| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Planning Appeal Procedures
12. Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley): If he will make a statement on the proposed changes to planning appeal procedures in Yorkshire and Humberside. [82791]
15. Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton):
What is the current position regarding proposed changes to planning appeal procedures in London. [82795]
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn):
I announced the Government's conclusions on improvements to planning appeal procedures on 31 March. The improved procedures will apply throughout England and are not confined to any specific region.
Mr. Michie:
Will my right hon. Friend further consider appeal procedures that cause problems in local authorities? As a classic example, a local authority--Sheffield--refuses a development; the decision is overturned by the Tory Secretary of State; the developer continues; the banking falls down; half a road is demolished; those in housing at the top, which has nothing to do with the development, have to live with an eyesore for three years; local government has no power to deal with the problem; insurance companies play hide and seek; and the developer may go bankrupt. If the Secretary of State overrides a local authority, surely the responsibility resides with the Secretary of State, and not the local authority.
Mr. Caborn:
My hon. Friend knows that the Secretary of State's reserve powers are used extremely sparingly: of about half a million planning applications that go through every year, about 120 to 150 are called in. The general principle that successive Administrations have followed is that planning decisions are better taken locally, within a strategic framework, which we are trying to develop at regional and local level.
When my hon. Friend was chief whip on Sheffield city council and involved with the planning committee, he would have been the first to argue for local authorities to have the power to take planning decisions, and I hope that he will be consistent in that approach.
Mr. Love:
Unlike my hon. Friend, I welcome the new appeal procedures, which are part of an overall modernisation of the planning system. Given that a new Greater London Authority is to be created, and the complexity of some of the issues in the capital, what does the Department intend to do to modernise the planning system in Greater London?
Mr. Caborn:
The exercise in which we have been engaged since we came to office, which was illustrated to the House in our first report on modernising planning, shows that we have taken a systematic approach to the whole question of land use planning. More importantly, we must start linking that with transport and economic planning, to give us a comprehensive planning system that will be applied not only in the regions but in London. The decisions for London will be the responsibility of the mayor and the new authority, but they must be taken in concert with our modernisation of the overall planning programme.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet):
What is the point of giving the Greater London Authority the power to direct a local planning authority in London to refuse a significant planning application, when the applicant will have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State? Would it not be far better to be more radical and give the mayor the power of the Secretary of State to decide planning appeals, except in those significant planning applications that would affect areas outside Greater London?
Mr. Caborn:
The new mayor will have to consider the wider concerns of London, not only factoring in the land
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield):
Many people throughout the regions warmly welcome my right hon.
Mr. Caborn:
My hon. Friend knows that, through the regional planning guidance, we have instituted an examination in public so that all those issues can be addressed, including the economic impact that the RDAs have at regional level. That agenda will make progress, slowly but surely.
3.30 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 12 February, I tabled a question to the Foreign Secretary and it took him some 82 days to reply--the answer came on 5 May. In fact, that answer is so general that it could have been given at any time. Is that not a disgraceful way to treat the House? Is it in order for a Cabinet Minister, who--on his own admission--does not bother to finish the paperwork, to prove it to the detriment of the House? What redress do we have?
Madam Speaker: I must tell the hon. Lady and the House that it has long been the view of the House that Ministers should endeavour to answer ordinary and straightforward questions within a working week of their being tabled. That guideline is contained in "Erskine May" on page 293. I share the hon. Lady's view that, in this case, the delay has been most unreasonable and I ask all Ministers to take that point to heart for the future. I refer them to "Erskine May", page 293, and I hope that they will follow those guidelines.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: There can be no further point of order, because I have dealt with the matter.
Control of Fireworks
3.31 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public; to provide for a licensing system for firework displays; and for connected purposes.
First we need to establish whether there is a problem. My view is that we have not only a problem but a nightmare with fireworks. Those of us with elderly relatives, young children or domestic pets will know that, for a period of months around the time of Guy Fawkes night, genuine alarm and distress is caused by fireworks exploding at all times of day or night, sometimes in the early hours of the morning. I reside in the centre of Southend and I also have a flat in London. From the telephone calls that I receive from distressed constituents, the letters that I receive and the representations that I hear in conversation, I gain the impression that the public are fed up to the teeth with the problem and want something to be done. They look to Parliament to take the appropriate action.
Apart from the inconvenience, there is also a safety issue. All sports involve dangers, but we should not ignore the fact that, in 1997, 908 firework accidents were reported, of which about half involved hospital treatment or other medical treatment. The previous year saw three deaths, including that of a 10-year-old boy called Dale, who died after a lit firework was pushed through the letter box in his home in Nottingham. An adult in Kent died of facial injuries after a private bonfire party.
In fairness, Governments of both parties have tried to do something about the problem. However, the difficulty is that all the measures that they have proposed have not worked. We had an active Consumer Affairs Minister in the Conservative Government who, in 1996, said that he would introduce a root and branch policy to sort out the problem. He brought in new regulations, which imposed massive fines of £5,000 for letting off fireworks in the street. He also prohibited the sale of fireworks to people under 18 years of age. However, despite that, in 1997, a third of all the accidents happened in the street and half of the injuries were to children under 15. That policy did not work.
Dramatic measures were proposed by the new Labour Government. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), when he was the new Consumer Affairs Minister, energetically said:
We can either do nothing at all, or do something that will work. The only effective course of action is to make a change to the law that is clear, precise and unambiguous. I propose a total and complete ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public, and on the firing of fireworks by the general public. The Bill would also provide that organisations or individuals wanting to hold firework displays--which can be very exciting--would be permitted to do so only under licence from the local authority or council. Consideration of licence applications would take into account where and on what date such a display was to be held, and its duration.
I am aware that some councils want to be more flexible and liberal in their attitudes. The Bill would allow them to be so, but other areas might take a different point of view. The proposals would resolve the real nightmare of fireworks in an effective and practical manner.
In general, I am reluctant to promote legislation that reduces the freedom of individual citizens, but we should acknowledge that the freedom that people enjoy in relation to fireworks causes genuine alarm, distress and inconvenience to the majority. That is why we have to take action, and as soon as possible. I urge the House to face up to an issue that has been swept under the carpet for far too long, and to support the Bill.
"Firework injuries have soared to unacceptable levels. I am taking tough action to protect the public. Too many elderly people live in fear because of hooligan fireworks."
He proposed a massive publicity campaign and spent £350,000 last year on advertising telling people about the problems. However, none of the proposals made by Government--Conservative or Labour--have worked.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |