| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), in his usual style, has emphatically raised matters that have concerned us both since our days in local government. He is correct to say that far and away the majority of local authorities are fair, clear and open, and, as he said, so is Sheffield in most cases. However, we are aware of the possible difficulties of which some local authorities may be justifiably accused along the lines that my hon. Friend has described. I shall consider the points that he has raised, and touch on some of the safeguards that are already in place.
My hon. Friend is aware that the planning system must provide a means of ensuring that development and growth are sustainable. A new development has to be provided for and should be accommodated sensibly. At the same time, we have to take proper regard of the need to conserve our natural and built environment.
The town and country planning legislation provides a comprehensive framework for the planning system so that the future use and development of land can be debated at
an appropriate level--that is locally, regionally and nationally. There are opportunities for public debate and involvement in planning decision at all levels.
In contrast to other countries not too far away, Britain has a strong tradition of public participation in planning matters. That is extremely important and very welcome. It is important that people should have the opportunity to contribute to decisions that will influence the shape and appearance of their environment for many years to come. We have built on that tradition, and we seek to foster and encourage public participation in many different ways.
Many planning decisions require the consideration of opposing views about the best use of land. The planning system allows those differing views to be considered within a clear and structured framework. However, when there are contrasting opinions, one side of the argument may not agree with the ultimate decision.
In the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, we introduced the plan-led system of planning. Since September 1991, decisions on planning applications--the great majority of which are taken by local planning authorities--must accord with the development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The statutory procedures governing development plans make clear provision for the public to be involved in the plan preparation process. That is done through the pre-deposit consultation and the public local inquiry mechanism, which represents an important opportunity for my hon. Friend and many of his constituents. The local planning authority can take into account the differing views that have been expressed before adopting their plan proposals and, because of the significance of the development plan for the future use of land, it is important that all those with an interest in the planned proposals should participate actively in the formulation of local authority's plan for the area.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
My hon. Friend is aware that there are a number of major supermarket applications in my constituency. One was granted yesterday, and others are in the pipeline. The large residential supermarket companies are deliberately targeting the smaller market towns in my constituency and putting in applications prior to the local plan hearing by the planning inspectorate. Can my hon. Friend comment on the possibility of refusing those applications on the grounds of prematurity?
Sir Paul Beresford:
My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Such a decision is normally delayed on the grounds of it being too early in relation to the plan. That happens quite often, unless there are exceptional circumstances. It might be appropriate for an application to go ahead, particularly if it affects the likely outcome of the plan. In some circumstances development should not be delayed, but I am not necessarily applying that approach to the individual case that my hon. Friend has presented. He will recognise, of course, that I am not in a position to discuss that case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam mentioned that Sheffield city council proposed further changes to the unitary development plan, seeking to identify 47 "major developed sites" in the green belt. Annex C of my Department's planning policy guidance note 2--that is, PPG2--advises that, subject to certain criteria, redevelopment or limited infilling of sites so identified in
an adopted development plan is not inappropriate development. I believe that my hon. Friend has raised objections to the identification in the plan of these sites, 11 of which--surprise, surprise--are in his constituency.
As my hon. Friend may know--indeed, he referred to this--the Government offices for the regions scrutinise closely all development plan policies and proposals, to ensure that they accord with the published national planning policy that is set out in PPGs and circulars. As my hon. Friend has said, the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside has formally objected to Sheffield's proposals to identify 47 "major developed sites" in the green belt, on the ground that they conflict with national green belt policy. My hon. Friend's interpretation is being followed as well.
It is for the city council, as the plan-preparing authority, to consider the objections that it receives in respect of its plan proposals. In the light of responses received to public consultation, including the formal objections of the Government office, the city council's planning and economic development programme committee yesterday resolved to withdraw all 47 sites, subject, as my hon. Friend said, to ratification by the full council this afternoon.
I am sure that the council will ratify the decision, especially given the pressure of my hon. Friend. It is obviously an important issue, which I am sure the council will consider carefully before taking steps towards adopting its plan.
The Government firmly believe that those likely to be affected by a proposed development should have every opportunity to express their views before decisions are taken on planning applications generally. Where these raise issues relevant to planning, the local planning authority has a duty to take them into account when determining the planning application.
In 1992, we introduced arrangements for compulsory publicity for all planning applications. As a minimum, councils now have to notify neighbours directly, or place a notice on or near a site. For major applications-- including, for example, the erection of 10 or more dwellings--a local newspaper advertisement is additionally required, to canvass views more widely on the likely impact. All notices and advertisements should give a date by which comments should be submitted to the council.
As well as setting statutory minima, the publicity provisions are designed to allow planning authorities maximum discretion to use any additional methods of publicity which they consider necessary in the light of local circumstances. There might be a cynical sigh from those on the Benches behind me, but I hope that we can encourage authorities to use that discretion.
We are not content to set statutory provisions in place and leave it at that. We are keen that wider participation should take place, and that the public generally are able to make a positive contribution to the quality of new developments. Along these lines, the Department has issued a circular to planning authorities giving advice on best practice for publicising planning applications and involving interested parties.
As I have explained, development plans provide the keystone of our planning system. It is therefore only right that planning applications that depart from the plan should
be brought to the attention of local residents. We have amended planning legislation so that all departures have to be advertised, giving the public a chance to comment on them. That procedure applied to the development proposed at Limb lane, Dore, to which my hon. Friend referred. It was effectively planning permission to develop a site that was historically already developed in the green belt.
My hon. Friend referred also to other applications which were decided by Sheffield city council. He will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on detail on the way in which the council has handled particular applications. As he has expressed concern about the general procedures governing local authority development, however, it might be helpful to examine more closely how the procedures work. They were revised as recently as 1992, and are now contained in the town and country planning general regulations of 1992.
The procedures which the regulations replaced--those set out in the 1976 regulations--had been criticised on the ground that local planning authorities could not act impartially when they were plaintiff and jury in their own cause. It was suggested that, because a local authority may gain financially when disposing of land with the benefit of planning permission, planning permission might be granted, which would be refused if the applicant were not the authority. The fifth report from the Select Committee on the Environment for 1985-86 concluded that the regulations had a built-in conflict of interest without balancing safeguards, and recommended that the Department should review the existing procedures.
As my hon. Friend will understand and expect, the Department took the recommendations to heart, and published a consultation paper proposing reforms in February 1990. The proposals, revised to take account of consultation responses, were implemented through section 316 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the 1992 regulations made under that section. The general principle underlying the 1992 regulations is that local planning authorities must make planning applications in the same way as any other person, and must apply for planning permission. Except in special circumstances, they must follow the same procedures as would apply to applications made by anyone else.
County and district councils may grant themselves planning permission for their own development on land in which they have an interest, but that ability is subject to several important safeguards. For example,the proposals must be advertised and decided in public by a committee that is not responsible for land management. The public cannot be excluded from committee meetings at which local authority development proposals are discussed--as my hon. Friend suggested, that could have had an influence on some recent decisions.
To avoid a conflict of interest, applications may not be determined by a committee or officer responsible for the management of the land concerned. Local authority development proposals or development on its land must also be notified to the Secretary of State if it is not in accordance with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area, so that he can consider whether to call in the application for his own determination. It is worth stressing the importance, as the UDP is being developed or revised, that local residents, including astute local Members such as my hon. Friend, keep a close eye on proceedings, especially if they have suspicions about the local authority.
Unitary authorities can grant planning permission for their own development on land in which they have an interest, or for development by others on their land, but they are subject to the same safeguards of accountability and publicity.
I have no doubt that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, local authorities are scrupulous in following the procedures to which I have referred. In a decision of the sort that we are discussing, where there are two sides, not everyone will be entirely satisfied. Local authority development proposals, like those of other persons applying for planning permission, must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Sheffield city council is no different from any other local planning authority in that respect. Nor, indeed, are its proposals any different from those submitted by other developers. They must all be judged against the same criteria. In reaching their decisions, local authorities must also take into account relevant objections by local residents.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will remind Sheffield city council of that if he feels that there is a need to do so. Only genuine land use planning concerns are material. In some instances, there may well be positive reasons in favour of development that may outweigh local objections. My hon. Friend will understand that, given his days in local government.
I can understand that some of my hon. Friend's constituents may be disappointed by decisions that are made on their behalf, as every planning decision has difficulties, but it is important that the 1992 regulations are followed. Coupled with the requirement to refer the departures to the Secretary of State, the regulations provide the right balance between the local planning authorities' need to carry out their statutory functions and the importance of safeguards on accountability and publicity.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |