House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Jun 1991

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : This is really most unfair. The Minister does not appear to have read page 133 of the Bill, which uses the words "if requested." There would not be junk mail. The parish council will have requested the details. The Minister referred to good local authorities, but there are some bad ones. The parish councils would like the right to those details.

Mr. Yeo : I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend's earlier interventions. I thought that she was urging on me an arrangement whereby all the details of all applications would be sent routinely to parish councils. If I misunderstood that, I apologise to my hon. Friend.

It is perfectly possible for common sense to prevail in the relationship between the planning authority and the parish council. Already, a number of authorities will arrange for the documents to be lent to the parish council at a time that coincides with its meetings.

I am concerned that amendment No. 141 would place an additional demand on applicants for planning permission. Frequently, those applicants are not organisations of great substance. They may be individuals with small household applications or they may be small businesses. The requirement in amendment No. 141 for additional copies of all the documents, including plans and drawings submitted with the planning application, to be sent as a matter of course to the planning authority would be a not insignificant burden for some applicants. If we were to follow that route, why should the line be drawn at parish councils? Many other bodies might like information about applications in which they may believe they have an interest. I do not believe that it makes sense to impose those requirements universally.

Mr. Jopling : My hon. Friend the Minister has been very illuminating as he has explained the Government's view about the amendments. He has explained a number of progressions contained in the Bill that will clearly give parish councils more understanding of planning applications under the new system once the Bill becomes law. That is a move forward. My instinct is that we should see how the system works. Will my hon. Friend bear the whole issue with regard to parish councils in mind? If we find that the new arrangements are still unsatisfactory, will the Government be prepared in future to consider the possibility of dealing with the matter more in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)?

Mr. Yeo : I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that undertaking. As he acknowledges, we have made some significant changes to our procedures during the Bill's passage through the House. I emphasise that the principle of ensuring that in future all planning applications will

Column 381

receive some publicity is an important change in our policy and goes in the direction in which he and other hon. Members would like us to move.

Despite several interventions to the contrary in this short debate, I also believe that the system under which parish councils can receive detailed information is satisfactory. To some extent, my hon. Friends will judge the level of concern about a particular issue by the volume of correspondence that they receive about it. From my experience as both a constituency Member of Parliament and a Minister with responsibility for planning matters, I have not found that the inability of parish councils to obtain sufficient information about the nature and details of planning applications that they receive has featured prominently in my postbag, either in Suffolk or in the Department. However, I gladly give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks--that if we find that the system is not working as well as I have indicated that I believe it is, we will, of course, look at it again and make the changes that he and my other hon. Friends have requested.

Mr. Robert Banks : I am grateful to my hon. Friend both for giving way and for what he has just said. However, will he undertake to consult the Association of Parish Councils and to take advice from it about whatever action he may be considering in the future?

Mr. Yeo : Yes, I will undertake to do that, but I shall also undertake to consult the Association of District Councils, which, from a different viewpoint, will have a different angle on the issue.

In those circumstances, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) not to move his amendment.

Mr. Steen rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken once and will need the leave of the House to speak a second time.

Mr. Steen : With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his handsome undertaking, which is most gratefully received. I should like to pay tribute to all the Ministers who, throughout the Bill's passage, have been prepared to acknowledge that some good ideas emanate from the Back Benches. I pay tribute to them for their willingness to take good ideas on board and to make progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment made accordingly : No. 20, in page 24, line 35, at end insert--

(1A) Provision shall be made by a development order for the purpose of securing that, in the case of any application for planning permission, any person (other than the applicant) who on such date as may be prescribed by the order is an owner of the land to which the application relates, or a tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in that land, is given notice of the application in such manner as may be required by the order.'-- [Mr. Yeo.]

Mr. Soley : I beg to move, amendment No. 114, in page 24, line 51, at end insert--

-- Referral of applications to the Secretary of State --

Column 382

(3) After section 74(1) of the principal Act (provisions that may be made by a development order for dealing with planning applications) there is inserted--

--1"(1A) Any development order made under this section shall specify that a local planning authority shall not grant planning permission for an application which relates to development--

(a) which the local planning authority consider would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of any of the policies or general proposals of the development plan or that of an adjoining local planning authority ; or

(b) which the structure plan authority consider would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of any of the policies or general proposals of the structure plan ;

unless they have notified the Secretary of State of the application for planning permission, along with a statement of the issues involved, and either--

(a) a period of twenty-eight days has expired, beginning with the date of the notification, without the Secretary of State having directed the reference of the application to him or given notice that he requires extra time to consider whether to require reference of the application to him ; or

(b) the Secretary of State has notified the authority that he does not intend to require the reference of the application to him.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 115, in page 25, line 51 at end insert--

Development not in accordance with the development plan

(3) For section 74(1)(b) of the principal Act there is substituted--

"(b) for authorising the local planning authority to grant planning permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan subject to a requirement that :

(i) notice of the local planning authority's intention to grant planning permission is published in a daily newspaper circulating in the area ;

(ii)) copies of the notice shall be given to the applicant and to any person who made representations to the authority ; and (iii) any representation as regards the making of a decision to grant planning permission received by the local planning authority within twenty-one days after the first publication of the notice shall be duly considered by the authority ;

or otherwise as prescribed by the Order or by the Secretary of State under it.".'.

Mr. Soley : The purpose of amendment No. 114 is to require a planning application, which the local planning authority considers would materially conflict with the development plan, or which the county council considers would conflict with a structure plan, to be notified to the Secretary of State so that he can consider calling it in.

The purpose of amendment No. 115 is to require local planning authorities intending to grant planning permission for a development which is in conflict with the structure or local plan to advertise that fact in a local newspaper, to inform those who have commented on the planning applications, and to consider any further

representations within a period of 21 days.

That purpose links in with the major concession that we received from the Government at the beginning of the debate about Government new clause 20, which was tabled to replace my new clause 13. If a development is conceded which is in breach of the plan, we are arguing that the logic is that either the Secretary of State should have the power

Column 383

to call it in, which is more clearly defined in amendment No. 114, or there should be a power to inform the people who have commented on the planning application. Without those provisions, we might be faced with the situation that has developed on other occasions, when someone who has objected to an application sees the new local plan, which may be publicised, and feels that the objection must be carried because it is in line with the plan. However, that person may then discover that the local authority has itself decided to breach the plan.

The amendments simply go further down the road on which the Miniser embarked in new clause 20. I therefore commend them to the House.

Mr. David Bellotti (Eastbourne) : I wish to speak only to amendment No. 115. Development plans are arrived at only after considerable public consultation, advertisements and further consideration by the local authority and the Minister. The development plans from which we start are, therefore, very important. Departing from them should not be undertaken lightly in any circumstances, and certainly not without further consideration.

Amendment No. 115 provides that opportunity for further advertisement and for communication with those people who have made written representations. People often write in about departures from development plans without any further information being given to them which would enable them to comment further to the local authority. The 21-day period is sensible and is the minimum that would allow that process to be undertaken.

The amendment is worthy of support and I hope that the Minister will concede that. Although never enshrined in tablets of stone, development plans are nevertheless important and the local authority should not depart from them without a great deal of thought and further consideration.

Mr. Yeo : I recognise that amendment No. 114 does not include some of the features that I criticised when an amendment with similar objectives was tabled in Committee, but I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Solely) that I still do not think that the amendments are either necessary or desirable. Two sets of circumstances are set out in which a planning application must be reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that he can consider calling it in. The first of these is where the local planning authority considers there to be a material departure from the development plan, or where implementation of its proposals would be prejudiced. This simply imports material selectively from the existing 1981 departures direction. I see no real advantage in setting these matters in the concrete of primary legislation.

The second set of circumstances is where, in the view of the structure plan authority, a planning application constitutes a departure from or conflict with the structure plan. In this case, too, the local planning authority would have to report the application to my right hon. Friend.

In the departures direction, it is the local planning authority which decides whether an application should be reported to my right hon. Friend. I believe that to be more logical for, in deciding so to report, the authority is exercising a development control function, not a plan-making function. I have neither heard nor seen any

Column 384

evidence that the present reporting arrangements do not work satisfactorily. In my view, the decision should continue to lie with the development control authority.

Sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) of amendment No. 115 echo, although not exactly, paragraph 3 of the 1981 departures direction, but sub-paragraph (ii) is new. I believe the amendment to be inappropriate and unnecessary. It is inappropriate because the level of procedural detail given here should continue to be set out in the development plans direction, not in main legislation. It is unnecessary because the new material in sub- paragraph (ii) would add to bureaucracy. Subordinate legislation under section 74 of the 1990 Act already provides for applicants to be notified of how their application has been dealt with. I do not believe that applicants need copies of the departure advertisement in addition. Nor do I see the point of sending copies to those who have made representations.

Mr. Bellotti : Are there procedures for notifying those who have made representations?

Mr. Yeo : Procedures for notifying those who have made representations about what?

Mr. Bellotti : For those who have made representations as opposed to those who are applicants.

Mr. Yeo : I do not believe that there are any procedures enshrined in primary legislation. Nor do I believe that any procedures necessarily should be enshrined in primary legislation. Sending copies of departure advertisements to those who have made representations would add to local authorities' costs. For the reasons that I have stated, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 42

Notice etc. of applications to ownersand agricultural tenants

Amendments made : No. 167, in page 52, line 6, leave out from Act' to any' in line 9 and insert

shall make provision--

(a) as to the notice of any application for planning permission to be given to any person (other than the applicant) who at the begining of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application was--

(i) the owner of, or

(ii) the tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which was comprised in,

any of the land to which the application relates ; and

(b) requiring'.

No. 168, in page 52, leave out lines 15 to 22.

No. 169, in page 52, line 23, after or' insert such'. No. 170, in page 52, line 28, after or' insert such'. No. 171, in page 53, line 30, after regulations' insert under this Act'-- [Mr. Yeo.]

Column 385

Clause 19

Land of interested planning authoritiesand development by them

9 pm

Mr. Soley : I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 28, line 29, at end insert--

(9) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the local planning authority shall exercise its powers in its full council in cases where the committee (or sub-committee) that would normally exercise delegated planning powers is also the committee (or sub-committee) promoting the development.'.

Again, I shall be brief. The amendment deals with cases where the local authority is promoting a development. The amendment requires that in such cases the local authority should exercise its powers in full council. The amendment would ensure closer scrutiny of proposals by local authorities to grant themselves and others planning permission on local authority land and would demonstrate that justice was done. The issue is whether a local authority can allow a development on local authority land. If it grants permission simply in a committee, it does so in a closed system. The committee is open to the public in many cases but its proceedings are not openly commented on by other councillors who are not on the committee. This issue has exercised the Government before. On 25 July 1990 the Department of the Environment issued a press release. It said : "The Government now intends to let local authorities continue to deem themselves planning permission for their own development. This will enable (for example) county councils to continue to provide temporary classrooms without applying for permission to the district council. But there are to be three safeguards. Proposals will have to be fully advertised, decided in public by a committee not responsible for land management, and reported to the Secretary of State if they conflict with the development plan."

The amendment is exploratory. It seems to us that there is at least a case for considering that applications should come to the full council when a local authority gives itself planning permission for development on its own land. That is the force of the amendment. I recognise that it is not always easy to structure such a measure, but it seems to us that there is at least an argument for it and we would welcome the Government's view.

Sir George Young : There is an issue here and the hon. Gentleman opened it up in his speech. His amendment would require a self-application by a local planning authority, promoted by the committee which would otherwise determine such an

application--normally the planning committee--to be decided instead by the full council.

We consulted on this matter a year ago. We asked local authorities about deemed planning permission. We canvassed two options on this point. We proposed either that a service committee should not be able to determine self-applications relating to land and buildings under its control or that all such self-applications should be determined by the full council, which is the effect of amendment No. 127. After considering consultees' comments on this point, the Government concluded that the first option was the better one.

There were two reasons for this. We were persuaded by the argument that the planning committee was usually the better forum for taking planning decisions. This argument was put to us by the Association of Metropolitan

Column 386

Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute and English Heritage. They convinced us that the planning committee was less likely than the full council to be influenced by non-planning matters such as political or financial considerations. Secondly, there was the question of delay. Planning committees usually meet more often than full council. Indeed, in the shire counties it is common practice for the full council to meet only quarterly. So we decided simply to make provision that the committee or sub-committee promoting the development proposal could not also determine the planning application. We intend to achieve this in regulations which we shall be making under new section 316, and we propose to consult on those regulations before making them. The amendment would require that the development proposals promoted by the planning committee be determined by full council. That is undesirable for the reasons that I have just mentioned. The regulations that I have mentioned will prevent a planning committee from determining its own self-applications but will otherwise leave it to the local planning authority to decide how the application should be determined. It may want to put such an application to the full council or to a policy committee or other special committee. I think that that is a better and more flexible solution. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment. Amendment negatived .

Clause 20

Mines and waste

Amendment made : No. 2, in page 28, line 31, after materials' insert

and provides for altering the provisions relating to compensation for restrictions on mineral working and depositing mineral waste'-- [Mr. Yeo.]

SCHEDULE 1

Mines and Waste

Amendments made : No. 3, in page 81, line 37, leave out from beginning to mining' in line 39 and insert

For section 105 (duty of mineral planning authorities to review mineral workings) there is substituted--

"Reviews by mineral planning authorities.

105.--(1) Every mineral planning authority shall undertake periodic reviews about the winning and working of minerals and the depositing of mineral waste in their area.

(1A) Subject to regulations made by virtue of subsection (2A), the duty under this section is, at such intervals as they think fit-- (a) to review every'.

No. 4, in page 81, leave out line 43.

No. 5, in page 82, line 1, leave out (1)' and insert (1A)'. No. 6, in page 82, line 10, at end insert--

(2A) If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed".'

No. 7, in page 82, line 13, leave out from beginning to with' in line 17 and insert

For section 116 (special basis for compensation in respect of certain orders affecting mineral working) there is substituted--

Column 387

"Modification of compensation provisions in respect of mineral working etc.

116.--(1) Regulations made by virtue of this section'

No. 8, in page 82, line 20, at beginning insert--

consisting of the winning and working of minerals or'.

No. 9, in page 82, line 22, at beginning insert winning and working or'

No. 10, in page 82, line 41, leave out from Part IV)' to end of line 42 and insert--

for "under paragraph 1 of Schedule 11" there is substituted "by virtue of section 116".'

No. 54, in page 83, line 2, leave out paragraph (a)

No. 11, in page 83, line 8, leave out definition' and insert definitions'.

No. 12, in page 83, line 9, leave out is omitted' and insert-- and "mineral compensation modifications" are omitted'.

No. 13, in page 83, line 11, after "substances'" insert (da)

(the definitions of "relevant order", "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations" are omitted".) No. 14, in page 86, line 21, leave out paragraph 16 and insert-- 16.--(1) Schedule 11 (compensation in respect of certain orders affecting mineral working) is omitted.

(2) Without prejudice to section 17(2)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any regulations made or having effect as if made by virtue of Schedule 11 to the principal Act shall, to the extent that they are in force on the coming into force of this paragraph, have effect as if made under section 116 of the principal Act as substituted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule.'-- [Mr. Yeo.]

Clause 47

Mines and waste

Amendment made : No. 69, in page 55, line 44, after materials' insert--

and provides for altering the provisions relating to compensation for restrictions on mineral working and depositing mineral waste'.-- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

SCHEDULE 7

Mines and Waste

Scotland--

Amendments made : No. 71, in page 139, line 8, leave out paragraph 10 and insert--

10. Sections 153A, 159A and 159B are omitted.

10A. For section 167A there is substituted--

"Regulations as to compensation in respect of orders relating to mineral working.

167A.--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made with the consent of the Treasury provide, in relation to orders made under-- (

(a) section 42 of this Act modifying planning permission for development consisting of the winning or working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste ; or

Next Section

Home Page