| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Having dealt with the general issues, may I turn to the recent planning decision in my hon. Friend’s constituency about which he expressed concern? I understand that Derwentside council granted planning permission for a special needs health centre on a site that formed part of what it considered to be a poor-quality public park—a view contested by my hon. Friend. The capital receipts from the disposal of that parkland are intended to fund improvements to the remaining area of the park. I am informed, too, that improvements are to be made imminently to another park in the local area using some of the money from the sale.
Mr. Kevan Jones indicated dissent.
Angela E. Smith: My hon. Friend shakes his head, but that information was given to the Department and to the Government office. I am sure that he will understand that I am unable to discuss specific planning cases and planning decisions, as they may be subject to review by the courts and, in that event, planning aspects of a case could still in due course come to the Secretary of State for decision on appeal. However, I can make the general point that it is the Secretary of State’s general approach not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so for reasons of national importance. Local planning authorities are normally best placed to make decisions relating to their own areas, and it is right that they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly with the minimum of interference. The Government do not set standards for local authorities to follow in that regard. However, one of the things that would have been looked at would have been objections. I understand that Sport England made no objection to the proposals—
Angela E. Smith: I shall just finish this point before I give way to my hon. Friend. I know that he is eager to intervene on me.
The information that has been given to the Government office is that Sport England made no objection to the proposals. Furthermore, the council has exceeded the standards suggested by the National Playing Fields Association relating to the amount of green space in a given area. Despite strong local feeling, the Secretary of State did not assess that as an issue of national or regional importance. It would be exceptional for the Secretary of State to intervene.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Sport England did complain; and, in support of the argument that there was sufficient open space in the area, the council put forward the example of King’s Head field, but it clearly did not tell the Government office that it had already designated that area for development, either for sale or for the site of a new school.
Angela E. Smith:
These are all matters that the council should take into account before making a decision. I am concerned that my hon. Friend’s assertions contradict the information that appears to have been given to the Government office, and I will look into those matters for him. It remains the case,
however, that it would be exceptional for the Secretary of State to call in a planning decision in such an area.
My hon. Friend has made genuinely helpful comments on this matter to the Secretary of State, but the judgment was made that it really was not a national issue in which my right hon. Friend felt that she could intervene and take the matter into her own hands to decide. Now that the council has taken its decision, the question of intervention no longer arises, other than the possibility of an interested party seeking a review of the decision in the courts. I observe that simply as a fact, not to express an opinion on the merits of the case.
I am of course sorry that my hon. Friend and some of his constituents are gravely disappointed with the decision, but I hope that, regardless of it, he will accept that such a matter should be decided by a local council. Ultimately, the role of the council is to make a judgment on the quality of park provision, set against the need for a special needs health centre. The council made its judgment on the basis of a trade-off of resources that the development could release to upgrade the rest of the park and other open spaces in its area. Although it had to consider the national policy framework that I have set out, the decision was rightly one for the council to make. It would not have been consistent with our wider vision for local government, set out in the White Paper last month, for us to take over an essentially local matter to be decided by people in London.
I understand the intensity of local feeling expressed by my hon. Friend this evening, but I hope that he will accept that there are cases on which it is rightly within the remit of local authorities to make the decisions, and that it is not the Secretary of State’s role to intervene in the planning process. Of about 650,000 applications a year, only about 100 are called in by the Secretary of State. A very strict test has to be applied before a case is called in, and they are called in only in exceptional circumstances. Having said that, I acknowledge the strongly held views of my hon. Friend and his constituents on the council’s decision. He has raised issues which, although outside the planning system, give him cause for concern. They include the quality of the information on which the decision was based.
Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government cannot override a decision that has already been taken by the council, and it would be wrong to comment on what my hon. Friend has said this evening without obtaining more details. Many of the issues that he has raised are not actually planning issues, even though they involve his grave concerns about a planning decision. They are wider and more serious than that. We will consider how the matters can be investigated in a way that will satisfy my hon. Friend and his constituents, because serious allegations have been made about the council’s conduct.
My hon. Friend mentioned seeking redress or an investigation from the district auditor. It may be possible for some of the issues that he wants to refer to be examined by the Standards Board as well. I make no comment or judgment on the allegations; I am merely
offering advice on what my hon. Friend may consider an appropriate way in which to proceed.
Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): Given the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), does the Minister accept the need for more scrutiny and monitoring of council decisions on planning? We might wish to give the Government office, or some other body in the regions, the role of checking the quality of decision making.
Angela E. Smith: It is always difficult to define the quality of decision making. When we agree with a decision we may think that the quality of decision making is good, and when we disagree we may think it is bad. In my opinion, however, the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham were not about the quality of decision making but about some of the information provided which led to the making of decisions, and about how the process was conducted. I hope that my suggestions will prove helpful; no doubt my hon. Friend will return to me if they do not.
I want to make two points about the Government office. My hon. Friend said that he did not feel that he had been given reasons. The reasons that were given were standard—for instance, that it was not appropriate for the Secretary of State to interfere—rather than being based on the merits or otherwise of the case.
However—and I apologise to my hon. Friend for this—it would have been helpful if the Government office had contacted him sooner, although I am not convinced that it was entirely the Government office’s fault. I believe that my hon. Friend contacted the Government office on 25 August and that it then sought further information from the council, which took a number of weeks to arrive. I am sure that the council did its best to convey the information to the Government office as quickly as possible, but it did not arrive until the first week of October. The Government office then contacted my hon. Friend within a week. I appreciate that he received the information after the decision had been made by the council, although it had not yet been implemented.
It would have been helpful for my hon. Friend to know beforehand that, as the guidelines make clear, this is not a matter that would normally have been called in by the Secretary of State. I am sorry that the process took so long. I believe that some of the issues were beyond the Government office’s control, but I also believe that we should look into the possibility of giving Members advice on the likelihood of a decision being called in, and clarifying the position as a matter of urgency.
I thank my hon. Friend for initiating the debate. He has raised some serious issues, a number of which fall outside the sphere of planning. I hope that the information I have given tonight has dealt with the policy context, and has helped my hon. Friend to find a way of ensuring that some of the matters he has raised are addressed.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o’clock.
| Index | Home Page |