Planning Bill

We come to a series of new clauses, new schedules and amendments that reflect the further work that we have done and our reflection on the points put to us in discussion. New schedule 3 reworks the provisions of clause 109(4) into a new schedule, thereby clearly setting out the matters that may be included in a development consent order. New schedule 3 contains new matters that go beyond those that were previously contained in clause 109. They include the use of underground gas storage facilities; the carrying out of civil engineering and other works; the charging of fares and other fees; the operation and maintenance of a transport system; entering into an agreement for the provision of police services; the transfer of property, rights, liabilities or functions; and the transfer, leasing, suspension, discontinuance and revival of undertakings. In substance, all those matters are taken from the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Harbours Act 1964, and the terminology relating to many of them has been imported into the Bill. Amendment No. 115 also makes it clear that we do not believe it appropriate for the IPC to make provisions that could create byelaws or criminal offences. We recognise that the promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects may wish to have powers relating to penalty fare regimes or the enforcement of the proper use of infrastructure, through prosecution for trespass or the breaking of speed limits, for instance. However, we remain of the view that in such circumstances an application should properly be made to the Secretary of State for a Transport and Works Act order or a Harbours Act order, as currently. Let me deal with Government new clauses 22 and 23, Government amendments Nos. 165 and 270, and Government amendment No. 88, which was in the first group of amendments that we considered. These measures set out a single or harmonised procedure for dealing with the major consents that are needed for offshore development, which are a consent under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949, or a licence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Those consents will be treated differently from other aspects of the single consents regime. The new clauses and amendments will not disapply the need to seek consents under those Acts, but will allow development consent orders from the IPC to deem consents that must otherwise be applied for under those Acts. We have decided to make the CPA and FEPA consents into deemed consents to facilitate enforcement offshore. As the Bill stands without those amendments, the Secretary of State would lose the power to require the owner of infrastructure offshore to take action to prevent a danger to navigation. The provision is important and justifies the CPA consent being a deemed consent. Amendment No. 165 clarifies that enforcement of those consents should be carried out under the enforcement mechanisms in the CPA and the FEPA rather than under the Bill. For harbours, the overall regulatory structure is different from the large majority of infrastructure types covered by the Bill. With most infrastructure types, a company or person has the ability to undertake whatever development they wish, subject to receiving a certain number of consents or regulatory authorisations. With harbours, a company has no such powers until it receives statutory powers under an order made under the Harbours Act 1964. New clause 21 reflects the fact that a harbour proposal that is a nationally significant infrastructure project, or NSIP, will almost inevitably require changes to the statutory powers held by a harbour authority or the grant of fresh powers to create a new harbour authority. The new clause allows the decision maker to include in a development consent order provisions to allow the creation of a harbour authority or the revision of provisions governing an existing harbour authority. There will be restrictions on what can be included in a development consent order in relation to a harbour, the most notable of which are set out in amendment No. 115, which I have mentioned. Furthermore, such an order may provide for the creation of a harbour authority only if it is necessary or expedient for a harbour proposal that is an NSIP application. A development consent order will provide for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities between one harbour authority and another only if the order deals also with compensatory payments. New clause 24 makes it clear that the IPC cannot use the powers in the Bill to override the requirements of operational consents unless the relevant consenting body agrees. We drew the measure from the operation of the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the orders that have been put in place under it. Experience tells us that it can be of benefit to promoters to incorporate certain operational consents into the original authorisation to proceed. However, the position and rights of the bodies that grant operational consents, a leading example of which is the Environment Agency, must be protected. Under the new clause, they must therefore agree to provisions in the development consent order that would override a requirement otherwise to seek operational consent from them. That is what happens under the Transport and Works Act with authorisations for the discharge of water, for example. Several operational consents are devolved matters, and we intend to preserve the devolution settlement, so there is a similar provision in relation to the Welsh Assembly Government. Finally, let me address the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), who is not in his place. I pay tribute to the way in which he raised his concerns in Committee and to how his colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), expressed similar concerns in the Committee that debated the Housing and Regeneration Bill. In the Committee that discussed the Energy Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) also raised concerns about the health effects of electromagnetic fields. In Committee, we discussed at some length frequencies known as extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields, to which I shall refer as ELF EMFs. The main sources of ELF EMFs are power lines, electricity sub-stations, household wiring and electrical appliances in the home. The Government do not believe that the proposed duty on the decision maker—in this case the IPC—is necessary or appropriate at this stage because there are already guidelines on the exposure of people to ELF EMFs. The hon. Member for Newbury will know that the Government are considering whether any further practical, precautionary measures should be put in place to strengthen the concern to protect people from the possible effects of that sort of radiation. In doing so, we are giving full consideration to the report of the Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMF and to the Health Protection Agency's recommendations on that report. When we draw the matter to a conclusion, we will consider how to implement any precautionary measures that might be justified, which will be implemented at national level. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise, as he did in Committee, that it would not be sensible, at this stage of this Bill, to pre-empt the conclusions and recommendations that might flow from the report. I pay tribute to him for his tenacity and commitment in raising these concerns, but I urge him not to press his amendments to a vote, and to accept that any policy or precautionary protective changes that might be necessary in future will be put in place by the Government as a result of the conclusions that we reach, based on the SAGE and HPA reports. I hope that my comments help the House with the consideration of this group of new clauses and amendments, and I look forward to the debate.