Planning Bill

We are again debating a large number of extensive and technical amendments to the Bill, and I am sure that the Minister will be glad to hear that I shall not berate him again for the lateness of their appearance. However, there are several matters that I wish to raise. The Minister discussed new clause 21, which relates to harbours and contains powers providing for the creation of harbour authorities. It also contains powers to change the powers and duties of harbour authorities and to authorise the transfer of property rights and liabilities from one harbour authority to another. Will he comment on the fact that in many cases, applicants for development consent under the proposals in the Bill will be harbour authorities? Is it proposed that in such circumstances the rights in the new harbours would simply be vested in the new harbour authorities, or would further procedures have to be undergone to achieve that transference? In a previous debate today, I referred to general permitted development rights in the context of railways. At that point, the Minister suggested that although such rights were not specifically mentioned in certain clauses of the Bill, that did not mean that they would not be preserved—for harbour authorities, for example. I should simply like to place on record that I have noted that point, as I have no doubt that others will place reliance on it. New clause 24 makes this provision:"““An order granting development consent may include provision the effect of which is to remove a requirement for a prescribed consent or authorisation to be granted, only if the relevant body has consented to the inclusion of the provision.””" The relevant body is defined as"““the person or body which would otherwise be required to grant the prescribed consent or authorisation.””" At first sight, that appears to be anomalous, given that clause 31—one of the linchpins of the Bill, and, indeed, of the whole single consent regime—provides for the other sorts of consent that might normally need to be obtained to be dispensed with. Will the Minister please explain the purpose of new clause 24, in the context of the provisions in clause 31? Is there a conflict between the two provisions? At first sight, there appears to be one. The Minister has also mentioned that the new clauses specifically preclude the imposition of new byelaws or the grant of authority to others to impose such byelaws. Again, that appears strange, given that many of the entities that will be created by the Bill—particularly those covered by this group of amendments, including harbour authorities—will have the right to impose byelaws. Given the wide-ranging, sweeping powers that will be granted to the IPC by the Bill, even to the extent of enabling it to amend primary legislation, it seems odd that the power to confer the right to make byelaws has specifically been excluded. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that. New clause 23 provides:"““An order granting development consent may include provision deeming a licence to have been issued under Part 2 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985””." That relates, inter alia, to the laying of installations on the sea bed. The deemed licence is limited to England and English waters, or to a renewable energy zone designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area that is part of the Scottish renewable energy zone. Please will the Minister explain why the new clause does not relate to Welsh waters, especially in the light of the fact that large-scale offshore wind developments—a reserved matter—will probably require a licence to be made under the 1985 Act? Finally, I should like to apologise for the absence from the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon). I am sure that he will appreciate the thoughtful and kind way in which the Minister has dealt with his proposed amendments, and I am authorised to say that my hon. Friend would have sought to withdraw them.