---

Planning Bill

I support the general thrust of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Clause 21 is all-encompassing, certainly as far as the alteration of highways is concerned. Trunk roads, which are the responsibility of central government, are often little different from the highways that are the responsibility of the Highways Authority. Roads have been trunked and detrunked over the years, and in many areas ordinary roads are the responsibility of the Government. Clause 21 states that: "““Highway-related development is within section 14(1)(g)””," if the development is the construction, alteration or improvement of it. If it is the improvement of a highway, one of the conditions, set out in subsection (3)(c), is that it, "““is likely to have a significant effect on the environment””." That is a reasonable test. It refers to a ““significant effect””, and the word ““significant”” is important. However, the word ““significant”” does not apply to alterations. Subsection 4(c) simply states that, "““the highway is to be altered for a purpose connected with a highway for which the Secretary of State is (or will be) the highway authority””." The definition of ““alteration”” of a highway includes ““improvement”” of a highway, so there is some confusion. As the Bill stands, it seems that quite a large number of relatively small schemes would automatically be sent to the IPC. That is clearly not what is meant; otherwise, the IPC would be completely swamped by cases of relatively minor changes, alterations and improvements to highways. The Bill has been drafted with motorways in mind. The motorway where I live is a principal road, not a trunk road, but most motorways are trunk roads. The Bill was drafted with large-scale roads such as motorways and major dual carriageways in mind, not the relatively ordinary A-roads which constitute many trunk roads. The Government should look at this again to ensure that they do not put schemes before the IPC that ought not to be there.