| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I start by declaring my interest, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, as a director of a family property company with interests in the building industry.
I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks, but he has not yet convinced me that the Government are right on this issue. One of the disadvantages of coming late to a debate is that one has to go back through the papers to find out about the Government's intentions. I want to try to get the architecture right in terms of understanding where the binding inspectors' reports fit in. Initially, a national spatial plan strategy will send directions to the regional spatial strategies—although the Minister said earlier that that would differ according to whether there was an elected assembly or a non-elected regional planning body—and that will set the local development frameworks. Then, the local authority has to produce its local development scheme, to come into force by the end of 2004, which lists all the documents to be prepared and the timetable for doing so. The authority also has to produce a statement of community involvement so that the public feels confident that they can be involved in the whole process.
That eventually leads to the preparation of local development documents, including maps and action plans for what is to happen in the locality. There is also the option of the supplementary planning documents that the Minister mentioned, which do not have to undergo independent examination. At that point, the local authority has to produce its local development plan documents, with some degree of latitude as to the degree of detail. Community involvement will be an important part of that. At the end of the process, an inspector has to look at the local development documents.
In essence, the Government want to introduce what Lord Rooker called
"the important innovation of binding inspectors' reports on development plan documents."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 March 2004; Vol. 1940, c. 454.]
The philosophy of the measure is much more top down than bottom up. An inspector will have the ability substantially to alter documents produced by the local authority that have gone through the local consultation process.
There is widespread concern about how the system will operate. The Local Government Association fears that the proposals will
"undermine local democracy, accountability, and the freedoms and flexibilities the government says it wants to grant local government in order to make localism a reality."
"There will be no opportunity for local authorities to correct errors of fact and misinterpretation which creep into many an inspector's report but which can be ironed out in the current system without fuss.
There could be significant implications for parts of the plan not actually formally under public examination and on which the local authority will not have had chance to make representations.
Local authorities are also likely to find themselves in a difficult position if they unable to challenge the Inspector's decisions, which may prove to be contrary to national and regional planning guidance or not adequately reflect local circumstances.
There will be wider implications. The inspector's report will have a direct impact on Community strategies and other local strategies outside planning and the local authority will have no recourse to challenge the inspector's recommendations if they are contrary to the objectives of the community strategy."
It gives an example of how things could go wrong:
"In Birmingham, the Local Planning Inspector recently recommended that the City Council's Unitary Development Plan should remove key employment sites from the plan even though this was contrary to both current and emerging regional planning guidance for the area. Such an outcome would have significant implications for local planning authorities under the new system as there do not appear to be safeguards to prevent this happening and local authorities would not be in a position to challenge the Inspector's decision. The processes for rectifying issues of this kind are likely to be messy and convoluted."
As the Minister said, the only option that will be left open to local authorities is judicial review, but many authorities—certainly in Poole—would have to consider the costs involved in that before trying to challenge what an inspector wants to do.
Although I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow that planning inspectors are generally competent and good at what they do, mistakes are made, and many reports contain factual errors. By making that element of the process binding, the Government are giving it an importance within the planning architecture that could significantly change what local development documents are intended to be. The Government should consider the Lords amendments as a great help because leaving the final say to local authorities would be consistent with what all parties want—more power for local authorities. The amendments would be the most effective method of ensuring that the right decisions were made at the end of the process. A local authority could consider an inspector's decision and amend its plan accordingly if it believed that the inspector had a good point.
7 pm
It has been said in the debate that an inspector could not simply implement his views but would have to examine the whole process. He would have to consider the public consultation, ascertain what issues had been raised and make amendments on that basis. However, as we all know, issues are raised in local plans and consultations that have strong proponents for and against them. Controversial decisions could ensue through the Government's making that part of the process binding. In another place, Lord Rooker clearly stated that the Government's intention was to speed up the planning process and that the proposal was part of that. Yet we are considering the last part of the process and it is unlikely that the provision would speed it up. If the consequence of speeding up the process is diminishing local democracy and perhaps making it more difficult to rectify mistakes—we all know that mistakes are made—the Government may come to regret it.
19 Apr 2004 : Column 76
We are considering complex planning architecture, with all sorts of plans and supplements popping out. I am beginning to wonder whether we shall end up with a speedier process. However, the top-down philosophy that the Government appear to be implementing in many of their planning proposals, whereby an inspector can insist on changes and judicial review is the only avenue available to a local authority that has been through all the processes and taken account of all public anxieties and representations, is unacceptable. The Government should listen carefully to what the Lords and Members of the House of Commons are saying about an issue that is important to many of our constituents.
Matthew Green: We are discussing one of the main contentious subjects in the Bill. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) did hon. Members a great favour when he asked the Minister to give examples of problems with the current system. The Minister had some difficulty in dealing with that. Under the new scheme, a local development plan will become a series of local development documents. The Minister knows that I support the new scheme. Under the current system, local authorities do not often reverse the inspector's decisions, for the wrong reasons.
However, let me give an example, provided by the Local Government Association, of a local authority using its power to reverse an inspector's decision about a local plan. The local authority is Birmingham, which was Labour led when the decision was reversed. Labour councillors voted for a plan, which the inspector changed. I understand that the planning inspector recently recommended that Birmingham city council's unitary development plan should remove key employment sites from the plan, even though that was contrary to current and emerging regional planning guidance for the area. Such an outcome would have significant implications for the new system.
Ninety-nine per cent. of the time, inspectors get it right but nobody is perfect and they can make mistakes. Correcting them through judicial review is expensive. Perhaps Birmingham might be able to spread the costs because it is the biggest local authority in the country, and I believe has a budget of more than £1 billion. However, most small shire districts would not contemplate resorting to judicial review against the Secretary of State—the inspector acts in the Secretary of State's name. They could not consider that route for financial reasons.
Peter Bottomley: Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, in another place, the Government ensured that four clauses were added so that Ministers could correct mistakes that they or planning inspectors made about planning decisions. It is odd that we are holding the current discussion on more major issues when the Government have given themselves gold-plated protection for minor slips.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |