---

Planning Bill

My Lords, I, too, have two amendments in this group. It appears that we are following the usual procedure of talking about an amendment to an amendment before that amendment has been moved or talked about. That is what we have done so far, so I suppose we will carry on. In government Amendment No. 136A, subsections (1) and (2) repeat the provisions now in Clause 202 regarding the meaning of ““development””. Subsection (1) defines the creation of a new building as development, but also includes, "““anything done to or in respect of an existing building””." The departmental officials have insisted that by ““buildings”” they intend to refer to any buildings occupied by people. However, the clause does not specify that. Accordingly, clarification is required on whether the intention is to focus on buildings occupied by people or whether it is intended that buildings occupied by farm livestock, for example, or used for grain or other crop storage should also be liable for CIL; hence the reason for my Amendment No. 136AZB. Moreover, subsection (2) allows for regulations to bring specified structures into the definition of ““development””. It is not clear where that leaves land business structures such as slurry storage facilities, which many farmers will be forced to expand in coming years to comply with the nitrate vulnerable zone regulations, wind turbines, fuel stores, pipelines, flood defence works and such other forms of works. I hope the Minister will make it absolutely clear what types of buildings and structures the Government have in mind to bring within the CIL liability regime and that he will give a clear assurance that it will consult closely with the farming and land management organisations before determining precisely what rural buildings or structures would attract CIL. I am also concerned about subsection (5) of the new clause. Under its terms, ““planning permission”” must be defined in CIL regulations, "““which may include planning permission within the meaning of TCPA 1990 and any other kind of permission or consent (however called, and whether general or specific)””." If one wants a Sir Humphrey clause, there you have it. Let us produce a regulation, let us produce a definition and let us have an all-encompassing clause far bigger than the existing Town and Country Planning Act so that in due course we can protect ourselves in case we miss anything now. That is a terrible way to legislate. It is an abdication of responsibility by government to the Civil Service. Under the General Permitted Development Order, farmers who wish to use permitted rights to erect smaller buildings up to 465 square metres without full planning permission must now consult with the local planning authority on siting and materials. This subsection would allow for such a consent regime to be brought within the CIL scope. What is the Government’s justification for casting the net so wide? The provision may suit the convenience of the designers of CIL who wish to have maximum flexibility to apply a scheme whose details they have not fully thought through and are not sure will work in practice, but it does not deliver certainty or confidence about fairness to developers large or small, urban or rural. We need a good explanation from the Minister.