| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Heald: The difficulty was that the National Rivers Authority had seen the original plans and made its comments on them. It was unaware that there were any new plans, because it was not represented at the planning inquiry. That is one of the faults in the process that has been adopted. Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Raynsford: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I have two comments to make in response. First, no one objected to the revised plans, although I understand that the NRA may not have been represented. Secondly, the inspector would have had to form a judgment on whether the revised plans differed so materially from the original as to make it impossible for him to consider the application. Had he believed that, he could not have proceeded with the application on the basis of the revised plans.
I do not doubt the genuineness of the Environment Agency's concerns over a possible pollution risk to the groundwaters in the area. The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about that as well, because it affects the livelihood and well-being of his constituents. However, the inspector considered the issue in his report and was satisfied that, subject to certain conditions to control emissions to groundwater and streams, there would be no risks from the development. Conditions to that effect were imposed by the then Secretary of State when he granted planning permission.
The local planning authority has not made any decisions on compliance with those outstanding conditions from the original consent. If the development is to proceed, the site owners must negotiate with the Environment Agency to find technical solutions to the drainage and water table issues. Unless that is done, the local planning authority will not discharge the outstanding conditions. If that continues to be so, planning permission will lapse in late 1999. Alternatively, it is open to thesite owners to submit revised proposals to North Hertfordshire district council if they consider that another solution to the problem can be found.
For the policy reasons already explained, I do not consider that there are grounds to justify my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking the exceptional course of revoking the planning permission. It would certainly be premature, given the need for negotiations to ensure
compliance with the conditions already imposed. In any case, if the Secretary of State were to take that course following a local public inquiry, a claim for compensation from the developer would be likely. Such claims can be very substantial. I should stress that the claim is not against the Secretary of State but against the local planning authority. For that reason, revocation of a planning permission must be seen as a very serious matter for the authority.
In this case, as I hope that I have demonstrated, there is an alternative remedy. The Environment Agency has to be satisfied with the site owners' proposals for dealing with the problems in order to give its consent to the local planning authority agreeing to discharge the conditions. As I have already implied, if that agreement is not given, development cannot proceed. There is a safeguard in
place. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman that his concerns are respected, and that there is a proper safeguard in place to meet them.
I repeat that, if the development is to proceed, the site owners must negotiate with the Environment Agency to find solutions to the problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified. Unless that happens, the local planning authority will not be in a position to discharge the outstanding conditions, and therefore no development can take place. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman that the fears that he has described need not arise, and that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the interests of his constituents will be properly protected.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |