Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 18: 18: Clause 5, page 3, line 22, leave out ““suitable (or potentially suitable)”” and insert ““potentially suitable”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 30, 124 and 125—a list which I hope is not as daunting as it sounds. At the previous stage, I sought to take out the word ““suitable””, as applying to a location, on the basis that any location could be no more than ““potentially suitable””. In several places, the Bill uses the words ““suitable (or potentially suitable)””. However, it does not seem to me that anything can be regarded as more than potentially suitable. I felt that the Minister made my case for me, and I shall refer to some of the things that she said on 6 October. She said that the terms were virtually interchangeable, but I do not agree. She added: "““They highlight that the suitability itself might be conditional on external factors. One cannot set out specific criteria for these situations in all cases””." Indeed. Therefore, because of conditionality, the Bill should refer only to ““potentially suitable””. The suitability of a location must be, "““ultimately dependent on the details of the particular project proposal””—" indeed, only potentially suitable. "““The IPC would have to look closely at the details … It would have to look at the specific application and the precise siting of potential impacts to determine whether the application was appropriate to go in the place identified””.—[Official Report, 6/10/08; col. 105.]" I could go on, but I think I have probably made the point. I hope that the Minister can explain what I was missing the first time around and what I am still missing in understanding the desirability of both phrases—that to include ““suitable”” does not pre-empt other decisions that need to be made. That goes to Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 30, 124 and 125. Amendment No. 20 would delete the identification of a statutory undertaker as appropriate to carry out a development. In Committee and in a very long letter sent to noble Lords since then, for which I thank her very much—it was daunting, but as one got into it, it was very readable—the Minister’s argument was that this would mess up Clause 172, which deals with blight. Under Clause 172 the person who bears responsibility for the blight is the statutory undertaker, if identified in the national policy statement. If one is not identified, then it is the Secretary of State. There is a degree of circularity here. If there is only one undertaker, the Secretary of State should sort out the financial matters with the undertaker and that should not override what I see as a certain lack of propriety in identifying one undertaker if there is more than one candidate. If a single candidate is to carry out a particular development as the statutory undertaker, there is no need to identify it anyway. We did not discuss Amendment No. 22 in these terms in Committee, but it seeks some clarity in the Bill, which I hope does little more than reflect what we have already been told, which is to insert a provision that an NPS should set out the extent to which it supersedes any other government policy—that is, planning policy statement, planning policy guidance or other documentation providing planning policy. In other words, it makes the hierarchy clear and ensures that those who apply the policies are completely clear about which takes precedence. In the planning world, I think we are all used to the term ““emerging policy””, which is a useful cop-out for, ““We haven’t quite settled this, but this is the direction we are going in””. I should perhaps say that with apologies to some planners. It would be helpful to have complete clarity. Amendment No. 24 goes back to suitability. It is an attempt to encompass the assurances that we have been given by the Government. It states: "““The identification of a location as potentially suitable””," since I do not accept that any location can be suitable full stop, "““for a specified description of development shall not be conclusive as to the suitability of any site which is the subject of an application for planning permission””—" in other words, is outside the IPC regime— "““or for a development consent order””," which would be within the IPC regime. We had many assurances that the IPC is independent and that it is required to pay proper attention to all proper planning matters and to pay attention—more than pay attention—to the local impact statement. I have particular concern that if the Secretary of State identifies a location or a site, no discretion will be left for the IPC or the planning authority and the local impact statement would be completely worthless. I believe that that is not what the Government intend, but it would be worth spelling out here or elsewhere precisely how the suitability point bites and where it does not bite. I beg to move.