates closely. As the House is aware, there is a review in train at the moment, but the urgency of the situation was flagged-up in Committee. We said that we wanted to act quickly and positively before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses.

I shall pick up two further points made by the noble Baroness. I believe that she called the group of people to whom she was referring as BACMI. It referred to the permissions as not having the weight of planning permissions granted since the 1947 Act. However crude the conditions that went with those permissions, and however cursory the discussion before those permissions were granted, they are, nevertheless, valid planning permissions and must be seen as such. It would be wrong not to have consultations if there were to be any interference with or modification of those permissions. There was of course no requirement to register, and that is the problem we have today. The registration requirements did not then exist. It is therefore important that we establish registration as the first step. It is precisely because of some of the problems so well set out by the noble Baroness that we believe we need to act quickly. In the light of that explanation, I hope that Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 will not be pressed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I put this to her. I hope that she recognises that, with the best intentions in the world she has put us, the House and, I suspect, herself, in some difficulty. She said that her honourable friend in another place has answered a Question and published a consultation document which she hopes will be available in the Library of another place and in our Library. As she had good notice that the amendments were to be tabled, surely she could have seen to it that we had copies of the consultation document before the amendment was moved. It would have facilitated the proper conduct of the business of the House and would have made my noble friend's case and the Minister's answer much easier to develop.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I understand that the Question was answered only a short time ago. It has been on the Order Paper in another place, but the consultation paper was not published until the Question had been answered in another place.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not believe that that is good enough. Business managers in another place should have seen to it that the Question and the consultation document were made available in time for consideration on Report in your Lordships' House.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that the noble Lord welcomes this positive move which I believe meets most of the objectives of the amendment. There will be a period of consultation. We hope that those invited to make representations will do so.

Baroness David

My Lords, as my noble friend said, we are left in a difficult position because we do not know what is in the consultation paper. We have had a fairly positive response from the Minister. In the circumstances, we have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment, await developments and read the consultation paper. Is there any hope that the amendments which have been promised will be put down for Third Reading, or will they not appear until the Bill moves to another place?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I cannot be precise about that point. I can assure the noble Baroness that the moment the amendments are ready they will be tabled. It is more likely that they will be tabled in another place. If they are ready for Third Reading, they will be tabled then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]

4.45 p.m.

Schedule 7 [Mines and Waste—Scotland]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments No. 101 and 102: Page 119, line 29, after ("(2)") insert ("(3)"). Page 119, line 29, leave out ("both places") and insert ("each place").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 19 [Trees]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 103: Page 28, line 4, leave out ("desirable") and insert ("expedient").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104–112, 113–117, 120–123, 243 and 247. Clause 19 makes various changes for trees reflecting, as far as practicable, the changes made in respect of planning enforcement elsewhere in the Bill. The amendments are technical, aimed at achieving a more precise match with the corresponding provisions in Clause 11 or, as in the case of Amendment No. 108, clarifying the existing drafting. Amendments Nos. 243 and 247 are consequential on Clause 19. Amendments Nos. 113–117 and 120–123 make similar changes, as appropriate, to the equivalent Scottish provisions. I beg to move Amendment No. 103.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 104–110: Page 28, line 22, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for the purpose in question"). Page 28, line 27, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for that purpose"). Page 28, leave out lines 28 to 31. Page 28, line 45, at end insert: ("(6A) The Secretary of State shall not authorise any person as mentioned in subsections (2) and (6) without consulting the local planning authority."). Page 29, line 1, leave out from ("Admission") to ("unless") in line 3 and insert ("shall not be demanded as of right—

  1. (a) by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) to any building used as a dwellinghouse; or
  2. (b) by virtue of subsection (4), (5) or (6) to any land which is occupied,").
Page 29, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 31 and insert ("Any power conferred under or by virtue of section 214B or 214C to enter land (referred to in this section as "a right of entry")"). Page 29, line 34, leave out from ("land") to end of line 36 and insert ("in the exercise of a right of entry").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 110A not moved.]

Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 111–112: Page 30, line 4, leave out ("person") and insert ("authority"). Page 30, line 4, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 41 [Trees]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 113–117: Page 51, line 41, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for the purpose in question"). Page 51, line 46, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for that purpose"). Page 52, leave out lines 1 to 4. Page 52, line 18, at end insert:

Page 52, line 19, leave out from ("Admission") to ("unless") in line 21 and insert ("shall not be demanded as of right—
  1. (a) by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) to any building used as a dwellinghouse; or
  2. (b) by virtue of subsection (4), (5) or (6) to any land which is occupied,").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 120–123: Page 52, line 47, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 48 and insert ("Any power conferred under or by virtue of section 99A or 99B to enter land (referred to in this section as "a right of entry")"). Page 53, line 3, leave out from ("land") to end of line 5 and insert ("in the exercise of a right of entry"). Page 53, line 20, leave out ("person") and insert ("authority"). Page 53, line 20, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 124: Page 80, line 41, leave out paragraph 2 and insert: ("2. For section 38(5) and (6) of that Act (withdrawal of notices) there is substituted—

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125–129, 131–150, 152–156 and 159–165. Amendments Nos. 124–129 and 131–150 are all amendments to Schedule 2 in respect of listed buildings and hazardous substances enforcement provisions. They amend further the changes made by the schedule to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. For the most part, the amendments reflect the amendments tabled to the planning enforcement provisions in Part I of the Bill and will ensure consistency with those provisions. They also include some minor drafting amendments and consequential amendments.

Amendments Nos. 152–156 and 159–165 make corresponding changes to Schedule 8 to the Bill in respect of the listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances enforcement provisions applying to Scotland. I am happy to answer questions about the amendments in more detail if noble Lords wish. In the meantime, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 125–129: Page 81, line 30, leave out ("subsections (2) and (3)") and insert ("subsection (2)"). Page 81, leave out lines 38 to 42 and insert:

Page 82, line 15, leave out ("compliance period") and insert ("period for compliance with the notice"). Page 83, line 9, leave out ("they think") and insert ("the court thinks"). Page 83, line 20, leave out ("be of no effect, or shall have such effect") and insert ("have effect, or have effect to such extent").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 130: Page 83, line 28, at end insert: ("8A. After section 76 of that Act there is inserted—

"Alteration and extension in conservation areas.

76A—(1) No person shall, notwithstanding any provision of a General Development Order, without authorisation execute or cause to be executed any works for the alteration or extension of a building within a conservation area which is not a listed building in any manner which would materially affect the external character or appearance of the building itself, or the character or appearance of the area as a whole as an area of special architectural or historical interest.

(2) Works for the alteration or extension of a building within a conservation area which is not a listed building are authorised if—

  1. (a) planning permission has been granted by the local planning authority; and
  2. (b) they are executed in accordance with the terms of the permission and of any conditions attached to it.

(3) The provisions of Part 1 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 shall apply to any alteration or extension of a building falling within this section." ").

The noble Baroness said

My Lords. Amendment No. 130 refers to conservation areas and the alterations within them. We were cheered by the degree of support that the principle of the amendment received in Committee and in some of the letters we have received subsequently. For help I am looking to the Minister, who I know shares the concern of the House on this point. It is a serious, growing and countrywide problem.

Individual buildings of high quality—in other words, listed buildings—are protected from demolition and alteration. Our villages of character and our historic quarters of towns—in other words, our 7,000 conservation areas—are protected front demolition, as noble Lords will gather from previous discussions. But they are not protected from the do-it-yourself alterations and defacements which are rapidly eroding the quality of the very areas that we are seeking to conserve and enhance.

Every one of your Lordships must have horror stories to relate of concrete roofs replacing stone slates and of plate glass windows replacing Victorian sash windows. On Sunday I noticed in one of my own conservation areas in Norwich a substantial late Victorian brick terraced house being clad in fake York stone. The neighbours complained to me and I said that we could do nothing, so they asked what a conservation area was for if it did not conserve.

At Committee stage we hoped that the Minister would agree to extend to unlisted buildings in conservation areas the same protection against significant or material external alterations as apply to all alterations of a listed building. The Minister argued then that that would generate an onerous workload. We do not share that view. We are not talking here about quite minor items of work, as the Minister suggested, but precisely about those aspects of houses which local authorities believe determine the character and the quality of an area.

The Minister made it clear at Committee stage that she prefers the route of Article 4 directions, which empower the Secretary of State to remove permitted development rights of a general development order. I have to say to your Lordships, despite the persuasiveness of the Minister, that the track record of Article 4s is not encouraging. I have just had recent figures for the South-East; they are not compiled nationally. In 1987–88, the number of Article 4 directions brought forward by local authorities was 37, and the Secretary of State agreed 65 per cent. of them. But in 1988–89, when 43 Article 4 requests were brought forward by local authorities, the Secretary of State could find himself minded to grant only 19 of them, or 44 per cent. In other words, many, if not most, local authority applications for Article 4 directions are rejected by the Secretary of State and many more which should be, and would be, sought by local authorities are not, because of the climate of the DoE.

The presumption is against them. Local authorities have to show a real or potential threat to their area and by that time they are too late. Article 4 directions are partial, limited, grudging, cumbersome and belated. Your Lordships will understand why we do not think that they are particularly satisfactory.

This amendment instead offers a different route. It will not catch all alterations. It does not seek to do so, and we do not wish it to do so. It does not seek to catch even minor alterations, but only those material and significant alterations to property, such as roofs, windows and the like, which significantly affect the character of our conservation areas. It will not affect internal alterations, but only external ones, and it should perhaps be operated within a framework of guidance from the Secretary of State if the Minister is concerned that such a policy might be onerous.

But such an amendment, if accepted, would allow all of us to pass on to the next generation our villages and our towns relatively unspoiled. If we do not follow this path there will be less and less to pass on. I beg to move.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I have reservations about this amendment. Who will decide what is material and what is not material? What is small to me may be big to the noble Baroness. I see that the amendment will not affect windows, but I think that the noble Baroness said that it would affect windows. What sort of windows? I think that this amendment will be difficult to operate in practice.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanley makes an interesting point and goes to the heart of some of the difficulties that we have in accepting the amendment. Noble Lords will recall that at Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put down a very similar amendment and I agreed to give it careful consideration with my ministerial colleagues and report back at Report stage. I have also noted the noble Baroness's concluding remarks at Committee stage, when she emphasised that the amendment was intended to affect only "material" changes.

My colleagues and I have considered both the previous amendment and the present one and the points made at Committee stage. There appears to be a misunderstanding of my reluctance to accept the original amendment and I may not have explained my reason clearly at Committee stage.

The noble Baroness has stressed that her amendment is intended to catch only material changes to the exterior of a building. But it is only works that materially affect the external appearance of a building which require planning permission, whether the permission is granted specifically or under the permitted development rights in Article 3 of the general development order. Permitted development covers the more common and generally acceptable alterations and extensions up to certain sizes or percentages of the original building. They may in many instances be minor, but they will always be material changes.

Obviously some changes will be more significant than others and the noble Baroness invites us to require specific planning permission for development which, materially and significantly affected the external character and appearance of a building or its area". The difficulty with this approach is in defining particular types of development as "material and significant" in a way which could be applied to all conservation areas, with all their regional variations and differences in character and appearance.

I understand the great concern felt by the noble Baroness, but I must return to the unacceptable burden that local planning authorities would face if the Government accepted this amendment. We still believe, despite the scepticism of the noble Baroness, that the Article 4 direction procedure can give a reasonable level of protection to unlisted buildings in conservation areas without overloading the planning system.

Although there was a difference between the two sets of figures that the noble Baroness gave, I still believe that 44 per cent. in one case and 65 per cent. in another is a fair degree of protection in conservation areas. However, I must say that we are still considering proposals from English Heritage with a view to issuing further guidance to local planning authorities on Article 4 directions and clarification of the Secretary of State's criteria for approving them. This is the road down which we wish to go, and we believe that what is proposed in the amendment is a rather more draconian measure.

But in terms of the objectives, there is no difference of opinion between the Government and the noble Baroness. We want to achieve what she wants to achieve, but we believe that, in co-operation with English Heritage, she will advise us on how to draft the guidance, and that the Article 4 direction is the route to achieve this objective.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. If noble Lords will allow me, I shall comment on the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, about what counts as "material". I recognise that there appears to be a difficulty here, but in practice I suspect that none of us would have any problems about identifying changes which materially affect the character of an area. I hoped that I had given some examples. We are talking about windows, roofs, the blocking up of windows, the blocking up of doors and moving them along to a different part of the frontage, and about cladding. It is that sort of activity that we are seeking to control.

I shall be very happy to see that defined by a code of guidance from the Secretary of State following consultation with local authorities. That would seem to meet the Minister's point of wanting, on the one hand, equity across the country, while, on the other hand, allowing local flexibility, local discretion and response to local and regional variety. That seems to me to be the way forward.

This amendment as drafted, backed up by the Secretary of State's code of guidance, would seem to meet e very problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the Minister. As at Committee stage, the Minister is putting her faith in Article 4 directions. I do not have an interest as such, but as a commissioner for English Heritage I have a very real concern about the drafting. I hope that the Minister's expectations are rig it, but I have to say that the track record shows that local authorities are discouraged from seeking Article 4 directions, and seek them only as an item of last resort. When they do, nearly 60 per cent. are rejected by the Secretary of State, which does not indicate a very positive response by the Secretary of State to the problems perceived by local authorities.

If the Minister is able, if I may use the phrase, to change that culture and turn it around in conjunction with English Heritage, that would be very welcome. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an undertaking to review the effectiveness of Article 4 directions a year or so after the proposed new PPG comes into operation to see whether they meet the needs, as the noble Baroness thinks they will. I remain entirely sceptical about them. I have not yet found a single district planning officer who favours the route of Article 4 direction. It may not be quite such a rare species as I believe it to be, but I have not yet found one of them. If the Minister insists that this is the only way forward, I can do no other than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5 p.m.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 131 to 150 inclusive: Page 83, leave out line 29 and insert:

  1. ("9.—(1) In section 88 of that Act (rights of entry)—
    1. (a) in subsection (1) after "on it" there is inserted "or any other land",
    2. (b) in subsection (2)(a) after "surveying it" there is inserted "or any other land",
    3. (c) in subsection (2)(b) after "complied with" there is inserted "in relation to the land or any other land",
    4. (d) in subsection (2)(c) after "on the land" there is inserted "or any other land",
    5. (e) in subsection (2)(d) for "such building" there is substituted "building on the land or any other land",
    6. (f) in subsection (3)(a) after "section 59" there is inserted "in relation to the land or any other land", and
      7. 684
    7. (g) in subsection (3)(b) and (c) after "the land" there is inserted "or any other land".
  2. (2) For subsection (7)").
Page 84, line 42, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority"). Page 84, line 43, after ("entry") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State"). Page 85, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 34 and insert ("The hazardous substances authority shall, immediately after exercising those powers, give notice of the exercise"). Page 85, line 37, leave out from ("it") to end of line 44. Page 85, line 45, leave out ("For") and insert ("In"). Page 85, line 45, leave out from ("appeal)") to end of line 5 on page 86 and insert ("after "shall" there is inserted "subject to regulations under this section"."). Page 86, line 14, leave out ("they think") and insert ("the court thinks"). Page 87, line 32, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority"). Page 87, line 33, after ("entry") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State"). Page 88, line 7, after ("44A") insert ("88"). Page 88, line 7, at end insert:

("Housing Act 1988 (c. 50.) 16A. In section 67(3A) of the Housing Act 1988 for "25 and 36" there is substituted "26AA, 36 and 36A".") Page 88, line 10, at end insert:

Page 88, line 12, after ("notice") insert ("—(a)"). Page 88, line 14, after ("date") insert ("and and, where different periods apply to different steps, references in this Part to the period for compliance with a listed building enforcement notice, in relation to any step, are to the period within which the step is required to be taken"."). Page 88, line 16, at end insert: ("17A. In section 39(7) of that Act "in writing" is omitted. 17B. In section 42 of that Act—
  1. (a) in subsection (1) for "compliance period" there is substituted "period for compliance with the notice", and
  2. (b) subsection (7) is omitted.").
 Page 88, line 17, at end insert: ("18A. In section 46(4) of that Act for "sections 42 and 43" there is substituted "section 42" and for "those sections" there is substituted "that section"."). Page 88, line 24, after ("Act") insert ("for "subsection (7)" there is substituted "section 88B(8)" and"). Page 88, line 26, at end insert: ("23A. In Schedule 3 to that Act, in paragraph 2(1)(b), after "section 41(1), (2)" there is inserted "(2A)"."). Page 88, line 36, at end insert: ("26A. In section 36(5) of that Act "Subject to subsection (6)" is omitted.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 151: After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:

Compulsory purchase

(". The Secretary of State or the Minister shall not confirm an order for the compulsory purchase of any land or rights over land unless he is satisfied that the owner in question of the land or rights in, on or over land in question is unwilling or unable to enter into an agreement to sell the land or the rights voluntarily.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I have to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, is not able to be in his place this afternoon. Secondly, I have to apologise for an error which has crept into the wording. The intention was that this should be placed in the Bill after Clause 48 and not after Clause 44. The mistake arose because it was the original Clause 44. I am advised that, should the House be minded to approve this amendment, it could be placed in the correct position by a simple amendment.

The arguments in favour of this amendment are three. First, voluntary negotiation before the compulsory purchase procedure is invoked can substantially reduce the resentment, bitterness and alienation which is felt by someone who is having land taken away unwillingly, which is of course the case in a compulsory purchase order. The second advantage is that the procedure is likely to be quicker, easier and involve lower legal and administrative costs. The third consideration is a practical one. Quite small concessions made at the time of negotiation can be used to speed up the negotiation and to reach a quick, agreed settlement.

I have had experience of land being taken by statutory undertakers who have compulsory purchase powers. It is the practice of many statutory undertakers and of private undertakers who have statutory powers to have voluntary negotiations before making use of their statutory power. We have a very nice man who negotiates on behalf of the Electricity Board. He comes along and says "We have to get this through", and I say "It is going to be difficult, because we want the irrigation to …" and then he says "Oh dear: well, what can we do about it?" and we work at it together. One day I said to him, "Mr. So and So, I am not going to agree to this voluntarily, but of course I know you have statutory powers". His reply was, "Oh no, Lord Northbourne, I would not do that to you." And of course in the end you melt and you agree.

We have the same experience with the council roads man. He is such a nice man and he listens to everything you have to say. I can only say to the noble Baroness that this practice really does work. Therefore I believe that, in its modified form, this amendment is simply designed to bring the procedures used by all local authorities up to the standard of that used by the best. I beg to move.

Baroness Blotch

My Lords, in bringing forward this amendment the noble Lord argues once more for prohibition on the use of compulsory purchase powers until it has been established that the owner of the land concerned is not prepared to sell it voluntarily.

In preparing for this debate, I looked again at what the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said in Committee when moving a similar amendment. I have of course also listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said this evening, but I am afraid that I cannot see what useful purpose this amendment would serve. As he has said, acquiring authorities in many cases seek to negotiate a voluntary sale of land before exercising their powers of compulsory purchase.

The Government would certainly not wish to discourage them from proceeding in this way wherever it makes sense to do so. But I do not believe that there would be any advantage in introducing a statutory requirement that voluntary negotiations must have taken place before a compulsory purchase order can be confirmed. As I said in Committee, it does not seem to me that such a requirement would ultimately make any difference to the respective positions of the vendor and the authority. Each side would be well aware that compulsory purchase powers were available in the event of agreement not being reached.

Therefore I cannot believe that the requirement would in practice cause either party to adopt a fundamentally different attitude from that which they would otherwise have had. Of course it would not be realistic to expect the acquiring authority to offer more for the land than the market price they would have to pay at the stage of compulsory purchase.

The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has argued that his provision would have the effect of speeding up procedures because owners would be more willing to negotiate without the immediate threat of compulsory purchase. I remain very doubtful about that. Where an owner is prepared to sell his land voluntarily there is nothing under present procedures to prevent the transaction taking place on the basis of an agreement. As we are both agreed, that is precisely what often happens in practice. But where an owner does not want to sell, the fact that the authority may not immediately be able to acquire by compulsion would not, in my judgment, prompt him to change his attitude. The likelihood is that in such a case the authority would surely ultimately still have to resort to compulsory purchase, and all that would have been achieved would be an unnecessary period of delay.

The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is also a very nice man and very persuasive, but he has not been quite persuasive enough. I very much hope he will accept that what he proposes will in practice have no material effect on the process of acquiring land for public development, other than to slow it down. We note the people the noble Lord comes across and the persuasive powers they use, together with the disarming and charming way in which they use them, and we hope that such a practice will prevail. However, to insist upon the voluntary element being compulsory before compulsory purchase powers are applied, is, I am afraid, not possible for us to accept. In view of what I have said, I hope that he will not press the amendment.

Lord Northbourne

My Lords, if I were negotiating with the noble Baroness I would perhaps ask her to issue guidelines or a code of practice to the relevant authorities in this context, urging them to use negotiation wherever possible. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 8 [Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Hazardous Substances—Scotland]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 152 to 156 inclusive: Page 123, line 23, after ("notice)") insert:

  1. ("(a) paragraph (1) (c) is omitted; and
  2. (b)").
Page 123, line 25, after ("notice") insert ("(a)"). Page 123, line 27, at end insert ("and and, where different periods apply to different steps, references in this Part of this Act to the period for compliance with a listed building enforcement notice, in relation to any step, are to the period within which the step is required to be taken"."). Page 123, line 28, leave out paragraph 5 and insert: ("5. For section 92(5) of that Act (withdrawal of notices) there is substituted— Page 124, line 45, leave out ("compliance period") and insert ("period for compliance with the notice").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 152 to 156 inclusive have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 not moved]

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 159: Page 126, line 37, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 124. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 160 to 165: Page 126, line 38, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State"). Page 127, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 26 and insert ("The planning authority shall, immediately after exercising those powers, give notice of the exercise"). Page 127, line 29, leave out from ("it") to end of line 36. Page 128, line 27, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority"). Page 128, line 28, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State"). Page 128, line 51, at end insert: ("11A. In section 265 (rights of entry)—

  1. (a) in subsection (2), for "thereon" there is substituted "on that or any other land"; and
  2. (b) in subsection (3), for "the land" there is substituted "on that or any other land".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]

Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 167: After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:

("Consideration of provisions of development plan

. For section 70(2) of the principal Act there is substituted— (2) In dealing with such an application the authority shall first consider the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and shall then have regard to any other material considerations." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that this amendment has considerable support outside the House from local authority associations and conservation groups. Its intention is to strengthen the whole basis of the new planning system established by the Bill. At present, the Bill does not strengthen the status of structure and local plans. That is why at Committee stage I tabled an amendment making the development plan the primary consideration when dealing with planning applications and appeals.

Unfortunately, the amendment was not acceptable to the Government on the grounds that it would make the development plan override everything else and that all the changes needed to strengthen the plans had already been made in the new planning policy guidance notes. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for discussing the amendment with me last week. I hope that the Government can now accept my new wording. I understand that there is a refined legal debate over the use of the word "primary" so I have simplified matters. The new amendment merely requires the development plan to be the first consideration when dealing with applications and appeals. What objection can there be to that? It is exactly what the Government have been telling us for the past few months.

The amendment does not mean that every development will have to stick rigidly to the plan; merely that greater weight should be attached to it when deciding on planning applications. In simple terms, I am trying to achieve a situation where, for example, if a local plan states that 2,000 houses are required within the next five years, we do not find five years later that 3,000 houses have been built because the plan has been ignored. This is exactly what is happening in too many cases.

I hope that the amendment can be accepted and supported with a change to planning policy guidance. I fear that we have not yet altered all our guidance to confirm the importance of the development plan, despite what the Government said at Committee stage. Planning Policy Guidance Note 1, or PPG1, as it is known, sets out the principle of the planning system, stating that there is a presumption in favour of development. It has not been altered since it was published in January 1988.

Yet, by contrast, it was reported in The Times on 17th November last year that the then Minister responsible for Housing, Michael Spicer, had announced at the press conference launching the Bill that there was "a presumption against" planning applications that conflicted with structure and local plans. I should be grateful if my noble friend would take the opportunity in her reply to confirm that the statement is correct and that the Government will amend Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 accordingly as soon as possible. I cannot overstress the simplicity of the amendment or its beneficial effects and urge noble Lords to support the amendment. I beg to move.

5.15 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, we support this amendment, as we did its predecessor at Committee stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said, we have drawn back from the situation where the development plan would be the primary consideration to making it the first consideration. This seems a simple and straightforward way of ensuring that sufficient weight is given to development plans.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England supports the amendment and is emphatic that it is not intended to mean that every development should stick rigidly to the development plan. It would only be the first consideration, so far as it is material to planning applications. Surely it is important to provide that developers and conservationists should enjoy a degree of certainty about the future development of the area covered by the plan. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I too support the amendment. I say to my noble friend that the Government have taken much trouble in Schedule 3, which contains 16 pages, in order to rationalise and strengthen the procedure for making development plans. Therefore, presumably they consider that the development plans are important and in each local authority planning area they should be the foundation of the local policy in the granting or refusing of applications for planning permission and in deciding how development should be distributed in that area.

We do not ask for the development plan to be the overriding or final consideration, but that it should at least be the first consideration so that what is done fits into this greatly improved system of development plans. It seems to me that this, or an amendment to the same effect, is a necessary, natural sequence to what the Government have done in Schedule 12. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will give it serious consideration. I can see no reason why she should not accept it this evening, but, if not, I hope that she will not lose sight of it and if necessary will ensure that action is taken on it in another place.

Baroness Blotch

My Lords, in considering*** planning applications, a local planning authority is required by Section 70(2) of the 1990 Act to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as it is material to the application, and to any other material consideration. To that extent the development plan is just one—but an important one—of the material considerations that an authority must take into account in determining an application.

Amendment No. 167, moved by my noble friend Lord Norrie, seeks to alter that balance by requiring an authority first to consider the provisions of the development plan and then to have regard to any other material considerations. Consideration of the development plan first has, to my mind, a strong temporal connotation; or perhaps I should say time sequence. If this is the intended purpose of the amendment, I suggest that little would be gained by it. Alternatively, "first" could involve a degree of weighting, so that the development plan automatically became the priority consideration, to be accorded greater weight than any other material consideration in decision-making. I believe, from what my noble friend has said, that this is, in fact, the underlying aim of his amendment. If so, I am afraid the same objections arise as we raised in Committee to the notion of the development plan as the "primary" consideration. In our view, to take that step and say that there is a presumption in favour of what is in accordance with the plan, and a presumption against what is not in accordance with the plan, is to go too far in the direction of rigidity.

We do not wish to give overriding priority to the provisions of the development plan over all other material considerations in determining planning applications. Section 70(2) already singles out the development plan by name and to that extent gives it a certain standing among the other, unnamed, material considerations. The Government have already stated as a matter of planning policy guidance (in PPG Note 12 issued in 1988) that where there is an up-to-date local plan which is consistent with national and regional policies, and with the relevant provisions of the structure plan, it will carry considerable weight. Where there is such a plan, together with properly substantiated reasons for the local authority's decision, the Secretary of State and his inspectors will be guided by it in dealing with planning applications. It is our intention to incorporate and expand this message about the status of the development plan in a revision of PPG Note 1.

We are reluctant to alter the current statutory position with regard to the status of the development plan, as we wish to maintain the desirable flexibility inherent in the present provision. Our planning system achieves a very difficult balance between the application of consistent general policies on the one hand, and full regard for the merits of individual proposals on the other. That is a balance which is not always achieved by planning systems based on zoning mechanisms. We consider that this amendment would move the system too far in the latter direction, and would weaken the discipline on planning authorities to give full, clear and precise reasons for every refusal of permission. That said, I can confirm it is our intention to continue to stress in policy guidance the importance we attach to the role of the development plan in development control matters. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope she will consider the following point. I have been trying very hard to follow my noble friend, but she speaks faster than my mind registers, unfortunately. It would seem to follow from what she has said that, as there is to be no prime consideration of the development plan, the development plan could, in a few cases, be completely ignored and overruled without any reason having been given. Could that situation follow from what my noble friend has said, and if so, is she content with that?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, that is a situation which is wholly unacceptable to the Government. There will be occasions when either the development plan is not sufficiently comprehensive, or it is at the tail end of its life and therefore is not so directly relevant to the issues that are involved in the application under consideration. In policy guidance having regard to the plan will be absolutely essential.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her lengthy reply. We shall have to study Hansard carefully to see exactly what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3 [Development Plans]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 168: Page 89, line 4, at end insert: ("1A. At the beginning of Part II of the principal Act there is inserted—

"Regional Planning Guidance.

9A.—(1) Local planning authorities may combine into regional groupings, or the Secretary of State may specify regional combinations of local planning authorities, to prepare Regional Planning Guidance for approval by the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the form and content of Regional Planning Guidance and the procedure to be followed in connection with its preparation, withdrawal, adoption, submission, making, alteration, repeal and replacement.

(3) Any regulations made under subsection (2) shall include provision for publicity to be given to—

  1. (a) matters to be included or excluded in Regional Planning Guidance.
  2. (b) the procedures to be followed as mentioned in subsection (2)." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 168, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 181 to 184. These amendments are concerned with the issue of regional planning guidance. Regional planning guidance is a development which, in my view, has not been very thoroughly planned. It has, rather like Topsy, just growed. As local planning authorities have recognised the desirability of putting their planning policies into the context of their regions, it has been increasingly recognised that there is something between local planning and national planning which is properly the preserve of the Secretary of State and of national government.

Oddly enough, as regional plans and regional planning guidance have grown up, they have done so without any statutory basis, or any proper way of determining how they should be prepared in the first place, or how the public should be involved in their preparation or given an opportunity to comment on the plans after they have been prepared. The Government have recognised that this is a problem. I understand that there is to be a one-day conference in March to discuss the forthcoming review of regional planning guidance for the South East. That is obviously a good thing and we welcome it.

I am sure that Labour local authorities will wish to participate in that conference. However, that is a far cry from the kind of provision which we believe to be necessary to put regional planning guidance into legislation. We are still talking about that as a possibility rather than as a requirement. We suggest in Amendment No. 168 that, Local planning authorities may combine … or the Secretary of State may specify regional combinations". Clearly, if neither the local planning authorities nor the Secretary of State feel that regional planning guidance is desirable, there is no point in imposing it on local planning authorities in a region.

Perhaps the more important aspect of Amendment No. 168 is that it provides for regulations on the form and content of regional planning guidance so that it can be established on a comparable basis throughout the country. The amendment also makes provision for publicity to be given to the regional planning guidance.

Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 have been proposed by the Association of County Councils. The amendments attempt to build on the desirable statutory status for regional planning guidance by restricting the power of the Secretary of State to comment on and alter structure plans except in cases where they conflict with regional planning guidance.

The requirement that the Secretary of State will have to approve structure plans is an unsatisfactory requirement as it stands. First, that is a slow process. It is common for longer delays to arise in waiting for the Secretary of State's approval for structure plans than in the preparation of the structure plans themselves. That cannot be a good thing. Secondly, the powers that the Secretary of State has to disapprove structure plans are very wide. The Secretary of State can in effect do what he likes with them. If he considers them to be unsatisfactory, that is sufficient as a criterion.

We believe we should have a better established network of regional planning guidance. That latter guidance should constitute the regional control of local planning authority structure plans. The locus of the Secretary of State should be confined to those cases where individual structure plans conflict with the regional planning guidance. In that way the Secretary of State is doing what central government should be doing, which is asserting the national interest rather than attempting to double-guess what is properly a regional impact.

I shall not discuss Labour Party policy for the establishment of regional government. That would be inappropriate at this time. Clearly, however, the thinking is on the same lines. We are not talking about the thinking of a single political party, but of many people in local and national government. It is recognised that we are moving in that direction. It seems right to us that the movements that have been made in that direction should now be codified, rationalised and brought more formally into the cascade of decision making on planning matters. I beg to move.

Lord Walpole

My Lords, I support the amendment. As a member of the late lamented East Anglia Economic Planning Council I was involved in the original regional plan for East Anglia. That gave rise to the county structure plans within the region, and later the area plans. This Government, in their wisdom, abolished the planning councils. I, together with two Members of your Lordships' House on adjacent Benches to the Benches I sit on, had a very happy time on the East Anglia planning council. However, the Government abolished that body.

I have not kept too closely in touch with planning, but I am kept fairly well informed of the current position. There seem to be in the regions ad hoc bodies of planners which advise the Minister who then tells them what they have advised him to do. I am slightly confused about this situation. There is no public consultation over what those bodies advise the Minister to advise them. I wish to hear the Minister's comments on this matter more than anything else.

5.30 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I believe that I can help the noble Lord, although not as regards agreeing with him about the amendment. I was a member of the East Anglia Consultative Committee which was the successor body to the body that the noble Lord mentioned. I was also a fairly longstanding member of the Standing Conference of East Anglia Local Authorities. That body has done sterling work in this sphere. At this moment that body is advising the Secretary of State on what I believe will become the regional guidance document which will form the background of the structure plan. Therefore, I believe that the situation in East Anglia is pretty healthy at the moment.

Amendment No. 168 would have the effect of making regional groups of local planning authorities responsible for preparing regional planning guidance for approval by the Secretary of State. That would replace the present system where guidance is issued by the Secretary of State on the advice of such groups.

The main purpose of regional planning guidance is to provide a framework for the preparation of development plans. It should cover matters which need to be considered on a wider geographical basis than that of individual county structure plans. It is the government of the day which carries responsibility for policies which apply above the county level. Regional planning guidance represents advice from the Secretary of State for the Environment to local planning authorities on the application of government policy at the regional level.

The existing system works well. It is not a uniform system but it is evolving to meet the different needs of different parts of the country. Regional guidance is in place in south-east England and the Secretary of State is currently considering advice provided by SERPLAN before producing new guidance. As I said, in respect of East Anglia, the Secretary of State will shortly produce his final guidance in response to advice from SCEALA—another local authority grouping. Groups of local authorities are now taking at least the initial steps towards producing advice in all regions.

In drawing up his guidance, the Secretary of State will listen to advice from regional groups of authorities. However, it is no more than advice, and clearly he will give greater weight to advice that has the widest possible backing in the regions. The Secretary of State will also publish his guidance in draft form and consult as widely as possible before issuing guidance in its final form. The existing system allows for the fullest possible consultation before the Government give their guidance. We would not wish to see the system replaced by a third tier of bureaucracy between the counties and the Government.

The Bill makes the status of regional planning guidance absolutely clear. Counties must have regard to it when drawing up their development plans. I see no need to give regional guidance further statutory force or to provide formal statutory machinery. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

The purpose of Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 is to restrict the Secretary of State's power to direct modification of a structure plan or to call it in for his own approval. The amendments would provide that he could take such action only if a plan was not in conformity with regional planning guidance or with current national policies. We made it clear that the Secretary of State will be particularly concerned to ensure that structure plans are in conformity with national and regional policies; and it is in that context that he is most likely to use his powers of intervention. However, it would be undesirable to confine his powers wholly to that particular context. There may be occasions—rare but not inconceivable—when intervention by the Secretary of State would be desirable for other reasons.

For example, one of the main functions of the county structure plan is to allocate housing provision for the plan period on a district-by-district basis, so that there is a clear framework for local plan preparation at the district level. One can conceive of a situation in which there is unresolved disagreement between districts and county as to the appropriate distribution of housing provision; a situation, perhaps, in which several districts regard the county's structure plan provision as quite simply wrongheaded. Suppose the county persists with its proposals despite the objections of the districts. That is not a matter of national or regional policy; it is a matter of policy at county/district level. Are noble Lords opposite really saying that the Secretary of State should be debarred from intervening and seeking to resolve such a disagreement by the use of his reserve powers? That would not be sensible.

A further objection to the amendments is that they would be bound to give rise to argument as to whether a particular issue was a national or regional issue and therefore one in which the Secretary of State could properly intervene. I appreciate that the intention of the amendments is to circumscribe the Secretary of State's powers, but do we want to do so in a way which is likely to give rise to legal argument and possibly legal challenge on issues which can only be a matter of judgment?

I can assure the House that my right honourable friend has no intention of using his reserve powers in a reckless or meddlesome way. The whole aim of our proposals is to enable him to draw back from day-to-day involvement in the approval of structure plans. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that flexible powers, capable of dealing with a range of situations which we may not be able to foresee in every detail, are essential. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, it would be wrong of me to conceal the fact that I am very disappointed by that response. The Minister appears to have failed to recognise how unsatisfactory the present situation is in relation to structure plans. She made no attempt to answer the point that it very often takes longer for the Secretary of State to consider structure plans for approval than it takes to draw up the plans themselves, despite the fact that the drawing up of structure plans is a slow process because of the amount of consultation that is required, whereas the Secretary of State is not bound to consult anyone when he is considering whether or not to approve structure plans.

The Government are being very heavy handed. Having provided the possibility, rather than a requirement, for the creation of regional organisations such as SCEALA or SERPLAN, they have failed to give the statutory backing that might be required. It would not be imposed on anybody; it would only apply if it was wanted. The Government are failing to ensure that there is adequate consultation on their proposals.

I am not suggesting that either SCEALA or SERPLAN have failed to consult on their proposals. The point is that in every other aspect of planning law and in every response that the Government have given to amendments to the Bill the importance of public consultation has been emphasised. I agree with that. Why should it not apply to this part of the planning legislation?

I also believe that it is wrong for the Government to say that what is proposed here is a new tier of planning authority. What is proposed is a sensible devolution from the present provision that the Secretary of State can intervene on any aspect of a county structure plan which he considers unsatisfactory; and in that context it is the Secretary of State who defines what is unsatisfactory rather than anyone else.

I accept, as a drafting point in relation to Amendments Nos. 181 to 184, that it would be advisable to have an additional provision that the Secretary of State can intervene when there is serious dispute between the districts and the county about the county structure plan. On that basis alone I would not wish to press those amendments. However, it is only with the greatest reluctance that I feel that it would not be appropriate to press Amendment No. 168. I still feel that the Government have not recognised the force of the case that is being made. I hope that we shall find other ways of persuading them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 170: Page 89, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("Regulations") in line 9, and insert ("for the words from "other" to the end there is substituted "use of land in their area.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 170 was spoken to with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 171: Page 89, line 35, after ("may") insert ("in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (1A) below").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 171 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 172 and 173. There was considerable discussion of urban development corporations at Committee stage and I do not want to go over that ground again. Certainly I shall not bore the House by repeating my strong reservations about some of the activities of urban development corporations.

However, in responding to those amendments the Minister was quite helpful. She said that it would be exceptional for urban development corporations to be excluded from the preparation of plans and that that would occur when the urban development corporation had not completed substantial public consultation or demonstrated that its proposals were acceptable to local people.

With these amendments, and in particular with Amendment No. 172, on the face of the Bill we are fleshing out the indications given by the Minister concerning the ways in which the power to exclude urban development corporations from local plans would be used in practice.

Ideally, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendments as they stand. If not, I hope that she will recognise that they are in line with what she stated in Committee. I hope that she will indicate fairly clearly that they are in line with government policy, and that such provision is the basis on which the Government will consider allowing the exclusion of UDCs from local plans. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, new Section 12A of the principal Act, to which these amendments refer, empowers the Secretary of State to direct, in a particular case, that a UDP shall not apply to the area of an urban development corporation. Amendment No. 172 specifies just two circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be able to exercise this power.

Noble Lords will recall that at the Committee stage of the Bill I explained that the power given to the Secretary of State in Section 12A was a precautionary measure, to be used in exceptional circumstances only. I gave two illustrations of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might want to use the power—illustrations which clearly form the basis of this amendment.

But the Secretary of State will need to respond to situations as they arise. It is important that the power should be flexible. Embodying in the legislation definitions of the circumstances in which the reserve power may be used could unwittingly restrict his ability to react to situations which cannot necessarily be foreseen. The two instances the noble Lord has quoted in his amendment (where the urban development corporation has recently completed extensive public consultation on its own development proposals for the area, and where there is conflict between the urban development corporation and the local planning authority) are good examples of when the power might be used, but they may well not be the only examples.

Let me try to give another example. One could have a situation in which consultations by the UDC on its proposals for its area were proceeding more or less in parallel with the planning authority's consultations on a draft local plan, but were not complete by the time that local plan was due to go on deposit. The planning authority and the corporation might be in full agreement that it would be better for the UDC's proposals to be taken forward separately, rather than spliced prematurely into the local plan. Under the noble Lord's proposals, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to respond to that situation by excluding the UDC area from the local plan. I cannot believe that that is sensible if both authorities concerned were agreed that it is the right solution.

I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the provision as it stands in Section 12A is necessary if the Secretary of State is to be able to respond to such circumstances, and to others which we may not be able to foresee. I can assure the House again that in the normal case we shall expect a UDC area to be included in a local plan or unitary development plan; exclusion will be very much the exception. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State's power should not be unduly circumscribed. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I should have thought that we could have made more progress. Examples given by the noble Viscount were referred to when the matter was discussed at Committee. I find his further example singularly unconvincing. If there is agreement between the local planning authority and the urban development corporation, and it is simply a matter of the timing of the preparation of plans, I cannot understand why the exclusion should be insisted on by the Secretary of State. He would be intervening between an urban development corporation and a local planning authority which are in agreement about what should be done.

Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 172 provides that the Secretary of State can exclude a UDC area where there is substantial disagreement between the corporation and local planning authorities. That exclusion encompasses not only the additional example that the noble Viscount has given but any other example. It is difficult to see where other flexibility would be desirable when overriding importance must be given to securing that local plans and unitary development plans are as comprehensive and effective as possible.

I remind the House that urban development corporations are not meant to be permanent organisations; they are called short-term bodies. They are supposed to be dissolved when their task has been fulfilled. However, what is likely to happen if the Government persist in that attitude is that the urban development corporations will have disappeared. They will have dissolved themselves. But their memory will linger on in the form of a gaping hole in the unitary development plan. That is a quite unsatisfactory situation. I cannot believe that on mature reflection it is what even this Government would wish to do.

I suppose that it is not appropriate to divide the House on this matter. However, it is an issue on which I am deeply dissatisfied. I may have to reconsider the position at Third Reading. With great reluctance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 not moved.]

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 174: Page 90, line 11, after ("(c)") insert ("or (e)").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 174 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 180, 193, 197 to 202 and 204. Those are generally technical amendments of a drafting or consequential nature. If individual amendments are of particular interest to noble Lords, I shall be glad to explain their purpose. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 175: Page 90, line 14, at end insert ("except such representations or parts thereof as relate to those provisions of the unitary development plan which are substantially the same as those contained in any local plan which is in force in respect of the area in question at the time when the unitary development plan is prepared.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 175, I speak also to Amendment No. 176. We have talked about public consultation. I believe we are agreed that in principle we are in favour of public consultation. However, the amendments seek to assume that public consultation is not repetitive, time-consuming and expensive, and that it does not delay the proper progress in preparation of unitary development plans.

Under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act, local planning authorities are required to include any local plans which are in force in the area at the time when the unitary development plan is being prepared in Part 2 of the unitary development plan. It is also required that they should indicate which, if any, parts of the local plans have been altered in the preparation of the unitary development plan.

However, because of the public consultation procedures in the unitary development plan, there is the distinct possibility that those who have objected to the local plan have another opportunity, without any change in the circumstances, to object to the incorporation of the local plan in the unitary development plan.

We are in danger of having the same ground dragged over a second time. That cannot be desirable for the effective and speedy implementation of unitary development plans. It does not add to public protection. I hope that noble Lords will feel that this minor restriction on repetitive public consultation is justified. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 175 would be to remove the need for the local planning authority to consider representations to a unitary development plan where the objection relates to policies which have been incorporated without substantial alteration from an existing local plan in force in the area. Amendment No. 176 would remove the existing requirement for incorporating existing local plans into unitary development plans.

This is an aspect of the transition from local plans to unitary development plans that we have considered in some detail, and I refer the noble Lord to Amendment No. 205, which I believe answers his concern.

Our provision allows policies that have already been adopted or approved as part of a local plan to be incorporated into the unitary development plan for the area without affording objectors an automatic right to be heard by the inspector; but only if the policies have not been substantially altered and the inspector is satisfied that there has been no significant change in the circumstances. This preserves the right to have the objections to any policies in the new plan considered. It will ensure that unitary development plan inquiries do not become unduly overburdened by the objections which have been heard at previous local plan inquiries.

Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that these amendments are unnecessary.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I hope that I shall do so, but Amendment No. 205 is two and a half pages long and comes in a group which is described as transitional provisions. So it is not surprising that I did not study every line, comma, and syllable of that amendment in order to discover what is quite a significant point.

It occurs to me that if Amendment No. 205 answers my arguments, the Government should have suggested that that amendment be taken with my amendments, Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 in the grouping. On the whole that would have helped to avoid wasting the time of the House.

I hope that the noble Lord is right. If he is not I shall certainly return to this matter at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 not moved.]

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone)

My Lords, I must tell the House that if Amendment No. 178 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 179.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 178: Page 92, line 29, leave out from ("area") to end of line 30 and insert: ("(2A) The policies shall, subject to subsection (3), include policies in respect of—

  1. (a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;
  2. (b) the improvement of the physical environment; and
  3. (c) the management of traffic.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 180: Page 94, line 9, after ("(c)") insert ("or (e)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 185: Page 96, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert: ("35B.—(1) At any time during the intervening period the local planning authority shall cause an examination in public to be held of any matter affecting the proposals unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis, I should like to move Amendment No. 185 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 185A and 185B tabled by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon—not to the exclusion of him speaking to the amendments, but I know that they are to be considered together.

We return to the issue of examinations in public of structure plans, which was debated in Committee. The problem that we found with the Bill as originally drafted was that examinations in public were too discretionary. There is too much opportunity for them not to be held unless the Secretary of State directs that an examination in public should be held.

Amendment No. 185 provides basically that an examination in public should be held unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State. In other words, in trade union terms, it is contracting out rather than contracting in to examinations in public.

We were encouraged by the support given to the increased use of examinations in public and by the comments that the Minister made. Although the comments were supportive and there was a good reception to the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lady Hollis, we believe that the objections that could be made to examinations in public are fairly trivial. Examinations in public ensure that planning has to come up to the highest quality. They give the planning procedures the authority and legitimacy that they deserve. The power of the Secretary of State to direct otherwise provides that in cases in which such examinations are not necessary the procedures can be streamlined.

It seems to us that this amendment strikes very much the right balance between a discretion to avoid unnecessary examinations in public and the normal presumption that examinations in public should be held. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 185A, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I shall not be terribly alarmed if my amendment, Amendment No. 185A, is not called because I do not intend to press it. I seek information more than anything else. I had hoped to speak on this matter when it was raised at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Hollis. Unfortunately, I was out of London at the time and did not return until the debate had finished. I wrote to the Minister outlining the position and included in my letter a fairly lengthy statement of the situation as I saw it on this part of Schedule 3.

I am happy to say that I received two very courteous letters from the Minister, one of which was lengthy and very detailed. Unfortunately, neither of the letters dealt with this part of the schedule. They related to another part of the schedule. Nevertheless I found them acceptable and interesting. I therefore proceeded to table the amendments.

It will be seen that Amendment No. 185A is not dissimilar to Amendment No. 185. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and myself seek much the same thing; namely, that the examination in public must be held rather than may be held. At the back of my attitude is the recollection that some time ago, when he was Secretary of State, Nicholas Ridley announced that the south east of England was in need of upwards of half a million dwellings to meet the housing need. I forget the precise figure; it was perhaps 600,000. Much of the shortfall could be made up by means of infill in London and other towns and conurbations in the area but by no means all of it. Something of the order of half those 500,000 or 600,000 dwellings would have to be built somewhere in the counties of south east England, outside the green belt. That meant that the counties would be required to contribute in some way by providing land to ease the shortfall in housing.

The problem is that this part of the Bill, which changes the older law, up to a point makes the counties more or less judge and jury in their own case. In some respects the Bill is a Nimby's charter and the councils can say, "Not in my back yard"—or, as is sometimes said, "Not in my term of office". At all events, as it stands the counties will have the whip hand in deciding whether or not land can be provided to meet housing need.

I do not believe that that is right or sensible. Let us look back to earlier days. I live in Hampstead Garden Suburb which was built about 90 years ago on a greenfield site in what was then the County of Middlesex. It is by no means certain that that land would have been available for housing under this Bill as it stands. The same could be said of Letchworth or Welwyn Garden City in the County of Hertfordshire. It is not at all certain that those developments could have gone ahead had the provisions of this part of the Bill been in operation.

I am not trying to express a generalised distrust of the county councils. I am merely suggesting that they are likely to put their own needs first and those of others second. In support of that belief I wish to quote part of a statement that I have received from the House Builders Federation. It is possible that the Minister has read the statement which states: Perhaps the Federation's concern about 'local choice' can best be illustrated by the position emerging in Hampshire where the structure plan review proposes a future housing requirement of 58,000 dwellings in the period 1991–2001. This is some 8,500 dwellings or 13% less than the current requirement for Hampshire set out in DOE Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 9". The statement continues: Here, the County are exercising their 'local choice' to the extent that even indigenous housing needs will not be satisfied and opportunities for further investment in the County will be severely curtailed". That is the view of the House Builders Federation in regard to Hampshire. It is unlikely that Hampshire will be able to help to meet the general shortfall in housing in the South-East if it persists in that attitude—or if it is permitted to persist in that attitude.

Amendment No. 185A has the same aim as Amendment No. 185. Amendment No. 185B sets out detailed provisions relating to the manner in which the examinations in public would be held. In particular it relates to the information which the inquiry would be obliged to provide to objectors after it was over.

6 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may refer to a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about time wasting. I have written to him an extensive letter explaining the issues in respect of Amendment No. 205. The letter was dispatched on Friday and I am sure that he will find its contents helpful before the next stage of the Bill.

While listening to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I was reminded that during our debates on the Bill we have lurched from having faith in local authorities to not doing so. It is interesting to note that at one moment I am forced to say, "Please trust local authorities", while at the next I am being told not to trust them.

I promised to return to the House on Amendment No. 176, moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, proposing that the examination in public should be mandatory. Amendment No. 185 now moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, provides that the EIP should be mandatory unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. We agree with the intention underlying this amendment. We agree that it would be preferable to place a duty on county planning authorities to hold an examination in public and to provide that any departure from that role must be authorised by the Secretary of State. In almost all cases an EIP will be necessary; dispensing with one will be very much the exception. We shall make that clear in guidance.

I should like to consider further the precise form which a new provision should take. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me a little more time to consider the wording on the understanding that I shall certainly bring forward an amendment at a later stage to place a duty on authorities to hold an EIP unless the Secretary of State agrees otherwise. There will an obligation on the local authorities to hold the examination in public, unless there is a determination by the Secretary of State that the matter may not be contentious and that it may be time wasting to hold an examination. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, would similarly make the holding of an examination in public mandatory. However, they are also intended to go further than that and to confer a right to be heard on objectors; make provision for the distribution of copies of the panel's report; and to give objectors to a structure plan a final right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

I explained in Committee why we do not favour granting a right to be heard to those who raise objections to a draft structure plan. The planning authority must consider all written objections; but EIPs are conducted on the basis of a selective consideration of key issues and participants are invited to attend. To grant a general right to be heard would completely alter the nature of the EIP and turn it into a much more unwieldy and time-consuming event.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, seek to turn a structure plan EIP into the equivalent of an inquiry into objections to local plan proposals. But even with local plan inquiries, every objector is not entitled to receive a copy of the inspector's report and the authority's statement of decisions. Objectors do, however, receive notice of the availability of these documents for inspection and regulations provide for their sale at a reasonable charge.

We propose to cover the equivalent aspects for the new structure plan system under regulations. The report of the EIP panel would be published and made available for public inspection, as would the planning authority's statement of decisions on the panel's recommendations. If the authority wished to propose modifications to their proposals, these too would be published for the purpose of objection. Participants at the EIP and other objectors would be notified that the relevant documents were available for inspection. In this way the public will be involved at each stage towards the plan's adoption.

The noble Lord, Lord Howie, was worried about counties having the whip hand. We are saying that in future counties will not have the whip hand. Schedule 3 will require their structure plans to have regard to national policies and regional guidance. Through regional guidance the Secretary of State will continue to set housing provision figures as he does now. He will have reserve powers to ensure that they are met. Of course, counties will have local choice as regards where but not as regards how many.

The new system also provides for some or all of structure plan proposals to be called in for the Secretary of State's decision. It would be open to objectors who were unhappy with the planning authority's decision on the panel's recommendations to ask the Secretary of State to step in. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, if I have neglected one of the many helpful letters that the Minister has sent to me, I apologise. She kindly provided me with an explanation of government amendments, and Amendment No. 205 was described merely as being consequential on changes to Schedule 3 but she gave no further detail. I accept that the Minister must have written to me about the matter and that in the flood of paper I have overlooked it.

As regards Amendment No. 185, I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that the matter will be covered in planning policy guidance. That is probably so far as I can take it. If she decides that she wishes to raise the status of the provision that examinations in public shall be the norm rather than the exception, she will have our full support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Howie of Troon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 185A: Page 96, line 11, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 12 and insert: ("shall cause an examination in public to be held for the purpose of considering objections to their proposals for the making, alteration, repeal or replacement of a structure plan.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for her comments, and shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 185A not moved.]

[Amendment No. 185B not moved.]

Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 186: Page 97, line 18, at end insert:

  1. "("(1A) A local planning authority may at any time with the approval of the Secretary of State prepare for their area or any part of thereof a plan to be known as a local subject plan and in this Act, save for this subsection and subsection (2) of this section, a local subject plan shall be deemed to be a local plan or, as appropriate, part of part II of the unitary development plan, for all purposes unless the context otherwise requires.
    2. 705
  2. (1B) In a non-metropolitan county, a local subject plan relating to an area not wholly comprised in one district shall only be prepared by or with the consent of the county planning authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 186, 190, 191, 192 and 196 seek to patch up an unfortunate hole in the Bill's proposals for the development plan system. I have welcomed the Bill's intention to retain county structure plans and to make mandatory the preparation of district-wide local plans. However, the Bill makes no provision for carrying forward existing arrangements for the preparation of subject plans by local authorities.

At present there are approximately 40 subject plans. They usually have one or two functions. First, they deal with particularly controversial issues. Secondly, they tackle issues which cut across district and county boundaries.

I have no doubt that a full coverage of local plans will make the first of those functions largely redundant; for example, Humberside, a county known for intensive livestock rearing, can deal through a new structure or local plan and will not need to renew its subject plan.

However, the second function is much more difficult. Local and structure plans cannot cope easily with issues needing detailed policies which cut across boundaries; for example, a draft subject plan recently published by North Yorkshire County Council defines the detailed boundaries as the green belt around York. That involves no less than five separate district councils. It would be quite unrealistic to expect all those districts to come forward with their local plans at the same time to deal with the green belt, as the matter can only be dealt with by a subject plan.

An even more difficult area is the Mendip Hills where a subject plan has been prepared involving two county councils and four district councils to deal comprehensively with that area of outstanding natural beauty. Your Lordships can imagine the confusion if the separate parts of the plan were to be divided up. All the benefits of co-ordination would be lost.

In Committee I supported an amendment requiring the preparation of coastal zone plans. While acknowledging that there was a problem, the Government refused to accept those amendments. Retaining provision for subject plans would be an easy first step for the Government to take towards the proper planning of the coastline. I hope that my noble friend will accept that as a helpful suggestion.

I urge support for this simple amendment. It proposes nothing new but merely seeks to retain some of the best aspects of the existing development plan system. The amendment limits subject plans to cases where the Secretary of State considers them necessary. The effect would be to boost an already strengthened planning system, allowing it to deal with problems straddling county and district boundaries. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 186 and support the other amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. We discussed this matter in Committee under the slightly different heading of coastal zone planning. It is a very important subject and on that occasion we were honoured by the presence of the Secretary of State at the Bar of the House. Therefore, I assume that he is taking an interest in this subject.

As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has already told the House, this Bill does not provide for the continuation of local subject plans. We believe that that is a mistake. I have another example from Lincolnshire which is very worried about the proposals. I have a copy of a letter from Lincolnshire County Council to the East Midlands office of RSPB which states: It is now clear that the Government proposals in the recently published Planning and Compensation Bill will remove from County Councils the powers to prepare Local and Subject Plans such as those for the Lincolnshire Coast. A scenario could well develop therefore with a Lincolnshire Coast line from the Humber Bridge to Sutton Bridge involving at least five District Councils. All of them would have to co-ordinate voluntarily their coastal proposals within the context of the very generalised policy statements contained in the new 'streamlined' Structured Plans". That letter was written after the county council had taken up the matter with the Department of the Environment and had been rather disappointed by the response.

I believe that last week the Nature Conservancy Council published a document on the problems of our estuaries. Unfortunately, I have not seen a copy of that document. I merely quote from an article in last Sunday's Observer which gives some fairly startling facts which should worry us all. I am told that the Nature Conservancy Council is pressing the Government to introduce effective marine consultation areas, involving wildlife groups and commercial interests. Mr. Hornsby, the current director-general, told the Observer newspaper: Our estuaries are under extreme and increasing pressure from a whole variety of types of development". I could continue on this subject at length. The UK has 15,000 kilometres of coastline and 48 counties and regions border the coast. There are approximately one-third of a million square kilometres of territorial waters. The number and variety of activities which take place at the coast reflect its economic value but are also an indication of the pressures on the coastal zone.

In 1989, about half of the 500 development and planning cases examined by RSPB staff affected the coast. Over the past 10 years more than three-quarters of development planning cases affecting internationally important wildlife sites were on the coast. The coastline of the UK is of vital importance for internationally significant bird populations and for recreation and economic growth. However, its management is confused by layers of bureaucracy and lack of strategic planning. Over 33 government departments, statutory bodies and agencies have responsibilities in coastal areas. Add to that local authorities, landowners, managers and coastal users and the scope for confusion becomes obvious.

This is a vitally important matter. Everybody understands the need to speed up the planning process and we do not want to clog the system. However, we must restore the opportunity to deal with subject areas and I have particularly in mind coastal areas.

6.15 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, these amendments would reintroduce the concept of the subject plan—the local plan addressed to a particular topic, such as the definition of the boundaries of a green belt, or development control policies for a particular area of countryside. Our 1989 White Paper The Future of Development Plans was clear on this issue. We said: There will be no general provision for separate subject plans in the new development plan system". The Bill reflects that policy position.

This is not to deny that in some areas subject plans have served a useful purpose. But they have done so against a background of very patchy local plan coverage. If in a particular county there has been very little except the county structure plan, then a countryside subject plan may well have had a useful function.

Under the new system introduced by this Bill the situation will be quite different. We shall be requiring all planning authorities to prepare comprehensive, district-wide plans, setting out development control policies for the whole of their areas. Given comprehensive coverage, the case for subject plans becomes much more questionable. For instance, if a county structure plan sets out strategic policies for the countryside, cannot detailed development control policies to give effect to the county strategy be incorporated in each district local plan? Why is there a need for a separate countryside plan?

One of the major aims of our reform of the planning system is to simplify and to streamline. We want to see a development plan framework consisting of structure and local plans, supplemented only by minerals and waste plans, because of the special statutory responsibilities of the counties for these topics. Once we move beyond this framework, and start reintroducing subject plans which overlap with local plans, cross boundaries, and blur the relative responsibilities of county and district, we lose a great deal of the benefit of simplication which the Bill seeks to achieve.

To argue against subject plans solely on the basis of bureaucratic tidy-mindedness may not seem persuasive. However, it is important that the planning system operates in a way which is readily intelligible to those who need to use it from time to time but are not immersed in it. From their point of view, simplicity is an important criterion.

I understand the force of the argument that there are certain areas which cross administrative boundaries but need to be planned as a whole. Green belts are one example. Others might be areas of outstanding natural beauty, national forest areas, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross mentioned, heritage coastlines. Where such areas straddle county or district boundaries, it might be helpful as a means of achieving coherence and consistency in the treatment of the area if the county and district authorities concerned were to work together to produce a joint statement of planning policy for the area. Such a statement would itself be non-statutory, but it would form the basis for policies in the relevant structure and local plans and would help to secure their consistency, which is the point being made here.

That sort of joint working by agreement is a possibility which may deserve further consideration in particular areas. It is an approach which would need to be used sparingly, and would need to be supplementary to the statutory development plan framework. But that, I believe, is as far as we should go. The Government are not persuaded that the notion of the formal subject plan should be reintroduced into the scheme of things. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her full explanation. I am still concerned that the problems being dealt with by subject plans will not receive the attention that they deserve. However, we shall have to see what happens. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 187: Page 97, line 21, leave out from ("area") to end of line 23 and insert: ("(2A) The policies shall include policies in respect of—

  1. (a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;
  2. (b) the improvement of the physical environment; and
  3. (c) the management of traffic.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 187 was spoken to with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 188 to 192 not moved.]

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 193: Page 100, line 6, after ("(c)") insert ("or (e)").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 174. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 194: Page 100, line 49, after ("40(2),") insert ("or to any statement of conformity or non-conformity made available for inspection under section 46(4A),").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, in moving Amendment No. 194, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 195. These amendments concern the issues we were discussing a few minutes ago regarding the conformity between county structure plans and local plans. The Minister expressed the view that the Government's policy is not to give excessive prominence to either county structure or local plans, or indeed the reverse; they will treat both seriously. We agree with that.

Our concern is not to give precedence to either structure or district plans, but to ensure that where differences exist between them they are brought out into the open so that they can be inquired into and the public are aware that differences exist.

Amendment No. 194 provides that a statement of conformity or non-conformity between the two levels of a plan should be made available for inspection. Amendment No. 195 provides that the statement shall be made available for inspection, at such places as may be prescribed by regulations". I do not believe that they affect the relative importance of the two plans. They provide that differences which should be in the open and of which the public should be aware are the subject of public inquiry and that the information is available for inspection. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, there is already a provision in the Bill which achieves the purpose sought by Amendment No. 195. Section 46(2) provides for the structure plan authority to supply the local plan authority with a statement of conformity or non-conformity of the local plan with the structure plan, and new Section 40 subsections (2) and (3) provide for the statement to be made available for inspection at places prescribed by regulation under Section 53.

We considered when drawing up the local plan provisions whether to provide for objections to the statement of conformity or non-conformity and for such objections to carry the right to consideration at a public local inquiry as proposed by Amendment No. 194. We decided that that was unnecessary. We expect people who consider that any aspect of a statement of conformity is incorrect to make an objection to the relevant policies or proposals in the plan on the grounds that it does not conform generally with the structure plan. Such an objection carries with it the right to be heard before an inspector at a public local inquiry under new Section 42(1). A right for an objector to a statement of conformity to be heard at inquiry as proposed by the amendment would duplicate this provision.

A person who objects to any aspect of a statement of non-conformity would presumably be doing so in support of the allegedly non-conforming proposals in the local plan. The new legislation enables us to require that representations in support of proposals be considered by the local planning authority and our code of practice already provides for representations to be considered at the discretion of the inspector. The statement of non-conformity is to be treated as an objection which would be discussed at the inquiry, and we would expect the aspects of alleged non-conformity to be fully examined. An inspector may take all representations in support of policies and proposals into account and he has discretion over whether to hear them at inquiry.

We consider these amendments to be unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, it sounds all right. But the noble Viscount is picking out bits and pieces of the Bill from different places. As the whole Bill consists of amendments to a principal Act of 1990 it is extraordinarily difficult for us to map the 1990 Act against the Bill and against the new provisions which were brought in at Committee stage. All I can say is that I am glad to hear that the Government are in support of the principle behind my amendment. We shall consider carefully the wording to which he has referred us. I hope that it will make it unnecessary for us to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.]

Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 197 to 202: Page 102, line 43, leave out ("provisions in") and insert ("—

  1. (a) provisions in a structure plan or")
Page 102, line 46, at end insert: Page 103, line 21, leave out ("under section 39(4) to serve a copy") and insert ("to serve a copy under subsection (1) of section 46"). Page 103, line 22, leave out ("section 46") and insert ("subsection (2) of that section"). Page 104, line 30, leave out ("local minerals") and insert ("minerals local plan or waste local"). Page 104, line 32, leave out ("that local minerals") and insert ("minerals local plan or waste local").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 203: Page 104, line 34, at end insert: ("(2) In subsection (4) of that section at the end there is inserted "and Part III of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 203, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 205 and 206. These amendments deal with the transitional arrangements for development plans. They are important transitional provisions which honour our undertaking that work already carried out will not be wasted. They are in line with the policies we indicated we would follow in the White Paper on the future of development plans and during the Second Reading of the Bill.

I shall not go into detail unless the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, positively insists that I should. If he does not, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 204 and 205: Page 104, line 37, leave out ("287 of the principal") and insert ("284(1) (a) of the principal Act (validity of development plans etc.) "repeal", in both places where it occurs, is omitted. 30A. In section 287 of that"). Page 105, line 5, at end insert: ("(2) In paragraph 7(3) of that Schedule, in paragraph (a) —

  1. (a) for sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) there is substituted—
    1. "(i) of any policy contained in a structure plan which has been adopted or approved;
    2. (ii) of any policy contained in proposals made available for inspection under section 33(2);" and
  2. (b) for sub-paragraphs (v) to (vii) there is substituted—
    3. 711
32A.—(1) In Schedule 2 to that Act (transitional provisions with respect to unitary development plans) —
  1. (a) in Part I, paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, and
  2. (b) in Part II, paragraphs 3 to 16 and 18,
are omitted. (2) For paragraph 4 of Part I of that Schedule and paragraph 17 of Part II of that Schedule there is substituted in each case—
  1. ".—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where—
    1. (a) a local plan is in force in the area of a local planning authority;
    2. (b) a unitary development plan is being prepared;
    3. (c) the local planning authority who are preparing that plan have published in the prescribed manner a statement in the prescribed form identifying a policy included in the plan as an existing policy; and
    4. (d) a local inquiry or other hearing is held for the purpose of considering any objection to the plan.
  2. (2) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the person holding the inquiry or other hearing need not allow an objector to appear if he is satisfied that—
    1. (a) the objection is to a policy identified in the statement published under sub-paragraph (1) (c);
    2. (b) the policy so identified is an existing policy; and
    3. (c) there has been no significant change in circumstances affecting the existing policy since it first formed part of the plan mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a).
  3. (3) In this paragraph "existing policy" means a policy or proposal the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in a local plan in force as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a)."
 32B.—(1) In Schedule 13 to that Act (blighted land) in paragraph 1 in Note (1) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—
  1. "(a) proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan which have been made available for inspection under section 33(2);
  2. (b) any proposed modifications to those proposals which have been published in accordance with regulations under section 53.
 (2) In Note (2) to that paragraph for the words from "33(9)" to the end there is substituted "34". (3) In Note (5) for "in force" there is substituted "in operation". (4) After that Note there is inserted— (5) In Note (7) to that paragraph for the words from "and all references" to the end there is substituted "and Notes (1) to (4) shall be omitted". (6) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule in paragraph (a) for "in force" there is substituted "in operation". (7) For Note (1) to paragraph 2 there is substituted—
  1. (a) proposals for the making or alteration and replacement of any such plan where copies of the proposals have been made available for inspection under section 40(2) or by virtue of paragraph 37 of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991; and
  2. (b) any proposed modifications to those proposals which have been published in accordance with regulations under section 53."
 (8) Notes (2) and (5) to that paragraph are omitted. (9) In Note (3) to that paragraph "also" is omitted. (10) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule, in Note (1)—
  1. (a) in paragraph (a) for "13(3)" there is substituted "13(2)"; and
  2. (b) in paragraph (b) "or under section 22" is omitted.
 (11) In Note (2) to that paragraph "13(7) or" is omitted. (12) In paragraph 4 of that Schedule, in Note (1)—
  1. (a) in paragraph (a) for "13(3)" there is substituted "13(2)";
  2. (b) in paragraph (b) "or under section 22" is omitted.
 (13) In Note (2) to that paragraph "13(7) or" is omitted. 32C. In Schedule 4 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990—
  1. (a) in paragraph 1, in the Table, the entry relating to section 9(4) of the 1971 Act and paragraph 2 of that Schedule is omitted;
  2. (b) paragraph 2 is omitted.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 206: Page 105, line 8, at end insert:

("PART III