| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on securing a debate on issues that are currently of considerable concern in his constituency. I listened with interest to the points that he made. From the letters received by my Department, I am aware of the strength of local feeling about the proposals for the site. The hon. Gentleman's contribution gave further flavour to the issue, as he hoped.
Two planning applications have been made in respect of this site: one is for a larger secure unit than the one already on the site, and the other is the proposed science and business park. As a member of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman should know the planning system well enough to be aware that neither I nor any of my ministerial colleagues can comment on planning applications, because to do so may compromise the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role in considering the case for call-in or in taking a decision in the event that Croydon council resolve to refuse planning permission and the applicant submits an appeal.
As I have already said in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, we are keeping these applications under review, but we will allow the council time to reach a view on the proposals before deciding whether call-in is justified. For reasons that I shall touch on and of which the hon. Gentleman is aware, Croydon has postponed its formal consideration of the matter in committee until February or March next year.
Croydon received the application for the medium secure unit in March 1999. The process of conducting public consultation has raised issues on the safety of local residents on which the council has sought advice. The time scale involved is completely justified by the nature of the application, by local opinion and by the complexity of the issues involved in making the decision. Having taken account of the time scale, I find it hard to accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that Croydon is trying to push through the application for a medium secure unit. By the time the council considers the application, it will have taken a year for it to come to a decision. It is taking that time because of the need for expert advice and the issues raised by the case.
The business park application was also made in March this year. I understand that the council has now asked for an environmental assessment from the applicant, and that
is being prepared. The application involves other complex issues in addition to those raised by the hon. Gentleman, including the imminent construction of the Coulsdon inner relief road, which may give rise to design changes to the proposals.
The Secretary of State's role in the planning process means that he has at his disposal the power to call in an application. I understand from what the hon. Gentleman said and from correspondence that we have received that he does not agree with Croydon's preliminary view that the application for a medium secure unit is not a departure from the unitary development plan. I have seen the correspondence that he has received from the director of planning and development, which sets out in some detail why Croydon has come to the decision on paragraph C4 and the other requirements of the regulations, and why it argues that the application is not a departure from the UDP. If it were a departure, it would have to be referred to the Secretary of State now as a call-in.
At present, this is a matter for the council to decide. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, we shall consider carefully whether that power should be exercised, and, if so, when; but, for the moment, the Secretary of State is exercising his power of call-in in the normal way. As under the last Administration, it is normal practice to use the power of call-in sparingly. It is important that applications are generally left in the first instance to the locally elected body to determine, and are called in only if, among other things, matters of more than local importance are involved.
Although the Secretary of State has power to call in at any time, it is our practice, for good reasons, to let the authority consider an application and reach a view before the Department decides whether to call in. That enables all local and statutory consultees' views to be taken into account and aired publicly; and an application refused by the authority would come before the Secretary of State as an appeal anyway.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
The institution that we are discussing is on the boundary between Croydon and the borough of Reigate and Banstead. My borough has asked for a call-in. I hope that the fact that the institution is on the boundary will carry some weight with the Secretary of State in due course.
Ms Hughes:
As I have said, we are cognisant of the contentious and complex nature of the application. I am trying to explain why it is important for the local authority to be allowed to make a decision in the first instance. It brings into the open all the various local views pertaining to the application. That means that, should the Secretary of State decide to call in the application subsequently--which he is perfectly entitled to do--those local views will be in the public domain, and will be available for him to consider if, in the event, he calls the application in.
We are executing normal procedure by allowing Croydon to reach an initial view on the applications. When it has done so, if necessary, we may well issue a holding direction to allow ourselves time to examine Croydon's decision, the reasons for its decision and its report to its planning committee, and to decide whether to intervene and call in either or both the applications.
The views of both the hon. Member for Croydon, South and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will be taken into account.
I stress that our feeling that it is important to let Croydon make the initial decision does not mean that the Secretary of State will not exercise his power of call-in later. There are, however, distinct advantages in allowing the local planning authority to make an initial decision, because that puts all local views into the public domain.
I cannot comment on the specific applications, but I will make some general and relevant comments about the planning system and about the green belt. The planning system regulates the development and use of land in the public interest. We believe that the system as a whole--which includes the preparation of development plans by local authorities such as Croydon--is the most effective way of reconciling what are often competing demands for development and for the protection of the environment. The planning system has a key role in contributing to the Government's strategy for sustainable development.
The Government are committed to a plan-led system of development control. That means that any application for planning permission, or any appeal, should be determined in line with the approved development plan--as thehon. Member for Croydon, South said--unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Whoever decides such planning applications and appeals--whether it be a local planning authority such as Croydon, a planning inspector deciding an appeal or, indeed, the Secretary of State--should always take into account whether the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to openly important interests. Our aim in the plan-led system is to secure rational and consistent decisions, greater clarity, secure public involvement, quicker decisions and so on. Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations. They must relate to the purpose of planning law, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest.
Where it is not already incorporated into their development plans, local planning authorities also need to take into account national and regional planning guidance. The national guidance is set out in various planning policy guidance notes. In London, the regional guidance is in the strategic guidance for London planning authorities--RPG3, as it is known.
Croydon council has to take its adopted UDP policies as a starting point and weigh up other material considerations in reaching its decision on any planning application that is before it. In particular, it has to have regard to PPG notes, especially if they are more recent than the policies that are outlined in its own UDP.
On another general point, the Government recognise and uphold the rights of property and privileges of ownership, so owners of land and property rightly expect to be able to use, or to develop their land as they judge best, unless consequences for the environment, or the community would be unacceptable. Therefore, individual property owners are allowed to enhance, or to improve their use of land and buildings.
I turn to a key issue for any application at Cane Hill: the green belt. I hope that I do not have to restate the Government's support and, indeed, record in protecting and increasing the green belt. We remain firm in those commitments, which I have stated personally recently. Some hon. Members have raised concerns, prompted by
headlines in a recent edition of the London Evening Standard. The claims that we are not supporting the green belt are not true.
In relation to Croydon, annexe C of PPG2 says that redevelopment, or infilling of major developed sites--a particular defined category in the regulations--in the green belt may offer the opportunity for environmental improvement, without adding to the impact on the openness of greenbelt land. Such redevelopment, or infilling will not be inappropriate development in law if sites are identified in adopted development plans. Examples of major developed sites will include hospitals. Such sites must be substantial in size. In that context, I understand that Cane Hill is identified as a major developed site--a specific category--in Croydon's current adopted UDP.
As well as identifying a site for the purposes of annexe C, local planning authorities may set out in their plan a policy for future development. Even once a site is
so identified, PPG2 contains criteria that constrain redevelopment. Those say that it should have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the green belt and should contribute to the achievement of objectives. There are others limiting height and footprint, but there is no requirement that the existing footprint of buildings should be maintained to satisfy those criteria.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |