Planning Bill

We are on the last lap—for tonight. I begin with the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on Clause 34(1)(d), which allows the Secretary of State to direct either individual sub-threshold projects or a group or cluster of such projects to the IPC. In the case of a cluster of projects, referral to the IPC can be made on the basis that the projects, when considered together, are of national significance. This reflects the cumulative impact that such clusters of projects can have on an area. For example, a series of proposed offshore wind farms in a similar area might be below the 100 megawatt limit individually, but above the limit when taken together. In response to the opening comments of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, we expect that the ministerial power of direction in this area would be exercised on the basis of clear criteria set out in a ministerial Statement, or possibly in the NPS itself. We would expect this power to be used comparatively rarely, to deal with circumstances which we would not be able to predict, such as changing technology, changing sectoral circumstances or situations where several projects come forward in close proximity such that they are likely to have cumulative impacts that require holistic consideration. Amendment No. 164, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks to alter Clause 34(1)(d) so that the Secretary of State can direct a project to the IPC only if he believes that the ““development”” is of national significance, rather than if he believes the ““project”” is of national significance. Perhaps I should explain why we have used ““project”” in Clause 34. The meaning of ““development”” in the Bill, as set out in Clause 31, is the same as in the Town and Country Planning Act, albeit with some modifications—that is, it relates specifically to physical and engineering works, such as construction, demolition and digging, and to material changes in the use of land. The reference to a ““project”” as opposed to a ““development”” is used in Clause 34 to permit the Secretary of State to take a wider view of various aspects of development work involved in a project when deciding whether it is of national significance. Therefore, we have used ““project”” to cover planned and linked pieces of development, and the Bill is chiefly interested in whether a project taken as a whole is of national significance. Subsection (1)(d) relates to where a series of individual projects might be envisaged—perhaps promoted by different companies—but where the projects involve similar types of development work and are perhaps within close geographical proximity to one another. In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of these individual projects could exceed the thresholds of an NSIP, and we intend that it should be possible for the Secretary of State to conclude that the projects, taken together, are of national significance. Where a series of related applications or proposed applications clearly form a single project, Clause 34(1)(b) already achieves that result. In other cases, it might not always be possible to view the applications as part of a single project, and these separate projects could be directed to the IPC only through the wording that we have provided in Clause 34(1)(d). I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She will be pleased to hear that we believe that there may well be merit in her Amendment No. 165, which would ensure that the Secretary of State could direct a series of projects to the IPC only if they were within the same field—such as all being energy projects or transport projects and so on. We think that the noble Baroness raises a valid point in this area and, if she would be content not to move the amendment at this stage, we should be glad to discuss it with her further before Report to see whether some change is appropriate. I fear that I cannot be quite so forthcoming on Amendments Nos. 167 and 168. In this context, it may be helpful to outline our intentions for subsections (4) and (5). We want to avoid the situation where the direction of an application to the IPC has unintended consequences, and we want to prevent a promoter having to restart the consent process for a project from square one if the Secretary of State directs an application to the IPC. For example, the Secretary of State might want to ensure that the pre-application consultation requirements apply in modified form to the application in question, or the Secretary of State might want to direct that certain procedures—for example, pre-application procedures—are treated as having been complied with in relation to that application. We believe that this would be justifiable to ensure that the promoter was not penalised because the Secretary of State ruled, relatively late in the process, that the application was of national significance. Amendment No. 166 asks whether the power of the Secretary of State in subsection (4) applies, "““for specified purposes or generally””." For the reasons I have already given, we believe that this wording is needed in order to allow the Secretary of State flexibility to vary the effect of a direction of a project to the IPC. On that note, I hope that I have dealt with most of the matters raised.