House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Jun 1991

Sir Gerard Vaughan (Reading, East) : What happens when a planning application is granted, and the developers

Column 416

undertake to put in the infrastructure, but then they fail to do so, and houses are built without any of the infrastructure that was supposed to go with them?

Sir George Young : As my hon. Friend knows, the local authority has powers to attach conditions to the granting of planning consent. It can insist on a time scale--for example, that a road is provided first. If the conditions are broken, that invalidates planning consent. Local authority planning departments have the powers that they need to grapple with the issues that my hon. Friends have outlined. We do not need the amendments, because the system already gives planning authorities the capacity to cope.

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes) : I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend's Department on a specific point--the responsibility of water suppliers to provide the necessary water for new developments. There seems to be some misunderstanding between local authorities and water suppliers as to the responsibility of the latter to warn local authorities that they should put a stop to further development because the water sources are not sufficient to meet the requirements. I would appreciate some clarification on that point.

Sir George Young : I understand my hon. Friend's point. When the local authority produces a development plan looking forward for five years, and its estimates of household formation, the water authority is involved in the debate. It can be consulted and asked whether it is within its capacity to meet the infrastructure requirements. The bodies responsible for infrastructure provision can then plan on the basis of a clear picture of the future shape of the community's future. That is an important part of the preparation of the development plan.

When it comes to an individual planning application, the adequacy of the infrastructure is a material consideration in deciding whether permission can be granted. If the water authority has not made the infrastructure available, the local authority can use that as a reason for turning down the application. One hopes, however, that if the planning system and the planning consultation has worked, the water authority will have advance notice of the local authority's plans and the provision that will be necessary.

If at the end of the day the water authority cannot make the structure available, the local authority can claim that as a material consideration in not wanting to overload the system and in deciding not to approve the application. However, under the Water Act 1989 water suppliers have a clear duty to supply water for domestic purposes.

Sir Charles Morrison (Devizes) : Can my hon. Friend confirm that the present situation is totally different from that which has obtained for the past 15 to 20 years? My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that there is considerable concern throughout a good proportion of the south of England about there being too much water extraction, and about the disadvantage to the environment generally and to rivers in particular. Is my hon. Friend saying that, as a result of the Water Act 1989, the National Rivers Authority or the water companies themselves will be able to stop further development because sufficient water is not available?

Sir George Young : That decision would be not for the water authority but for the planning authority, which could certainly take that view. If it were not satisfied that

Column 417

the infrastructure was available, it could refuse a planning application for a development. The failure of the water authority to provide the necessary infrastructure would be a material consideration and one that the authority could use.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams asked whether we are changing the system. The Bill makes substantial changes. We are moving towards a system that is much more plan-led. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that all the authorities involved in the provision of services march together at the same pace, in accordance with a plan to which they all contributed.

We want to move away from having lots of appeals, brought about because no one is clear what is the designation in particular parts of the country. We want up-to-date plans that cover the whole country, so that we can move with confidence to a new system that involves fewer appeals and references to my Department--and that has the confidence of local people, given that they will have been involved in the preparation of the plans. I am not sure that I can go further in meeting the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, but I repeat that his amendments are not necessary because there is flexibility within the system to cope with the concerns that he expressed.

Mr. Steen : With the permission of the House, it is not as my hon. Friend the Minister says--it just does not work like that. However, I am bound to accept my hon. Friend's reassurance that there will be a new dawn and new vision in planning--and, in view of his remarks, it would be wrong not to give him the beneft of the doubt. There is no point to dividing the House at this time of night, but I am far from satisfied that the process my hon. Friend the Minister described operates in practice. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Win Griffiths : I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 104, line 38, at end insert--

(4A) Before prescribing any guidance or information under subsection (4) concerning aggregate demand forecasts the Secretary of State shall undertake public consultations with representatives of-- (

(a) persons carrying out mining operations ;

(b) persons using the product of mining operations ;

(d) mineral planning authorities ;

(e) environmental and conservation interests ; and

(f) local interests.'.

This amendment was prompted by the publication on 7 May by the Council for the Protection of Rural England of "Determined to Dig"--a study by John Adams of University college, London, which focused on the quality of aggregate demand forecasts. The study clearly showed that there has been little correlation over the years between forecasted demand and actual demand. Despite the poor quality of forecasting--whether it has resulted in overestimates or in underestimates--there is still plenty of aggregate material. The importance of "Determined to Dig" is that it focuses on the fact that, in considering local quarrying plans and in examining applications by quarry companies to extend their sites and for new permissions to quarry, decisions are based largely on estimates of aggregate demand. All too often, mineral planning authorities have

Column 418

to grant permissions to quarry simply because a certain demand forecast has to be met. They have to authorise the extension of quarrying, often into sensitive areas of landscape and sites of special scientific interest, because the demand forecast states that a certain quarrying capacity is needed. Applications have had to be approved willy-nilly with the result that, across the country, many important landscapes have been destroyed.

The purpose of the amendment is twofold. We realise that an attempt has to be made to forecast demand, and we want the forecasters to carry on with their work. We hope, however, that that work can be improved, and that in future there will be a better correlation between forecast demand and actual demand. But before the final estimates--the estimates on the basis of which the mineral planning authorities will work--are produced, we want widespread consultation throughout the industry and among all those who can fairly be considered to have a concern. The relevant bodies are listed in the amendment.

We hope not only that there will be a discussion of the way in which the estimates are arrived at--with a broader group of people involved, to try to improve them--but that other sources of aggregate will be examined. They could include recycling the aggregate or using secondary aggregates. We should concentrate on other ways of achieving aggregate supplies--or supplies or alternatives to aggregate--so that we can reduce the amount of quarrying because there is no doubt that in many parts of the country scandalous sins are being committed against our beautiful country which we should not be prepared to accept.

I hope that the Government will look on the amendment with a kindly eye and that they will be prepared to accept it. It would do nothing to stop the forecasters making their forecasts. It would merely subject the process to public consultation and scrutiny before the final figures were etched on tablets of stone--if that is the right phrase, given that we are talking about quarrying. There should certainly be consultation and scrutiny before the estimates are used as the main guidelines by the mineral planning authorities in considering applications to extend quarrying.

I hope that it will be accepted that this is a way to make a useful contribution to the debate about forecasting, so that we can minimise the damage to our countryside. I can think of an example in my constituency near the village of St. Bride's Major, where the mineral planning authority is undertaking a local plan exercise, part of which will involve accepting the destruction of a part of a site of special scientific interest. That is not acceptable and the sooner we improve our consultation processes the better it will be for our countryside.

11 pm

Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : I do not know whether the Government will look upon the amendment with a kindly heart, but it strikes a chord with me, as I raised the subject in an Adjournment debate on 9 May. However, with respect, there is one deficiency in the amendment, because it does not seem to be very specific about obliging anyone to consult those concerned with producing alternatives to aggregates.

In that connection, after my debate I received a number of letters from people who are willing to consult. One letter was from Boral Lytag-- Pozzolanic Lytag Ltd.--which

Column 419

points out that, although it is involved with the use of ash aggregate as an alternative, it is not represented at aggregate working party meetings. Another letter was from CRA Services Ltd., which has developed a process in Australia known as "neutralysis" which

"converts municipal waste into an aggregate by high temperature incineration".

I am in no position to judge the activities of those firms or whether those processes are better than what is happening at present ; I mention them simply because I have a feeling that there are alternative sources out there which are not being sufficiently exploited.

Mr. Win Griffiths : I realise that this might be stretching the point a little, but it could be said that such companies had a conservation interest in aggregates, which is mentioned in para (e) of the amendment, but I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. Walden : I accept that argument, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts mine.

Secondly, I understand from the Government's response to my Adjournment debate that their mind is by no means closed on the subject. I also understand that the forecasts for aggregates that they produce are for debate and are not written on tablets of stone--or whatever tonight's cliche is.

I am glad that the Government have moved on interim development orders, as I have a particularly nasty case of that in my constituency in Ivinghoe Aston, where a chalk quarry is allowed to operate right up to the fence of a property, which would never be allowed to happen nowadays.

I like to believe--I hope that the Minister will confirm my belief--that the Government are open-minded about this question. However, I should also like the Government to make it clear to county councils, which have to make decisions in the meantime, that they should not be over-impressed by the aggregate forecasts, that they should go slow on any doubtful cases--I have in mind the case of Mursley in my constituency, where the county council has an interest--and that they should not rush into decisions in a fast- evolving situation.

I hope that the Minister will buoy my faith in the Government's open- mindedness on this question.

Mr. Yeo : I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) that the Government look with a kindly eye at most subjects. The objective of the amendment is one of those subjects. The Government published new long-term forecasts of national demand for primary aggregates on 7 May, but I cannot stress too strongly that those forecasts are not Government plans, or production targets that have to be met. They are simply forecasts. One of the purposes of publishing them is to promote the debate that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I wish to see. The new forecasts suggest that there will be continued steady growth in demand over the next 20 years, although the rate of growth may be below that experienced in the last 40 years. It is essential that the environmental consequences of that demand are examined very carefully.

The Government are undertaking a review of the present guidance on the provision of aggregates--MPG6--to ensure that it is up to date. The demand forecasts are

Column 420

the first step in this review and provide a useful starting point in the consideration of the environmental implications of the rising demand for aggregates.

We fully recognise that there is increasing public concern about the mining of aggregates. We have also made it clear, both during the passage of the Bill and elsewhere, that we are determined to achieve higher operating standards in the minerals industry. The Bill contains a number of provisions that are designed to achieve precisely that.

We also want to see an increase in the use of waste and recycled materials that contribute, at the moment, less than 10 per cent. to present demands. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made a very important point about that. I fully share his concern about the importance of finding alternatives. We are determined to improve that figure. Therefore, we have asked the industry to show how that increase can be achieved. I hope that our own research, which we shall publish later this summer, will also provide some pointers as to how that increase can be achieved.

Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead) : Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to say which he considers more important--aggregates or the environment? He knows that in my constituency there is an example of the environment having been completely spoilt by digging for aggregates.

Mr. Yeo : It is impossible to quantify precisely which is the more important. We want to achieve the conditions that make possible sustained economic growth. We see no inconsistency between that objective and the objective of substantially raising the environmental standards adopted by the aggregates industry and other industries. We are encouraged by the co- operation that many of those engaged in the industry are providing. They also see the need for higher environmental standards. A major part of our effort is directed at achieving an increase in the use of alternative materials.

In addition to the research to which I have already referred, other research that we have in hand is looking at the potential offered by marine sand and gravel and coastal super-quarries, one of which I shall be visiting later this week. We are also examining whether at present there is over-specification in the use of aggregates, which causes the wasteful or excessive use of a valuable natural resource. The publication of the forecasts that the consultants have prepared has been undertaken now to ensure an open and public debate about the forecasts and the environmental implications of the predicted growth in demand. We want that debate to be as wide as possible. We have not formed any final views about the forecasts. For that reason, we want the views of industry, the mineral planning authorities, the environmental and conservation bodies and the public at large about the forecasts at this stage. That will enable us to give careful consideration to all the comments that we receive when preparing the new draft guidelines to replace MPG6.

The draft guidelines will include the Secretary of State's views on the long-term forecast of demand for aggregates. They will therefore be the subject of extensive formal public consultation with a wide range of interests. The

Column 421

views expressed as a result of that exercise will then be taken into account before any revised guidelines are issued.

I hope, therefore, that it is clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that arrangements already exist for an extraordinary wide-ranging public consultation exercise about the aggregate demand forecasts and the draft guidelines. It is precisely in order to promote that debate that we published the forecasts. We therefore do not feel that it is necessary to enshrine in legislation arrangements for ensuring a proper public debate. We are unable to accept the amendment.

Mr. Win Griffiths : The Government suggest that there will be an opportunity for widespread consultation. I look forward to that, and especially to the development of the recycling process to enable us to reduce the nation's need for quarrying, which often destroys much of our beautiful landscape. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Amendments made : No. 117, in page 107, line 37, leave out 288' and insert 287'.

No. 118, in page 109, line 14, after section', insert "repeal and" is omitted and'.

No. 119, in page 109, line 40, at end insert

and for "38" there is substituted "39".'.-- [Mr. Yeo.]

Mr. Win Griffiths : I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 111, line 38, after authority' insert

, except that in National Parks, other than those which exercise the functions of county planning authorities under Schedule 17 of the Local Government Act 1972, they shall be exercisable jointly by the National Park Authority and the county planning authority ;'. We debated this issue in Committee so I shall not detain the House too long, but I wish to emphasise the fact that the amendment is a key recommendation of the report by the national parks review panel, "Fit for the Future", which was published in March this year. We realise that many of the report's recommendations will be implemented as part of a national parks Act. However, the Bill gives us an opportunity to implement one of the review panel's key

recommendations immediately, which is that national parks authorities should become structure planning authorities jointly with the relevant county council.

I give an example of one of the difficulties that can occur in national parks. All national parks are outstanding and it is invidious to classify them in any order, but surely the Pembrokeshire coast must rate as one of the most beautiful. However, Dyfed's structure plan contains no special provision for different treatment to reflect the special status of the Pembrokeshire coast national park. For example, settlement policies do not refer specifically to the existence of the park, and county-wide policies for tourism also ignore the special problems of the national park. There is therefore an urgent need for the amendment to be accepted.

The national parks review panel said :

"We are firmly convinced that national park authorities must play a fuller statutory role in the new structure plan process we therefore propose that there should be a single structure plan for each county, prepared by the county council jointly with the national park authority, thus enabling the national park authority both to influence county-wide policies which may affect the park, and to be responsible for drafting specific policies for the park."

Column 422

That proposal has been endorsed by the Countryside Commission. I hope that in the five weeks that the Government have had to consider the Bill since we last debated it they have already worked out some improvements and concessions on environmental issues. I hope that they will not find the amendment too difficult to swallow, and it would be most appropriate for them to accept it.

Sir George Young : I have, of course, used the entire five weeks to think intensively about this amendment, which we discussed in Committee. I have the same difficulties today as I had then with the concept of joint responsibility for structure plans. It would be a novel requirement that two authorities had to agree on a joint structure plan. What would happen if one authority could not agree with the other? There would inevitably be delay and there would have to be some machinery for resolving that. This is not a recipe for success.

11.15 pm

The National Parks Authority has a keen interest in the structure plan. We intend to provide in regulations--there will be statutory cover--for the National Parks Authority to be consulted on the county's structure plan proposals before they are placed on deposit. That will ensure the close involvement of the parks authority in the preparation of structure plan proposals for its area and it will be free to raise any outstanding issues of concern once the proposals are placed on deposit for objection. It is likely that they would then need to be discussed at the examination in public under independent chairmanship.

We would then reach the solution wanted by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and ensure that the two authorities were involved in what emerged, but we would not impose an obligation to agree. I see problems in that since one would have to resolve a dispute if the authorities were unable to agree on the structure plan.

I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Bridgend will not press the amendment. As I said in Committee, it is premature to come to a decision on some of the recommendations. I hope that the substance of the hon. Gentleman's comments can be achieved by the mechanism that I have outlined.

Mr. Win Griffiths : Given the regulations that the Minister has said will be introduced to involve the National Parks Authority more fully in the planning process, we are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, it seems that the Minister is rejecting one of the principal recommendations of the review body. I hope that at a later stage we shall look at the effectiveness of the Minister's proposals. In the next few years the Government could, and probably will, be different. We can look at it again then. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Schedule 5

Planning Compensation Repeals :Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendment made : No. 35, in page 122, line 29, leave out paragraph 11.-- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Column 423

Schedule 10

Planning Compensation Repeals : Minor and Consequential Amendments

Scotland--

Amendments made : No. 79, in page 149, line 37, leave out paragraph 8.

No. 194, in page 150, line 7, leave out VII' and insert XII'. No. 177, in page 150, line 23, leave out section', and insert Act'.-- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 6

Planning in England and Wales :Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made : No. 59, in page 126, line 22, at end insert-- Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (c. 80)

3A. In section 33(4) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 for the words from "section 63(2)(b)" to the end there is substituted "section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990".'

No. 32, in page 127, line 19, leave out 56(3)' and insert 56, in subsection (3)'.

No. 33, in page 127, line 19, at end insert--

(2) In subsection (4) of that section after paragraph (a) there is inserted --

"(aa

(any work of demolition of a building ; ".') No. 34, in page 127, line 20, leave out

In section 63(5) "65, 71(1) or' "

and insert Section 63'.

No. 21, in page 127, line 21, at end insert--

11A. In section 69--

(a) in subsection (1) "made to that authority", and'.

No. 38, in page -- 127 --, line -- 26 ; at end insert-- 13A.--(1) After section 73 there is inserted--

"Planning permission for development already carried out. 73A.--(1) On an application made to a local planning authority, the planning permission which may be granted includes planning permission for development carried out before the date of the application. (2) Subsection (1) applies to development carried out--

(a) without planning permission ;

(b) in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period ; or

(3) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from--

(a) the date on which the development was carried out ; or (b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period."'

No. 39, in page 127, line 28, leave out

and (2)" there is substituted "70"'

and insert

and (2), 72(1) and (5) and 73" there is substituted "70, 72(1) and (5), 73 and 73A"'.

No. 40, in page 127, line 32, leave out

71(2)" there is substituted "70"'

and insert

71(2), 72(1) and (5) and 73" there is substituted "70, 72(1) and (5), 73 and 73A"'.

No. 41, in page 127, line 35, at end insert--

16A. In section 91(4)(b), for the words from "granted" to the end there is substituted "granted for development carried out before the grant of that permission".

Next Section

Home Page