Planning Bill

My hon. Friend is quite right. As I have said, that is the very problem that travellers along the north Wales coastal road have experienced for many years, as a consequence of the delayed completion of the A5117 link. He is right, too, that the regime applies also to railways. The concern is that devolution, which is supposed to work for the benefit of the residents of the devolved Administrations, is perhaps being applied too strictly, to the extent that it is penalising those people. The Minister mentioned the amendments to the regime concerning railways. New clause 10 is a substitute for the old clause 23, and provides a new definition of the construction or alteration of a railway. It is the second such amendment of the clause. In essence, the new clause raises the railway threshold so that it relates only to strategic rail links and not to light tramways or guided transport. Again, the Government, to their credit, appear to have listened to the concerns that were expressed in Committee, where Members said that tramways should properly be in the domain of the local planning authority and not the infrastructure planning commission. Subsections (1)(c) and (2)(c) of the new clause provide that the construction or alteration of a railway carried out pursuant to permitted development, which is"““development in relation to which planning permission is granted by article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995””," is specifically excluded. As the Minister will be aware, part 17 of the 1995 order provides that permitted development is:"““Development by railway undertakers on their operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail.””" It is interesting that the new clause does not disturb that. One can fully understand the need for the GPD regime to be preserved in respect of railways, but will the Minister explain why Network Rail, uniquely among statutory undertakers, should have those rights preserved? As far as I can see, permitted rights are not being preserved for other statutory undertakers—specifically, as I hope to discuss later, the operators of ports and harbours. Will the Minister explain why it is thought proper to preserve those GPD rights in relation to railways but not for other statutory undertakers? The Minister mentioned the amendments on airports. Amendments Nos. 77, 81, 82, 83 and 84 all relate to air transport. Their effect is to ensure that where there is an existing restriction on the number of passenger movements or cargo aircraft movements at an airport, any proposal to increase the annual use of the airport by more than 10 million passengers or 10,000 air transport movements of cargo aircraft will be a matter for the new single development consent process. The Minister has said that that will apply even if the promoter does not propose the physical development of the site. I have asked the Minister which regimes currently govern passenger and air cargo movements per se—those that are unrelated to physical alterations to the airport— and I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for a licensing regime in respect of Gatwick and Heathrow. The Minister has indicated that the planning regime is already used for other matters, but that would, I imagine, be in respect of physical development, because it is clear from the amendments that passenger and air transport movements, per se, are being brought within the planning process for the first time. Speaking entirely as a lay person, I find it hard to see how the significant intensification of an airport's use by so many additional traffic movements could be accommodated without at least some physical development of the site. That might simply mean more lavatories in the air terminal, but more car parks and reception facilities might also be needed. I should think, therefore, that applications seeking consent for increased air traffic movements, in isolation, will be relatively rare, but one can imagine how disturbing such applications will be to residents of neighbouring properties and even of properties some miles away from the airport. To put it bluntly, there is extreme concern that such applications will result in a large number of irate householders complaining about the disturbance that they are likely to experience as a result. We shall debate the subject of the IPC at a later date, but this seems to be a prime example of a situation in which it is right for there to be political accountability and transparency, and for a Minister to be answerable for a policy, in the House, to the Members of Parliament who represent the aggrieved householders. Given the sensitivity of these proposals, what assurance can the Minister give us that the interests of aggrieved neighbours will be properly represented in respect of such applications? The Minister referred to amendment No. 92, and to the clustering of developments. The amendment would provide that such clusters may be the subject of a direction by the Secretary of State to be treated as an application for an order granting development consent. That is welcome, given the potential impact of the proliferation of a number of applications for the same kind of development in the same area. Prime examples nowadays are applications for the development of a number of wind farms, each of which is just below the 50 MW onshore capacity limit. It is quite right that the impact of such applications should be given consideration as a development of nationally significant importance. Individually, such applications are usually made to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform under the Electricity Act 1989. However, the provisions in clause 33, as amended, relate only to England and to English waters. The Minister has already explained that the Government are concerned not to disturb the devolution settlement, but I find it hard to understand, even within the context of that concern, why the proposal should relate only to England and not extend to Wales. The Minister has already explained, when dealing with amendment No. 325, that the Welsh Assembly does not have devolved competence in respect of onshore wind farms above 50 MW, under the Electricity Act, or of offshore wind farms above 100 MW. I therefore suggest that extending the provisions of clause 33, as amended by amendment No. 92, to Wales would not in any sense disturb the devolution settlement. There seems to be a possibility that Wales could be left behind when the new streamlined procedure is adopted to consider large-scale generating applications. Will the Minister explain why he has decided to exclude Wales on this occasion?