Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 412: 412: After Clause 176, insert the following new Clauses— ““Publicity for planning applications Publicity for applications affecting conservation areas and setting of listed buildings (1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3). (2) For subsections (1) to (8) of section 67 (publicity for applications affecting setting of listed buildings) substitute— ““(1) This section applies where an application for planning permission for any development of land is made to a local planning authority and the authority thinks that the development would affect the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area. (2) The local planning authority shall— (a) for not less than seven days display on or near the land a notice indicating the nature of the development in question and naming a place within the locality where a copy of the application, and of all plans and other documents submitted with it, will be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours during the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the notice was first displayed, and (b) where the authority maintains a website, publish the notice on its website. (3) In a case where the land is situated in England, the local planning authority shall send a copy of the notice to the Commission.”” (3) Section 73 (publicity for applications affecting conservation areas) is repealed. (4) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 (S.I. 1990/1519) are amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6). (5) Paragraphs (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) of regulation 5A are revoked. (6) Paragraph (4) is amended as follows— (a) the words ““Subject to paragraph (7)”” are omitted; (b) the words ““both of the following periods have elapsed, namely”” are omitted; (c) for the words from ““in paragraph (2)”” to the end of paragraph (b) there is substituted ““in section 67(2) of the Act has elapsed””.”” The noble Baroness said: This is a long and fairly disparate group. I shall speak to my amendments and make one comment on the Minister’s. Amendments Nos. 412 and 413 took much longer in the drafting than I need to take in the explanation. These are matters that were brought to me by the Local Government Association, dealing with what it hopes can be a more efficient and economical way of publicising applications. Currently, applications must be publicised in local newspapers. The ODPM’s review in 2004 encouraged local planning authorities to use council websites and proposed that the regulations be amended to allow for newspaper or online advertisements. In 2007, the Lifting the Burdens Task Force also recommended removing outmoded prescriptive requirements, such as newspaper notices. The Minister’s department undertook to consider that as part of the review of the general development procedure order. However, not all the requirements for publicising planning applications are contained in that order. Hence my amendments—which, unusually, I accept would, by using the mechanism of primary legislation, amend some secondary legislation. It is really a matter of using the Bill as a legislative opportunity. In doing so, it will save local authorities quite a lot of money. I understand that a recent survey of 70 district councils found that, in the last financial year, publicity for planning applications cost each council on average £26,000. That is quite a lot of money for a district authority. I shall speak to my other amendments in this group but, taking it chronologically, I should point out that the next amendments in the group were tabled by Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has tabled an amendment to government Amendment No. 417 that I support. My antennae twitched very rapidly at the number of times the word ““prescribed”” is used in government Amendments Nos. 416 and 417. Although the Minister’s amendments may be happier provisions than the original clauses, I hope that she can justify this amount of prescription. I am grateful to the Minister for her letter on Amendments Nos. 425, 427 and 428. She said that my first amendment would require that consideration be given to any other change of any degree of significance which might have been made, and that the clause itself is intended to stop the cumulative impact of a number of minor changes to the original permission leading to a material change occurring. In response to that I say: exactly. I think that we want to do the same thing. I am not convinced that my amendment is unhelpful. On Amendments Nos. 427 and 428 and whether an interest in land is required for subsequent changes to permission, the Minister wrote that for very minor changes it seems right that the ability to request a change is limited to someone with an interest in its implementation and that a local planning authority should not be able to use this provision to impose a minor change. I agree with both comments. However, it seems to me that at the stage when this is relevant the applicant might not still have an interest in land. I wonder whether the Government are being overcautious about this. Amendment No. 432A covers a point that was brought to my attention towards the end of last week. I have passed the paperwork on to the Minister’s office. Although I understand that her officials may not have had an opportunity to consider this fully, I shall speak to the amendment in order, I hope, to enable her to give some assurances about the Government’s taking the point seriously. The point was brought to me by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the successor to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. The earlier authority was able, as a precepting authority, to develop land for operational purposes, free from the risk that the proposed use could be prevented by enforcement of restrictive covenants. Although it may well have been an error, the LFEPA, which is not a precepting authority, lost that advantage. The importance of the issue to the LFEPA is that the authority has a programme of reviewing fire station provision, particularly through a major PFI initiative. Through my previous membership of the London Assembly, I am very well aware of the importance of that. The absence of an ability to override covenants means that the site reports prepared for some properties which identify covenants mean that they are not realistic prospects. The authority cannot risk investing in a site that could be the subject of an injunction. I am seeking to put the LFEPA back into line with the other fire and rescue services and, incidentally, with smaller organisations such as the Inner Temple. If the Inner Temple can have this benefit then London’s fire authority should, too. I beg to move.