 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Planning Bill |
Planning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall,
Committee Clerk
† attended
the
Committee
WitnessesHugh
Ellis, Planning Adviser, Friends of the
Earth
Phil Michaels, Head of
Legal, Friends of the Earth
Naomi
Luhde-Thompson, Planning Co-ordinator, Friends of the
Earth
Mark Southgate, Head of
Planning and Environmental Assessment, Environment
Agency
Tony Grayling, Head of
Environmental Policy, Environment
Agency
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 10 January 2008(Morning)[Sir John Butterfill in the Chair]Planning BillFurther written evidence reported to the HousePB 17 The Wildlife
Trusts
9.3
am
The
Committee deliberated in
private.
9.15
am
On
resuming—
The
Chairman:
Good morning. We begin this morning by
hearing evidence from representatives of Friends of the Earth.
Mr. Ellis, we would like to welcome you to this meeting and
thank you for coming to give evidence to us. Would you care to
introduce your colleagues,
please?
Hugh
Ellis:
Yes, thank you, and thank you for the
opportunity for giving evidence this morning. On my left is Naomi
Luhde-Thompson, who is our planning co-ordinator dealing with
communities’ involvement in planning and on my right is Phil
Michaels, who is head of our legal team.
The
Chairman:
Thank you. Is there any short
statement that you would like to make before answering
questions?
Hugh
Ellis:
Yes, there is. I think it is important to
stress that Friends of the Earth and other organisations in the green
sector are very supportive of the kind of sustainable development that
we need to achieve. But the caveat to that is that such development and
infrastructure needs to be delivered in a fair way and in a low-carbon
economy. I think our real concern is that the Bill does not meet those
two challenges. Our worry is that—particularly in relation to
carbon—there are insufficient mechanisms to link the Climate
Change Bill, for example, to the national policy statements and to the
work of the independent planning
commission.
Our
concerns on public involvement in participation are also very
significant. We think the Bill rewrites the important 1947 settlement
on planning, which included democratic accountability and public
participation as vital parts of the general planning regime. The system
that is presented to us raises a number of concerns in relation to the
testing of national policy statements, particularly where those
statements are site-specific and involve people’s rights to be
heard. The lack of democratic accountability in the IPC is a very
significant issue, as are the very limited rights for people at
inquiries, particularly the removal of an effective right to be
heard.
At
the end of the day, we are not looking for a system for
non-governmental organisations. It is not a system that should work for
the Friends of the Earth; it is a system that should work for the wider
community. It is in fact non-aligned individuals—ordinary
citizens—who will find this new regime most difficult to deal
with.
Overall, if we are interested in sustainable development, we need a
system where people agree with the process, even if they disagree on
outcome.
We do not
think the Bill has generated a consensus about the process, and as a
result of that there is likely to be, based on our judgment and
experience, a very significant increase in public protest around major
decisions. We think that consensus is there to be had; we hope there
will be a dialogue about achieving that consensus, because it is in no
one’s interest ultimately to have a system which is illegitimate
in the public eye. Nobody will be able to deliver anything, least of
all business, without at least the consent of local populations and the
wider society.
Q
227227
Alun
Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): I want
to ask you about your approach to making the process constructive, both
in relation to the role of the commission and the processes. Friends of
the Earth on some occasions has demonstrated a capacity for
constructive engagement with big issues. On other occasions, it has
been totally obstructive, perhaps through frustration with process,
which is why it is so important to look at that. Would you agree that
speed and quality of scrutiny are not necessarily the same, or, to put
it another way, that long drawn-out scrutiny is not necessarily better
or more objective or more capable of engaging the public or interested
parties in scrutiny? How would you set about getting that balance
between, on the one hand, speed and opportunity for engagement in a
time frame that everybody can understand and, on the other hand,
improving the quality of scrutiny and evidence-based discussion of
particular
issues?
Hugh
Ellis:
I think we would take the approach, from the
experience we have and also the detailed experience from the late
’60s onwards in this country on major infrastructure, of making
an important distinction between changing the structures by which we
approve major infrastructure, creating new legislation and managerial
reform. It is our firm conclusion from the evidence that we were on the
way with the reforms of 2005 to making an effective system. That is to
say that the role of the Planning Inspectorate, and the role that the
2005 major infrastructure inquiry rules play, would have avoided many
of the difficulties thrown up by cases like terminal 5. But one of the
difficulties, I think, is that there is not a clear understanding in
this whole debate of where delay comes from in the process. For
example, the general mythology around planning is that it is the
community—or individual obstructive members of the
community—that produces delays in the process. Looking at
terminal 5, there is no evidence for that. In fact, more generally in
planning, the opportunities for public involvement are very
prescriptively
defined.
So,
what we are really saying is, by all means let us set a framework that
delivers decisions in a timely way, but that should not punish those
people who find it most difficult to represent their case. We see no
evidence, for example, that a right to be heard in inquiries is the
critical source of delay, and yet what we have done in the Bill is to
say that that general right to be heard, as currently prescribed, has
been limited to the point where we think that it is
meaningless.
Q
228
Alun
Michael:
If I may say so, I experienced
the eight years of objections to the Cardiff Bay barrage, which I think
most people would agree was time that was taken and expense that was
involved to no good end. My point is that if there is frustration, you
end up with everybody simply using every mechanism they can to delay
the process. That is not necessarily good for objectors or for the
process. What ways would you see of avoiding the frustration of delay
at the same time as improving the quality of the
process?
Hugh
Ellis:
There are parts of the Bill that we do
support, which are sensible. The two primary aspects of that are that a
unified consent regime would help immensely, and I think that there is
consent around that, and also statements of national policy, where
those statements—and this is absolutely vital—are not
site-specific. That changes everything in relation to our view of
national policy statements. A firm statement of national policy is the
sort of thing that was absent in terminal 5, for example, and it would
certainly have dealt with that
delay.
Our
point is that there are multiple sources of delay and that in
responding to those multiple sources we need, for example, to focus as
much on the competence of developers as we do, if you like, on the
constitutional issues around citizenship. Our point is that we may
regard the debate about particular development as being frustrating
from our particular point of view, but it is vital that there is full
scrutiny of the process. In particular cases, like Nirex for example,
some people may regard the debate around Nirex as frustrating because
NGOs brought forward expert witnesses. That proved that that deep-level
disposal of nuclear waste option was unsound and the inspector
concluded that it was unsound. Our contention would be that it is very
difficult to see how that would be brought forward under this
regime.
So
we are happy to see that managerial reform. By all means, let us
timetable inquiries, let us provide support for third parties, let us
create national policy frameworks, let us unify consent, but at the
same time let us make sure that there is an arena, a robust arena,
where people can come along—not NGOs necessarily, but ordinary
citizens—and test the evidence. At the moment, the planning
inspector has powers to, for example, rule out evidence that is
frivolous or repetitious. All those things are there to help to manage
the process, and they are largely untested because they were only
introduced in 2005. Our case really is that we should test the system
before we introduce a system that we do not think is
sound.
Q
229
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): In your evidence,
you have indicated almost that there is a risk of civil unrest if the
Bill becomes an Act, because of the lack of public consultation. What
do you think will be required as a minimum to stop a new generation of
Swampies
emerging?
Hugh
Ellis:
Overall, it might be very good for Friends of
the Earth’s membership for us to be in that position of conflict
again, but speaking certainly as a planner it is not good for the
process of developing a low-carbon economy or for social progress. But
the minimum has to be two fundamental issues: that people have a proper
opportunity to test the evidence in the inquiry process and that the
decisions of the commission are democratically accountable.
I will just
reflect on one example of that. If we move, for example, to take a new
runway at Heathrow, where there will be compulsory purchase of a
significant number of homes, one can imagine a situation where approval
was given by a committee—the IPC, which is not
accountable—which affects the community so profoundly in so many
complex ways, it is difficult to see how communities will accept that,
unless, critically, politicians made that final decision. After all,
planning is political, it is not solely technical, and that is one of
the things that underlies the Bill that we do not think is a reasoned
assessment. Planning has always been, partly, a political process. So,
those two things are the most important: democratic accountability and
a right to be heard that means
something.
Q
230
Tom
Brake:
For the IPC to be democratically
accountable, that means that ultimately every single decision that the
IPC takes has to be taken by a
Minister?
Hugh
Ellis:
Ultimately, given the size and importance of
the decisions,
yes.
Q
231
Mrs.
Lait:
Thank you very much for coming in this morning on
what was, potentially, going to be a very busy day for you. You talk
with approval about the national policy statements. Could you outline
for us the method of consultation that you think should be behind the
development of these
statements?
Hugh
Ellis:
The national policy statement, in principle,
or the principle of the Government making clear what their policy is in
a generalised way, is clearly sound. The difficulty comes in the
detail, as with many other aspects of the Bill. For example, the
mechanisms you would need to put in place if a national policy
statement were going to be site-specific are very different from those
you would need if you were to issue a generalised statement. Take
nuclear disposal. If a national policy statement identifies a community
where deep-level nuclear disposal is going to take place—bearing
in mind that a national policy statement is one of the most powerful
planning documents we have ever seen in this country in relation to its
power over the final decision—then there has to be a right for
the individual to be heard, to test the evidence when there has been a
site-specific allocation.
In
a more general sense, we need to encourage very much more active
participation in these statements—much more active than, for
example, around the classic White Paper process. There is a very
important distinction. The kinds of policy in NPS has a much more
direct effect on the welfare of communities and individuals than almost
any other kind of policy making in government. Consequently, there need
to be more effective rights to test NPS. Certainly, our position has
been that there has to be an examination in public of a national policy
statement, and that the process of it being examined solely by a Select
Committee is probably not adequate, because of the issues that
raises.
Q
232
Mrs.
Lait:
Do you then envisage a two-layer
consultation—a public consultation and then scrutiny within the
parliamentary system—and do you include in that the historic
right to be heard, which includes
cross-examination?
Hugh
Ellis:
Were a national policy statement to be
site-specific, an effective forum for examination would have to exist,
and it would have to represent the right to be
heard.
Q
233
Mrs.
Lait:
I am sorry: do you agree with the right to be heard,
in terms of a cross-examination that is adversarial as opposed
to—what is the other
word?
Hugh
Ellis:
We do. The whole issue of cross-examination is
vital, and I relate our example of that back to Nirex, and also to vast
amounts of opinion in the literature around this. Cross-examination is
the only way of testing evidence properly in planning cases, because no
expert panel ever conceived can always know all the right questions to
be asked. The only way of testing highly technical information is
through a cross-examination process, partly because information in
planning is not impartial: it is a contested idea. All environmental
impact assessments for a development will be written by the developer,
and the information in them cannot be taken as an impartial statement
of case. It has to be tested effectively, and we cannot see any
mechanism other than producing expert witnesses and doing that through
cross-examination.
Q
234
Mrs.
Lait:
Just a quick one, if I may: would you then be
looking to invoke article 6 of the Human Rights
Act?
Phil
Michaels:
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act would
plainly be relevant in situations such as Hugh just mentioned, where
you are going to have location-specific national policy statements. If
those statements are effectively going to be making decisions about
people’s homes and communities, you need to make sure there is a
way for their rights to be determined in a way that is fair and
impartial. Whether that necessarily, in law, gives rise to a right to
be heard orally and to cross-examine is to some extent an open
question. The reason it is an open question is that it has not been
tested this far, because in situations where people’s homes will
be compulsorily acquired, they have traditionally always had that
right. There has therefore been no need to test the question. What is
likely to happen in this sort of situation is that there will be, we
think, a large number of legal challenges, both to national policy
statements and then to development consents, if people whose properties
are directly affected are not given proper rights to be heard. We think
that will cause precisely the sort of delay and uncertainty that the
Government, quite sensibly, are trying to
avoid.
Q
235
Robert
Neill:
I was just thinking about that last point. Under
what circumstances, if any, do you think that a national policy
statement should be
location-specific?
9.30
am
Hugh
Ellis:
This is very difficult because we feel overall
that they should not be locationally specific. This is an important
principle, not from an ideological position from Friends of the Earth,
but for sensible planning. I say that because it is almost impossible
to distinguish high-level and detailed issues in a two-stage process.
The more locationally specific an NPS is, the more out of date it
becomes—the faster it becomes out of date—and the more it
is treading on ground that is more properly dealt with at a local
level.
Let me take
the question from the other point of view. When the IPC meets, it
cannot, or should not normally, re-examine the contents of a national
policy statement. Nuclear safety, for example, can be determined, in
general, partly by technology, but it is also partly dependent on
locational circumstances, such as sea-level rise and whether our
existing sites are in the right place overall. That can properly be
explored only when all the facts are in front of
you.
The
idea that we can somehow resolve, in a site-specific statement at
national level, issues properly dealt with at the local level, does not
work. That is not because previous Governments or non-governmental
organisations have been perverse in the way that they have dealt with
major projects in this country. The outcome of some of our major
projects has been difficult and complex because the issues are
difficult and complex. There is no magic wand easily to be waved on
those issues. Certainly, we could only move to a site-specific
statement if the safeguards that Phil has described, in terms of rights
to be heard, applied. That would have to be the
case.
Hugh
Ellis:
I think that it is better that national policy
statements remain high-level and criteria-based. That would be
fine.
Q
237
Robert
Neill:
The other part that I wanted to pursue is that
although I probably agree with you about the importance of
cross-examination, obviously there is a need to limit repetition and
irrelevance. Do you have any problem with the idea that perhaps
inspectors should be given more power, in the same way that judges have
in some areas in the High Court, to identify issues at preliminary
hearings, and then be pretty rigorous about those who stray off the
point?
Hugh
Ellis:
What is puzzling about the proposals is that
we think that those measures are there quite strongly in the 2005 rules
and in guidance to the Planning Inspectorate, as things stand. It
clearly has powers to rule out irrelevant and repetitious information
and it rigorously does that, but it is interesting that it is also
sensitive to community needs. It is trained to deal with people who are
non-expert. The idea that the non-expert is somehow losing
catastrophically through public hearing is simply not true. The idea
that the IPC will mostly hear through written representations will
exclude more people, because they have less access to that kind of
professional
advice.
Q
238
Mrs.
Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside)
(Lab/Co-op): Can you see anything in the Bill that would make
it easier to develop renewable
energy?
Hugh
Ellis:
That depends on scale. Some of the debate we
heard on Tuesday did not distinguish between issues of 50 MW and below
which are dealt with through the current planning system, which the
Bill does not touch. Most general planning determinations for onshore
renewable is stuck at the 50 MW and below
area.
The
Government have just published what I think is a fantastic statement on
climate change, which will unblock most of those problems in the normal
planning process on renewables. In the 50 MW and above projects, where
there is delay, we think that the primary thing that will make the
biggest difference is a unified consent regime, which will overcome the
problem of offshore approvals versus a substation onshore, which might
take a longer period to
approve.
As
we have said, there is merit in that proposal and it will certainly
deliver faster on renewable energy, but even we cannot argue for
renewable energy without proper public scrutiny or democratic
accountability. It would be totally counter-productive for climate
change to suddenly impose upon society without any debate, because you
want to avoid the
backlash.
Q
239
Mrs.
Ellman:
Taking the Bill as it is, with unified planning
consent, are you saying that that would help or hinder renewable energy
development?
Hugh
Ellis:
Unified planning consent is an enabling
measure, but we think that issues around public involvement and the
absence of particular duties on the commission on climate change are
difficulties. In other words, the picture about what the Bill delivers
on renewable energy is difficult. For example, one of the most specific
measures that we could take would be to place a duty on the IPC to
properly implement the provisions of the Climate Change Bill and to
consider climate change properly. That is not in the Bill, but it seems
to us that it would be a positive way of ensuring that the IPC dealt
with climate change properly and, therefore, facilitated renewable
energy.
Q
240
Mrs.
Ellman:
Are you against the IPC in principle? I know that
you made several detailed points about it in your submission. Are you
against the whole
concept?
Hugh
Ellis:
The IPC is the second infrastructure
commission that has been legislated for in this country since 1970, and
I suppose that we have concerns about how it is formulated. We are
opposed in principle to the commission as set out in the Bill, partly
because there is no democratic
accountability.
From
the point of view of a planning professional, I am also very worried
that we are setting up a committee of professionals. I am not satisfied
that professionals are trusted or always competent to make such
decisions. I am very happy for them to advise, but individual
professions should not make decisions with profound consequences. We
need political representation to such decisions. They are beyond the
scope, reach and competence of
professionals.
Q
241
Mrs.
Ellman:
So you would not have a different view if
different individuals were proposed for the commission, or if there
were a different procedure for appointing them. Is that the
principle?
Hugh
Ellis:
There are various principle issues that would
make it difficult for us to say that the commission could be viable. I
am worried even about the basic social skills of many professionals.
The idea of a commission made up of engineers, planners or surveyors
fills me, being one myself, with fear and dread. We have said strongly
that there is a whole issue around lay representation and sensitivity
to community views, which would need to be reflected on any body that
was constituted to make such decisions. Again, we do not think that
enough
progress has been made on that. I am aware that there is lots of
lobbying for professions to be represented, but they are not solely the
right people to make such
decisions.
Q
242
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): What if the
Government were to say to you, “Give us three nominations for
this commission”—although I know that they will not
change their mind; we know that they never change their mind? I am
rather supportive of your view on the commission, but they will not
abandon
it.
However,
if the Government said, “Okay, you are very concerned about
this, and you think that those people were not very well brought up and
do not know how to eat their peas or talk to people. Give us the names
of three people you would nominate who would reassure you that your
concerns about public involvement and engagement, and sustainability,
would be met. You would feel much happier if which three people were on
the commission?” You do not have to clear their names. Just give
me three off the top of your head who would make you think,
“Gosh, somebody has been listening”—not including
Zac
Goldsmith.
Hugh
Ellis:
There are two quick answers. I am aware that
our executive director, Tony Juniper, will leave us in the middle of
next year, so he is one possible suggestion. More seriously, the
Sustainable Development Commission is a body that we might look to for
a balanced view about sustainable
development.
I
personally cannot offer you three specific suggestions, but this is
certainly the important test. When it is time to approve deep nuclear
disposal, the community involved will examine in immense detail the
credentials and background of every single member of the commission
that makes that decision—their lives will be very difficult
because of it. I have to say that I cannot at the moment conceive of
anyone who could be put in that position and command legitimacy with
the public, because the role that they would be given is almost
impossible.
Q
243
Mr.
Curry:
But the Government talk about
people who have a range of expertise. One often finds in life people
who may not start with a particular expertise but who just happen to
have a lot of experience of life and who make good, solid, sensible
judgments about things. They act as important elements in an
organisation. The nominations obviously would include some people with
technical background, but would you feel reassured if the bulk were
people who were just sensible citizens who could take a proper balanced
view, accept a brief and understand the
argument?
Hugh
Ellis:
I would be more reassured by that than if they
were drawn solely from professional bodies,
yes.
Q
244
Mr.
Curry:
Now, coming to this wonderful
business of “locationally specific”—I must
remember to tell my wife when she picks me up tonight to be
locationally specific about the pick-up point. If we have a national
planning statement on an airport runway, that is locationally specific
by definition, is it not? Could you have a national planning statement
on a runway that did not mention either Heathrow, Stansted, or possibly
both, and nowhere else? That is the planning permission to all intents
and purposes, is it not?
Hugh
Ellis:
That is the problem. Never before in the UK
have we set up such a powerful statement in the planning regime as the
national policy statement. We understand how regional and local plans
interact and how planning policy statements work, but the national
policy statement is a super-development plan; it is of extraordinary
weight in the decision-making process, when you look at what the Bill
asks the commission to do with it. In that sense it will, again, be
difficult to command public confidence, which is why the process of
adopting a national policy statement has to be so rigorous or the
national policy statement has to restrict itself, quite rightly, to
general issues. For example, on energy, it might say that the
Government have an ambition in respect of a particular sector or
technology, all of which is fair and reasonable, but the moment they
prescribe a place, you have crossed a line that makes it difficult to
retain public
legitimacy.
Q
245
Mr.
Curry:
If we are coming to nuclear energy, I do not know
whether this afternoon’s statement will be designated a national
policy statement in due course, but it is inconceivable that anybody
would build a power station where there is not already a nuclear power
station, is it not? Those are site-specific, to all intents and
purposes. Is not there an argument for the Minister just saying,
“This is an issue of national policy.” All this stuff
about the commission having a great range of discretion is absolute
hooey! Why do not Ministers get on with it, take responsibility and
take the
flak?
Hugh
Ellis:
At the moment, of course, Ministers would
ultimately make that decision: through whichever approval regime, it
would have ministerial accountability. That is better than a decision
being made by a democratically unaccountable commission. However, we
have something important to balance here. Are we serious about public
engagement and participation? We are not asking for a veto for
communities; we are asking for meaningful participation in decision
making. That means that communities have to have an input into national
policy statements and there has to be a meaningful arena at the local
level to discuss
issues.
I
return to an important principle of planning, which is that you can
only understand an application when you understand all its detailed
impacts. A decision-maker must weigh in their hands the local specific
impacts against general public interest imperatives. That can only be
done through a full public inquiry; it cannot be done in two stages
very easily and it certainly cannot be done in two stages and retain
public
confidence.
Q
246
James
Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East)
(Con): Is there legitimate concern that there will be too many
national policy statements and that those will not be integrated
enough? I am mindful particularly of previous oral evidence that stated
that there will be one for each energy sector and of separate evidence
about the interaction of ports development and neighbouring road and
rail development. It does not strike me as being particularly
integrated at the moment.
Hugh
Ellis:
It is a great concern. The idea of a national
policy framework would be more sensible, certainly, because it would
allow us to achieve that integration and allow us to implement the UK
sustainable development strategy properly and give it spatial
expression. There is an overwhelming case in logic for having one
national framework so that such issues can be dealt with properly;
otherwise, we will have individual policy silos that are not properly
connected.
Q
247
James
Duddridge:
What is the maximum number of
statements that is possible, without having an overarching
framework?
Hugh
Ellis:
It is extremely difficult, for example in
respect of aviation, to understand the impact of a major new airport
facility without understanding rail access on a regional or even
national scale. In that sense, it is difficult to see how in principle
you could have one or two. We should not be afraid of planning;
planning is a good thing and a national policy framework should resolve
all those issues together. It need not be complex. It does need to
force through that
integration.
Q
248
Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): You are most critical in
your memorandum about the powers conferred on the IPC to amend, repeal
or revoke local Acts and to apply, modify or exclude provisions in
primary legislation. One can well see that such powers are highly
desirable if you are going for a super-streamlined consent system. Are
you saying that you are opposed to such powers as a matter of principle
or that, if such powers are to be conferred on the IPC, they should be
subject to some form of democratic scrutiny and
accountability?
Hugh
Ellis:
We are stressing accountability. We had
assumed that the greater the constitutional power of a body, the
greater the safeguards would be on the way in which it operates. So
democratic accountability becomes even more
important.
Do
you want to add anything to that,
Phil?
Phil
Michaels:
That is entirely our position. It is
essential that, where a body is able, effectively, to amend primary
legislation, it must be subject afterwards to an elected official,
either through Parliament or the Secretary of
State.
Mr.
Jones:
If the IPC were to exercise such functions and to
have such powers, you would expect them to be subject to the
endorsement of the appropriate
institution.
9.45
am
Phil
Michaels:
Yes. Currently we have legislation in the
transport sector that allows for these sorts of changes to be made to
legislation but, importantly, those changes are made in the context of
a decision by the Secretary of State. They are not made in the context
of a decision by the Planning Inspectorate, by unelected officials.
That is the key
issue.
The
Chairman:
Time has now beaten us, I am afraid, but I thank
you, Mr. Ellis, and your colleagues, for coming to give
evidence to us this morning. It has been most helpful and we are very
grateful. Thank you very much.
Good morning,
Mr. Southgate. We are very grateful for you coming to give
evidence to us on behalf of the Environment Agency. Perhaps you would
introduce your
colleague.
Mark
Southgate:
Thank you. To my left is Tony Grayling,
who is head of environmental policy at the Environment
Agency.
Tony
Grayling:
We welcome the opportunity to talk to you
today. I must say that this is my fourth day in the job, so I am going
to leave the difficult questions to Mark, but I thought I would
highlight some of the issues with the Bill for the Environment Agency.
Broadly, we welcome the Bill but, naturally, as the leading public
authority for protecting and enhancing the environment in England and
Wales, we have particular concerns and we would like to see the Bill
strengthened in some areas. Overall, our main concern is that
sustainable development principles are followed through and we welcome
the fact that that intention was expressed in the White Paper and is to
some extent reflected in the Bill. Specifically, we welcome the
requirement on the Secretary of State to ensure that national policy
statements are consistent with sustainable development, but we think
that the same duty should apply to the infrastructure planning
commission.
On
climate change, we again very much welcome the fact that local
development plans will need to address climate change, both in respect
of mitigation and adaptation. Again we think that this principle could
be applied in other circumstances, specifically to regional spatial
strategies and national policy
statements.
We
have particular concerns in the area of environmental assessments.
There are of course some provisions in the Bill for an appraisal of
sustainability of national policy statements, but we think that that
could be tightened up significantly and that national policy statements
should be subject to strategic environmental assessment as part of that
sustainability appraisal. Likewise, major infrastructure projects
themselves should be subject to environmental impact assessments,
according to European
law.
We
are also concerned that we do not use national policy statements to, in
a sense, override international law. We are thinking there, in
particular, of the habitats directive. We think that each major
infrastructure project should be considered in this respect by the
infrastructure planning commission on its own merits. In relation to
environmental assessment, naturally we want to see the Environment
Agency being a statutory consultee, both on national policy statements
and on each major infrastructure project. We are glad that there is
provision in the Bill for designating our organisation for that
purpose.
Finally,
we welcome provisions to establish the community infrastructure levy.
Our concern is that some of the money raised through that should be
devoted to environmental infrastructure, such as managing flood risk,
dealing with waste water treatment and water resources in general. Some
of that money will need to be allocated at a regional or sub-regional
level and we must ensure that there is proper provision for that on a
strategic level. We can see a good advisory role for the Environment
Agency in that respect. Those are some of our key
concerns.
Q
249
Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
(PC): You mentioned the need for sustainable development to be
reflected adequately in the Bill and that, to some extent, it is
already reflected. In what way do you think the Bill could be improved
in that
regard?
Mark
Southgate:
The Bill clearly indicates that the
national policy statements will be subject to appraisals of
sustainability. Those will be a key lead element for the infrastructure
planning commission in taking its decisions. Because the infrastructure
planning commission will have flexibility, in certain cases, to
consider national policy statements and other factors, we would like it
to be very clear that its decisions should be taken in the interests of
sustainable development. The infrastructure planning commission should
be required to make decisions in relation to sustainable
development.
Q
250
Mr.
Llwyd:
I will essentially repeat the
same question, but with regard to climate change. Do
you think that the Bill needs more explicit reference to the need to be
mindful of climate change issues at each
step?
Mark
Southgate:
We are very keen for the Bill to make it
clear that there is a need for the adaptation of major infrastructure.
One of the lessons of the June and July floods of last year was that
significant infrastructure was affected by flooding. A good planning
principle is that we should not locate such infrastructure in areas
that we know to be at risk of floods, in relation to future climate
change. We would like to see Ministers, in signing off the national
policy statements, showing that they have taken the adaptation aspects
into account in terms of how they will site infrastructure and how they
will decide where significant infrastructure is
located.
Tony
Grayling:
I should like to add to that. Going back to
a point that I made, there is an issue about consistency between
different parts of the Bill. We welcome the fact that local development
plans will have to show how they are addressing the mitigation of
climate change and adaptation to climate change, but we think that that
could equally apply to regional spatial strategies and national policy
statements. In particular, national policy statements should address
how they contribute to meeting the objectives set under the Climate
Change Bill to stay within emissions budgets and to adapt
infrastructure to climate change for resilience
purposes.
Q
251
Mr.
Llwyd:
Are you satisfied, in your role as a statutory
consultee on this issue, that you will have a pivotal role in advising
and/or giving your views and helping to amend? It seems to me that, in
this regard, your body must be a very important consultee. Does the
Bill satisfy you that you will be heard
sufficiently?
Mark
Southgate:
The difficulty with the Bill is that it
does not name individual organisations, but that is for very good
reason and will be dealt with in secondary legislation. Clearly, there
are provisions for bodies such as ours to be included and we
confidently expect that we will be. We will not know that until we see
the secondary legislation, but bodies such as the Environment Agency,
Natural England and other Government bodies will
have key roles in providing advice to the infrastructure planning
commission and to applicants in their preparation of applications on
issues such as flood risk, waste, nuclear waste and
water.
Q
252
Tom
Brake:
Just to follow on from the discussion on
sustainability, you said that the national policy statements in the
Bill are currently subject to an appraisal of sustainability. You would
like them to be subject to a strategic environmental assessment. Can
you explain briefly what that means, quantitatively or qualitatively,
in terms of the difference of emphasis that we place on the environment
and
sustainability?
Mark
Southgate:
The issue in relation to the Bill is that
it uses the words “appraisal of the sustainability”.
There are currently two mechanisms that deal with the environment and
the wider economic and social environment: the strategic environmental
assessment is a requirement of European law for plans and programmes,
and the sustainability appraisal of the planning system, currently
applied by the Department for Communities and Local Government, looks
at economic, social and environmental aspects.
The Bill has
used neither of those well-known terms, despite relating to a process
of sustainability. If it referred to a sustainability appraisal, we
would be confident that that would relate to the current model that
includes strategic and environmental assessment, which means, in
reaching a decision as the infrastructure planning commission, looking
at what are all the likely environmental effects, knowing what those
effects are and making a judgment on whether the economic and social
circumstances of the infrastructure outweigh those environmental
impacts. That does not mean that the environment takes the key role,
but that in reaching those decisions you know what the environmental
effects will be. If the Bill either specified that an appraisal of
sustainability includes a strategic environmental assessment, or used
the term “sustainability appraisal”, which is well
understood in the planning profession and already applied as a
methodology, that would make it very clear that it included a strategic
environmental
assessment.
Q
253
Tom
Brake:
Therefore, a simple amendment that moved those two
words around so that “appraisal of sustainability” became
“sustainability appraisal” would address your concerns
about the Bill’s ability to deal effectively with sustainability
issues.
Mark
Southgate:
If we could have the
words “incorporating strategic environmental assessment”,
we would be even happier, but I think that “sustainability
appraisal” would certainly relate to something that is well
understood and practised in the planning system at
present.
Q
254
Tom
Brake:
Following up the point about
statutory consultees, can you explain what extra you acquire as a
result of being a statutory consultee that would enable you, for
instance, to operate more effectively in addressing issues relating to
the environment, climate change or flooding?
Mark
Southgate:
Clearly, any new governmental body would
always welcome new resources. The issue will be to balance that. These
infrastructure proposals will be coming forward anyway. This is a
different system of
dealing with them, so we would need to input in that way so that, where
a planning application has come forward in the current system, we will
apply our resources to it with regard to the level of concern and
environmental impact that it might have. Therefore, we will be
addressing our existing resources and the net effect might be that we
might not be able to deal with some smaller applications. Nevertheless,
our planning efforts as an organisation are directed to the most
important applications and plans that come forward, which would be
national policy statements and these major
proposals.
Q
255
Tom
Brake:
Do you know how many people you would need to
address the national policy
statements?
Mark
Southgate:
No. Currently we have around 250 people
working on planning and dealing with 50,000 planning applications per
annum. Clearly, those will be big and, from our experience, will
probably require a large team. For example, we have set up specific
teams to deal with the Olympics development and some of the major
growth areas because we will be involved not only from the planning
aspect, but also as a regulator of some of the licences. Therefore, a
multi-disciplined team will be required to deal with those big
applications.
Q
256
Mrs.
Lait:
You mentioned that you want to see the equivalent of
the strategic environmental assessment and the habitats directive
incorporated into the national policy statement. I just wonder if you
have any views on the current status of the airport policy, the policy
on nuclear power stations, which we understand might potentially come
out today, and on the many current applications for wind
farms.
Mark
Southgate:
Clearly, there are provisions in the Bill
whereby existing policy statements can become national policy
statements, provided they meet certain criteria. One of those is that
they have had an appraisal of sustainability, and another is that they
have been through the public consultation aspects. Obviously, that
applies not only to nuclear power: there is an existing waste policy
statement as well from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs. The key question will be, “Have those policy
statements, as they now stand, been through those two key
processes?” I think that I would not be entirely convinced that
some of those have gone through the full processes. Indeed, until we
see the secondary legislation, we do not actually know what those tests
will be and how those processes work, so it is almost impossible at
this stage to say, “Yes, this existing statement could become a
national policy statement.” When we have seen what those tests
of sustainability are and what those public involvement criteria are,
we will have a clearer idea, but at the moment I am not convinced that
they would
be.
Q
257
Mrs.
Lait:
One of the issues that came out of
yesterday’s evidence session is that statutory bodies having
difficulty meeting the deadlines currently set down is one of the
reasons for delays in the current inquiry system. There are tight
deadlines in the Bill for the IPC to meet. Do you currently have
difficulty, as the Environment Agency, meeting the statutory deadlines
and would you expect to have any difficulty in meeting the deadlines in
the Bill?
Mark
Southgate:
The planning Act has only recently given
us a duty to respond within 21 days to planning applications. It is
actually 21 days or a period agreed in writing with the applicant and
other interested bodies. That is the crucial element. The Bill says 28
days is a minimum. It has been recognised in the planning system that
major projects do not run to simple timetables. You cannot necessarily
put an arbitrary limit on it. A planning delivery agreement approach
has been trialled by the Planning Inspectorate, the Planning Advisory
Service and other major bodies. It sets up a project timetable, where
all parties get around and agree to say, “Well, this is a
reasonable period within which we will respond and you will get a good
response here.” That is one element of it.
It is very
welcome that the Bill sets up quite an extensive pre-application
procedure for the developer. We would have expected to have discussed
many of the issues raised in some detail with the developer. In many
ways we would not expect surprises. We may still have concerns about
them, but we would have seen the evidence and so on. The two key tests
will be just how good that pre-application by developers is, because
that may enable us to respond within 28 days or very close to that or,
if not, to have a sensible system whereby you could agree with the
developer that this is the project timetable, and run it like any major
project, saying, “We will be involved here and we will respond
by this time.” There would be certain criteria for us to do
that. As for how successful we are now, between 80 and 85 per cent. of
our responses are within that 21-day or other agreed period for
planning applications, which we think is a pretty good proportion of
the 50,000 consultations that reach us every
year.
10
am
Q
258
Mr.
Curry:
Gentlemen, you made some
interesting comments about the possibility of the infrastructure levy
being used for flood relief, and the Minister for floods is here. I do
not see how that can work under this Bill. The Government have said
that the infrastructure levy must go to meet infrastructure needs that
arise from the development and must specifically not be used to catch
up the backlog of expenditure. You work on the basis of schemes that
have a priority score, so there is by definition a backlog of schemes.
How do you think the community infrastructure levy could be used for
flood relief work, unless you intend to build houses in the flood plain
and therefore to levy in order to put walls around
them?
Mark
Southgate:
We certainly do not advocate that. The
Government’s planning policy is pretty clear that you should
look at the lowest flood- risk locations first and build in the high
flood-risk areas as a very last resort and only when you have exhausted
other options. There are issues around things like flood resilience. In
the summer floods, much of the flooding in the Yorkshire area was not
to do with river or coastal flooding, but drains and capacity being
overwhelmed. In designing a lot of the new development coming forward,
which will involve sustainable communities and major infrastructure, we
need to make sure that they have the drainage capacity to deal with
rainfall now and in the future. We are talking about waste water
facilities and waste. We have to ensure that the developers, in
bringing forward their schemes, put the effort into the infrastructure
that
they need now, but also take into account the impacts of climate change.
Climate change indicates that we will get wetter weather and more
intense
rainfall.
Q
259
Mr.
Curry:
Do you understand that it would not be well
received in Ripon, for example—which has been flooded twice in
seven years and where our score is, I think, 15.5 out of whatever, so
we might get around to a flood relief scheme by about the next
millennium—if a development were levied in Ripon but that was
not used to protect Ripon? You said that you thought some of it might
go regionally, so you are envisaging that, are you
not?
Mark
Southgate:
We are envisaging that in relation to the
areas of large growth. We have some large-growth areas such as Thames
Gateway and Milton Keynes South Midlands. We also have proposals for
new free-standing eco-towns. They could quite easily straddle local
authority boundaries and it would be something of a nonsense if there
were different rates on either side of those boundaries. You need to
think of those in a sub-regional
context.
Q
260
Mr.
Curry:
Would it not be helpful if money from an
infrastructure levy could be put alongside, let us say, a levy by the
local council and the regional flood relief bodies, which levy by
roughly the price of a loaf of bread per year per band D
property—the biggest levy is around £3—in order to
put together a package for flood relief? Would it not make this a great
deal more helpful if moneys so raised by precepting bodies were not
caught by council tax
capping?
Mark
Southgate:
Clearly, we welcome the additional money
that the Government have made available for flood relief up to 2010-11.
The issue is proper planning. In planning for these new communities and
planning for significant infrastructure in relation to the community
impact levy in many cases, it is important that we get the planning
right for those new communities for large extensions. It is more
difficult in existing communities where there will be one or two
developments. For example, will the money become available to give them
the proper level of protection? We will continue the priority scoring,
but we are very keen that when new towns and urban extensions come
forward they have all the necessary environmental requirements so that
they do not call upon the backlog, and that we can continue to provide
that additional public money to existing places that need those
defences.
Q
261
James
Duddridge:
Are you expecting a separate national policy
statement on flooding or simply integrating flooding through
sustainability in each national policy
statement?
Mark
Southgate:
I think that we would expect to be
integrated within the national policy statements. The Government policy
on flood risk is very clear; it is in PPS 25 on planning, development
and flood risk, which says that you should look to the lowest
flood-risk areas first and to the highest ones only when no suitable
alternatives are available. That is a very sound policy, which we would
expect to be incorporated within the national policy statements.
Clearly, sustainability appraisal needs to look at other climate-change
implications for these significant developments and we would expect
that to be a natural part of that planning process—written into
all of them as opposed to being a separate, free-standing national
policy
statement.
Q
262
James
Duddridge:
Do you envisage the national
policy statements including slightly more absolutes, so that at a
certain level of flood risk it is totally unacceptable to build a power
station or housing, for example, as opposed to simply going through the
prioritisation?
Mark
Southgate:
It is probably true to say that in
planning there is nothing that is absolute but there are things that
are very strong. Even now, the Government’s revised statement on
flood risk relates the risk to the vulnerability of the development.
There are certain developments that it says will be very unlikely to
take place in the high-risk areas because of their vulnerability.
Clearly, some significant infrastructure would fall into that category.
We saw the impact that there could have been on the Mythe water works
and the Walham sub-station. It is not in the public interest to put
that sort of development in locations that could flood, knocking out
that infrastructure. It is part of good planning to think not just
about the flood risk now but what it will be in the future and to make
sure that we get the location right. I would expect that to be
something that the IPC and the national policy statements would look at
very carefully.
Q
263
James
Duddridge:
Given that this is not part of a broader
framework, are you concerned that it looks only at new developments? It
does not consider the existing infrastructure in the sense that it is
not looking at power stations, for example, that are
currently on flood plains or housing that, historically, has been
inappropriately built; there is no holistic view of infrastructure
overall. We are looking piecemeal through national policy statements on
future
developments.
Mark
Southgate:
Clearly, the planning system is all about
new development, which is what triggers planning. The Pitt review
clearly signalled the concerns about infrastructure and certainly the
Environment Agency wishes to see major utility companies taking
responsibility for appraising the flood-proof check of their existing
infrastructure to see which might be vulnerable and to think about what
they might do.
For example,
when Carlisle flooded it became apparent, as the utilities thought
about the post-effects, that there were options: had they lost a
sub-station they could have routed electricity in from other areas to
prevent it from being lost. There may be existing sub-stations that do
not need to be moved, but you would have an alternative should there be
a flood event. Perhaps, in hindsight, there are some that are not in
the best location and we need to think about how we would move to
getting them in more robust circumstances for climate change.
Tony
Grayling:
Of course, in relation to that point, there
is a separate governmental process towards developing the adaptation
policy framework nationally, and beyond that towards 2011 an adaptation
policy and programme. We are looking at the provisions in the Climate
Change Bill in that respect—for example, in relation to duties
on critical infrastructure bodies to do risk assessments in relation to
their flood and climate-change vulnerabilities and to develop action
plans.
The
Chairman:
Order. A mobile phone, which has clearly not
been switched off, has been ringing and another one that may be
switched off is interfering with the loud speaker and the microphone
system. Would hon. Members and others in the room please ensure that
their mobile phones are switched
off?
Q
264
Robert
Neill:
Thank you, Sir John. Gentlemen, I have heard your
point about the desire to be a statutory consultee. Are there any other
areas in which you think that consultation arrangements could be
improved in the
Bill?
Mark
Southgate:
Generally, the consultation arrangements
in the Bill are reasonable; the key things about the process, which
have been picked up by other speakers in this and previous sittings,
are the issues around legitimacy. The infrastructure planning
commission needs to be seen to be taking legitimate decisions. People
in the planning system now often will not accept the result of a
decision, but they do accept that they have had a fair hearing. I think
that that is the crucial aspect. So what we seek from the
infrastructure planning commission is that independence, and that
people see it as being independent, and that it has clear operating
rules, which means that it will hear people when that is
necessary.
Therefore, at
the end of the process, people can see that, although they may not have
got the result that they wanted, they have had a very fair hearing and
they do not feel that they were excluded from the process. If you
reverse that, there is a risk that, if people feel that they are
excluded, they will be discontent and we will see some of the problems
that we have had in the past. We need to see some more detail about
some of the provisions in the Bill, but we are reasonably confident
that they will offer a level of scrutiny that is
required.
Q
265
Robert
Neill:
Should we be looking to recognise somewhere in the
Bill the obligations under the Aarhus convention on public
participation in decision making in environmental
matters?
Mark
Southgate:
That is a potential matter to consider.
Again, I will say that it relates to the operating procedures of the
infrastructure planning commission and that those procedures are seen
to be open and people have a right to be involved in them. Equally, it
also relates to this important and perhaps forgotten element of the
proposals, which is that you can have the national policy statement and
the infrastructure planning commission but, in between, you have this
quite significant pre-application duty on the developer. Good
developers will say that getting the public consultation right is
crucial in determining whether they obtain a speedy decision or not.
Many developers will say that that up-front investment in talking to
the community, allaying some of their fears if not all of them,
informing them and making them feel that there has been an open
process, can deliver the result at the end in terms of the time saving.
Certainly, the better developers do that.
Q
266
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): Can I turn to
a couple of issues that you have raised? In point 5.3 in your evidence,
you refer to local member review bodies and some concerns that you
have. I must say that the way that you phrase your concerns almost
indicates that you feel that planning committees do not
currently deal with issues on planning merits and
simply take political issues into account. Also, you suggest that there
is somehow a complete separation between planning merits and the
concerns of the local electorate. However, is it not a little odd to
believe that planning committees can, in the first instance, take
decisions on very complicated and widespread development proposals but
are not able, on a matter of appeal, to determine an issue about an
extension to one
house?
Mark
Southgate:
I think that it is more the issue of the
role that they are playing; we do not mean to indicate that the
planning committees do not play an incredibly valuable and legitimate
role in the process. This issue relates to where the committee itself
has decided to delegate the power to an individual planning officer to
make a decision. Then, if the officer decides that that decision should
be a refusal or there are conditions that the applicant does not like,
the decision would be referred to the committee. There are two issues
there: one is that the committee is being asked to act more like the
planning inspectorate, as a quasi-judicial body, and it would be less
able to take into account the political circumstances that it would
take into account as a committee; the second is that it is also part of
the same body and therefore it may not be seen in the public’s
eye as being independent enough to reach a decision. At the moment, a
refusal would then go to the planning inspectorate, which is an
identifiably different body. This would involve an officer of the
council being judged by the members of his council. Now, those of you
who know how local government works know that officers of councils are
frequently judged by their members, and quite rightly so. However, I
think that there is an issue about the public understanding of that
process. So our concern is more that the members who are fulfilling
that function know that that is a different role, have the clear
jurisdiction and understanding that it is a different role, and explain
to the public it is a legitimately different role and is, if you like,
an independent appeal.
Q
267
Mr.
Betts:
So, to pick up some of your other wording,
providing that there was that appropriate training to ensure that
members understood that particular role, then, in general principle,
you would not have a problem with what is being
suggested?
Mark
Southgate:
We need to step back and look at the
reason that this process has been introduced. The reason is that there
are a lot of minor applications going to the planning inspectorate that
require the inspectorate to deal with them. The other question is
whether those minor applications are taking up a significant amount of
the planning inspectorate’s time. So I think the judgment to
make is: will the potential disadvantage that this process may not be
seen as being independent by the public, raising concerns about a body
judging its own officers’ decisions, offset the impact of those
small applications being determined by the planning inspectorate? My
professional view is that those applications can be dealt with very
quickly and can be dealt with by written representations; they probably
do not take up a significant amount of time. It may be that we need to
think about whether this proposal will raise as many issues as it
solves in relation to reducing the amount of appeals going to the
inspectorate.
Q
268
Mr.
Betts:
On the community infrastructure levy, in point 6.3
of your evidence you make the point about sub-regional and regional
levels and the fact that we may need some funding from the levy to deal
with infrastructure on that basis. When the Local Government
Association representatives gave evidence yesterday, they were very
much of the opinion that, if we are examining sub-regional issues, that
should be a matter of local authorities coming together and reaching
agreements. Are you happy with that as the appropriate way to approach
those issues, or are you suggesting something more top down, in terms
of a top-slicing of the CIL to make available funding for regional and
sub-regional
projects?
10.15
am
Mark
Southgate:
I think the concern would be, as I
mentioned, the potential example of a growth area or an eco-town
straddling two or three local authorities with different rates of
community infrastructure levies in their plans. I think what they need
to do is come together as local authorities, in their plans, to
identify what infrastructure is needed and agree what those rates are.
If that happened, it would be fine, because they would have reached a
joint decision. I think the problem is, if they could not do that, how
would you deal with it? Hopefully they will act as responsible local
governments, recognise that this is an issue straddling their boundary
and do it. If it were clear that the emphasis is on local authorities
coming together, jointly planning for the necessary infrastructure and
creating the same rate among different local authorities, that would be
satisfactory. Otherwise, you will need some mechanism to recognise that
some things are higher than individual local authority
level.
Q
269
Chris
Mole (Ipswich) (Lab): You acknowledged,
in answer to the first question, that the Bill places a duty on the
preparation of national policy statements to contribute to sustainable
development. Given that sustainable development seeks to meet the needs
of future generations in the context of future environments, how can
they not implicitly take into account the impact of climate change,
whether through adaptation or
mitigation?
Mark
Southgate:
We would certainly expect that, but I
think it would be very useful to raise the issue of adaptation. The
Government are now doing a considerable amount around adaptation, but
it has been true that a lot of the planning effort has been
concentrated on the emissions and mitigation side. Particularly given
the lessons we have just learned from the summer floods, I think it
would be useful to have clarified a clear adaptation responsibility in
signing off—if you like, in future-proofing those national
policy statements against climate change—preferably on the face
of the Bill, but certainly in terms of the
guidance.
Mark
Southgate:
I would like to see it there, because it
creates that link between the Climate Change Bill, which is progressing
now, and the Planning Bill, and shows joined-up government in action.
It could be delivered through guidance, but certainly the preference
would be to see it on the face of the Bill.
Q
271
Chris
Mole:
Pursuing that point in terms of the work of the
independent planning commission, you said that if those elements are in
the national policy statement, you would like that duty—and,
indeed, the climate change duty—to be on the IPC as well,
because the IPC can take into account factors other than the national
policy statement. How do you think such a duty would change the balance
of their judgment, given that the NPS is the primary thing they are
looking at
anyway?
Mark
Southgate:
Clearly, the NPS is, and if the NPS has
that duty it will give a significant weight to the decision. The Bill
does include welcome provisions that the NPS is not the only game in
town: there may be other, specific, local circumstances to be taken
into account. I think it is just, to a degree, a bit of i-dotting and
t-crossing to make sure that the IPC is very well aware that that is a
responsibility it has, and I think that including that clause would
make that very clear and
apparent.
Q
272
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I have two unrelated
questions. To come back to the levy, the right hon. Member for Skipton
and Ripon asked a question earlier about flood defences. He also
referred to waste water treatment. How do you see that working in terms
of the responsibility of the privatised utilities to deliver
infrastructure projects?
Mark
Southgate:
There is a difficulty in relation to that,
because the privatised utilities do not necessarily relate well to the
planning regime. I think what we need to ensure is that, in planning
for urban extensions, sustainable communities and eco-towns, we are
looking at things in the round. Really, the community infrastructure
levy is but one part of ensuring that all the players are making sure
that the right infrastructure is in place. Element one is to make sure
that in planning these places, you have all the waste water treatment
you require, and you have adequate drainage for now and for future
events. The second part is making sure that all the necessary players
are lined up to make their contribution. Some of that will be through
developers,
because they have had an uplift in their land value; some of it will be
through public bodies putting in their element of contribution; some
will be private utilities putting in theirs. It is partly about good
planning, but in relation to the community infrastructure levy, that is
obviously the specific part of this Bill, and clearly there will be
additional requirements from this development which will place
additional burdens on those private utilities, and developers may be
expected to pay some part towards that, particularly in an eco-town,
which is an entirely new
town.
Q
273
Dan
Rogerson:
You also mention concerns about local member
review bodies. How do you think that your concerns could be
addressed?
Mark
Southgate:
The issue is, as I have hinted before, in
relation to the clarity of roles. First, their role in independently
reviewing their officer’s decision is somewhat different to
their role as a planning committee member. Secondly, there is an issue
of public satisfaction and public understanding of that process in
respect of people being able to see that this is a separate and
independent review of the officer. My worry is that people will see
this as a judge and jury situation, with an officer for the authority
being judged by the members of that authority. Those who understand
local government and have worked in it will know that such scrutiny can
be intense, but the public may not understand that that is so. It is
crucial that that is made apparent. This route is, after all, a
mechanism to reduce the number of small-scale appeals going to the
Planning Inspectorate. That is its overall
objective.
The
Chairman:
There are no more questions.
Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Southgate and Mr.
Grayling, for coming before us this morning and answering all our
questions so helpfully and fully. We are most grateful to
you.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[
Mr.
Watts.
]
Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o’clock till this day
at One
o’clock.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 11 January 2008 |
