Clause
147
Development
plan documents: climate change
policies
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
We have raised on a number of occasions the
importance of flood defence and the need to take it into account in
future planning. On major projects and locally, we are at considerable
risk from flooding, as we have seen this summer and again more
recently, and much of the problem has been caused because the drainage
system has not been able to cope sufficiently. Although Committee
members will take it as read that sufficient precautions should be
taken in all future plans to ensure that our drainage systems are
adequate, given the importance of the perceived threat from flooding,
it would be useful and sensible for the Bill to include
references to flood defence and drainage. Would the Government be
prepared to do that at this stage?
Mr.
Dhanda:
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question, not
least because I am the Member of Parliament for Gloucester, but I do
not think that adding such a provision to clause 147 would be
pertinent, especially when a great deal of work is taking place, led
largely by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, who works
hard on the issue of flooding. At the same time, policy is evolving
around the Pitt review. Clause 147 is important, not least because of
its reference to a planning policy statement on climate change.
Although I take the hon. Lady’s comments on board, it would not
be pertinent to include such a provision in the clause, which I hope
will stand part of the
Bill.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 147
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
s
148
and 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
150
Determination
of planning applications by
officers
Mr.
Dhanda:
I beg to move amendment No. 447, in
clause 150, page 72, line 16, leave
out ‘under subsection (1)(a)’ and insert ‘by them
under this
section’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following Government amendments: Nos. 448 to 450, 457 to 460 and 467 to
470.
Mr.
Dhanda:
The amendments make minor changes and corrections
to help to improve the drafting of the Bill.
Amendment agreed
to.
Amendments
made: No. 448, in clause 150, page 72, line 19, leave out
‘subsection (1)(a)’ and insert ‘this
section’.
No.
449, in
clause 150, page 72, line 25, leave
out ‘subsection (1)(a)’ and insert ‘this
section’.
No.
450, in
clause 150, page 72, line 44, leave
out ‘subsection (1)(a) of’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.]
Mr.
Dhanda:
I beg to move amendment No. 451, in
clause 150, page 73, line 20, after
‘application’
insert—
‘(a)
’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following Government amendments: Nos. 452, 461, 462, 471 and
472.
Mr.
Dhanda:
Again, the amendments make minor changes and
corrections to help to improve the drafting of the Bill. I appreciate
that in chapter 2 of part 9 there are lots of these
measures, partly because we are translating changes to existing town
and country planning Acts.
Amendments
Nos. 451 and 452 confer a general power on the Secretary of State to
make provision by regulations about the determination of planning
applications in cases in which a local planning authority or a
committee or sub-committee decides to determine a planning application,
by virtue of proposed new section 75A(6), which would otherwise have
been dealt with by an officer of the authority under the mandatory
scheme of deregulation required under proposed new section 75A. Such
planning applications might include those that, although relatively
small-scale, had already generated a high degree of controversy in the
early stages of the application process. We do not envisage that there
will be many of those types of
application.
Amendments
Nos. 461, 462, 471 and 472 make corresponding changes in clause 151 in
relation to the determination of applications for certificates of
lawful use and in clause 153 in relation to listed building
applications by officers.
Alun
Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op): My hon. Friend the
Minister’s application amendments are to a clause that deals
primarily with the determination of planning applications by officers.
The Government amendments also refer to the determination of such
applications by members of the council.
My hon.
Friend rightly said that sometimes those issues will be controversial.
For that reason, I should be grateful if he would spell out the
responsibilities of councillors for communication in respect of
planning issues of this sort and others. Does he agree with me that an
important part of the role of the local councillor is communication
with local people? On the one hand, he must listen to local views and,
on the other, he must explain to people what is involved in an
application. That is important because there is often serious
misunderstanding about what is involved in a particular application,
particularly of the sort to which he has just referred, which has
already been a matter of some
controversy.
There was
an application in my constituency last summer for a facility to help in
the training of adults
with learning difficulties so that they could live
independently in the community. Some local residents thought that it
was going to house dangerous offenders. Terminology was misinterpreted,
as were details of the design. I am sure that you would appreciate,
Mr. Illsley, as any councillor or Member of Parliament
would, how febrile the atmosphere can become around what initially
looks to be a totally innocuous application or one in which the
controversy has already been dealt
with. 4.30
pm
I
approve of the emphasis that is placed by the Department on
pre-application consultation by the developer, but that is not a
universal panacea. In circumstances such as those that I have referred
to, no amount of emphasis on pre-application work would take away the
need for clarification and communication. A local councillor should be
engaged in that, even if he or she is a member of the planning
committee or in some cases the chair of it, as in the example that I
have referred to. Of course they need to be professional. We need to
avoid the impression of bias or prejudice, but in my experience, most
councillors understand that and are very professional and objective.
Indeed, recent research for the Department suggests that there is no
major problem in that
area.
What is worrying
is that local councillors, especially those who are members of the
planning committee, are being inhibited in carrying out their
democratic duties as elected representatives by advice that is
excessively restrictive and sometimes almost paranoid in nature. It
seems that some officers feel that the silent councillor is the only
type that they want to have around when it comes to planning issues. As
anybody who is involved in democratic processes in any political party
knows, a silent councillor is a dead councillor in political terms,
just as a silent Member of Parliament is a dead Member of
Parliament.
Will
my hon. Friend assure me that it is the Government’s intention
that public opinion be a material factor in the planning process? Will
he assure me that the Government believe that councillors are under a
duty to engage with this process in a professional and responsible
manner, rather than by pretending to be Trappist monks? In the
light of that, will he look at the publications that sometimes appear
to be over-restrictive and over-cautious and at the advice that has
been given to some councillors by some council officials? I do not
pretend that that happens universally, but it is a serious
issue.
I
have looked at what is in many ways a very good document, called
“Constructive Talk”. It has been drawn up by a series of
organisations with the encouragement of the Department and it quotes
Government advice. It
says:
“Government
advice is that Councillors should involve themselves in discussions
with developers, constituents and others about planning cases, provided
they observe the advice set out in Positive
Engagement”.
“Positive
Engagement” is, again, not simply a partnership document,
although it bears the signature of a Minister, Baroness Andrews, as
well as that of Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart of the Local Government
Association, among others. It gives some really useful advice, but also
among the “dos” it states:
“Hold discussions before
a planning application is made, not after it has been submitted to the
authority”.
That
is a counsel of perfection. It is unrealistic to think that that can
happen in all circumstances. It may be right to try to do that as
frequently as possible, but there are many circumstances in which
issues emerge only after the application has been
made.
People
will rightly turn to their local councillor and expect them to listen
to their views and represent them. That does not mean that the
councillor will necessarily swing into the camp of being a campaigner
for or against something. It is that professionalism that is important.
That advice, which in my view appears to go a little too far, is as
nothing compared with the draconian advice to shut up and do nothing
that is being given to some councillors and that is making many
councillors feel that they are under a legal obligation not to carry
out their democratic duties. I am sure that is not the
Government’s intention, and I hope that the Minister can say
something positive in response that will make that
clear.
Mrs.
Lait:
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this stems
from the Standards Board advice about conflict of interest of
councillors and does he think that advice is
correct?
Alun
Michael:
It goes a little bit too far. As with
many aspects of proprieties—perhaps I should
mention that I am a member of the Committee on Standards in Public
Life—the principles of public life are principles of propriety,
whereas the public expect good decisions, good service and action from
their elected representatives. Of course, that activity on behalf of
constituents should be done with propriety at all times. Sometimes we
lose sight of quality while we are dealing with proprieties. I do not
diminish in any sense the importance of doing things properly,
correctly, without bias, objectively and all the rest. That is
massively important, but so is doing things well and being seen to
listen to the views of constituents. It is a question of getting the
balance right.
Observing the
proprieties and being careful not to give the impression of bias in
what we do is as important for a councillor as it is for Member of
Parliament, but so is the quality of the decision making, which means
being fully informed, among other things, of the public views on an
application. The visible representation of the interests of
constituents is also important for the good reputation of democracy as
well as the good reputation of the individual councillor. That should
not be removed if that individual is a member of, or even the chair of,
the planning committee. I have been the chair of a planning committee
myself and I know that, in that role, one must be very careful about
the words one uses. I do not think it should prevent anyone from
engaging with the people they represent.
Sometimes the advice of
officers can be too careful, so can that of officials in Government
Departments. Having had ministerial responsibility for planning, I can
say that from personal experience. That was in relation to Wales but
the point is the same. Abrogating the responsibility to listen to all
the arguments and to balance them in coming to the best possible
judgment is the right way forward: pretending that one can close off
all communications and that that is somehow safe is
not. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be
able to endorse this as the balanced way of dealing with the
responsibilities of councillors in relation to planning
matters.
Robert
Neill:
I very much agree with the right hon.
Gentleman. I hope that the Government will take on
board the point that this is not the first time that we have raised
this issue. There was quite a lengthy discussion during the Committee
stage of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
The same points were made and they were generally accepted. It
certainly seems to most of us who have had experience of local
government and who have seen how it operates now that an excessive
restriction is placed upon members. Partly that is a result of the
perverse workings of some of the case-law decisions in relation to the
doctrine of predetermination. That has become something of a
stranglehold rather than a guarantee of probity in many respects. It
also stems from a gold-plating of cautiousness that is applied to the
advice that comes pretty much at all
levels.
Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): Does my hon. Friend also
agree that we are rather archaic in how we inform
members of the public about planning applications? For example, we
still require local authorities to inform on issues relating to listed
buildings through the local paper. We are led to believe that a
declining number of people read local papers, but there is no
requirement in law to put such information on the council website, for
example. My local authority would save £65,000 a year if it was
allowed by law to modernise the way it imparts information to local
people on these important matters. That equates to about £10
million for councils across the
country.
Robert
Neill:
My hon. Friend makes a useful point. Most local
authorities voluntarily publicise planning applications on their
website; the London borough of Bromley certainly does so and, as time
goes on, it must be the sensible way to proceed. However, that segment
of the population— perhaps the more elderly people—who
may not have access to the internet must be taken into consideration.
There is a balance to be struck and there may be more practical ways of
achieving our objective without increasing the considerable costs that
sometimes
arise.
The
right hon. Gentleman made a significant point about the importance of
planning decisions to many people and communities. In many localities,
planning issues are one of the key matters; they are as important as
anything else, especially in view of how local authority boundaries are
drawn. There may not be any other major issue in a ward, but planning
issues may arise. If the existence of an application in effect gags
local councillors from expressing views—by keeping a sensible
balance and speaking with care—on what is probably the most
important issue for their residents, it will have the perverse effect
of bringing local democracy into disrepute.
One example, which is not from
my constituency, was in a local authority ward where the big issue was
the potential development of a golf course. It was privately owned but
it was the main open space, the green lungs for people who lived in the
area.
When elections
come round, planning is one of the key things that people want to know
about. Even between elections they ask, “Where do our
councillors stand on this issue?” It is pretty perverse if
councillors are told, “If you tell your residents where you
stand, you can’t say anything if you serve on the planning
committee because you might be seen to have predetermined the
issue.” With respect to the people who drew up those rules, the
average man and woman in the street would say, “That is absolute
nonsense. It stands democracy on its head.”
The issues
were raised at some length by members from both sides of the Committee
in previous discussions in planning and local government Bills. The
Minister’s predecessor, the current Minister for the
Environment, was sympathetic to a number of their concerns and there
was hope that the Government would look at them, but there is nothing
in this Bill that deals with those issues. However, I hope that the
Government will not lose sight of them because there is a general
groundswell on this important matter. We all want to strengthen local
government and local democracy and to remove a huge chunk of the work
on issues that affect people and to impose what, to the voter, are
artificial constraints that damage, without very good reason, the
institution that we seek to nurture.
I hope that
the Minister listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said
from his very great experience and that he accepts that we are not
making a partisan point. We want to find a constructive way forward
that would enable local councillors to exercise their democratic right
in a way that is consistent with their difficult role in planning
matters.
Dan
Rogerson:
I want to add my support to the comments made by
the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. He is absolutely
right to raise the issue, which is of huge concern to
elected Members involved in the process but mystifying to those who
want to contact their local councillor to discuss matters. When I was a
councillor those rules were not in effect, but I know it is a source of
frustration to colleagues. I was fortunate in being able to say what I
wanted to. However, I do not know whether I should admit the fact that
I always managed to avoid planning training, so I did not have to go on
the development control committee at the
time.
4.45
pm
Since
I was elected as a Member of Parliament, I have noticed the number of
times that people now come to their MP to express opinions. We have to
say, “It is possible for me to write a letter but, to be honest
with you, the experts who are trained in planning are your local
members”. Great investment has been made to ensure that elected
members of local authorities have the skills to consider these matters
appropriately, and it is utterly ludicrous that they cannot perform
their role as local ward members in addition. It cannot be beyond the
wit of those revisiting the issue to come up with a solution that meets
the need for fair decision making, but also reflects that important
part of the role of local authority
members.
I certainly
add my views to those of hon. Members who have already spoken. As the
Government move forward to reflect on how the Bill is progressing,
bring
forth further regulation subject to the provisions in the Bill and
revisit planning, I hope that they will address the matter in the
future.
Mr.
Dhanda:
This has been a useful debate. My right
hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth
has taken an interest in such matters for a number of years. In fact,
when he was a Minister, he had to help me with the odd planning
application or two I recall. The frank answer to his question is: yes,
public opinion is a material factor. It is important for local
government and local councillors to be involved in local consultation.
It is important to all politicians that we listen. The LGA is also very
helpful in producing guidance, and I am happy to point hon. Members in
that direction so that they can see some of the guidance that it has
produced in that
area.
Like
the hon. Member for North Cornwall, when I was a councillor, I too
steered clear of the planning committee. Little did I know that a few
years later, I would be a Minister on the Planning Bill. That is the
way it goes
sometimes.
Briefly, on
the subject of websites, a lot can be done to use them, as well as
local newspapers, to get the message across. I am conscious also that
the clause is about local member review bodies. I, and other Labour
Members are keen on the idea of local members having greater
involvement. I dare say that we will come to that wider debate when we
come to the Opposition amendments tabled on the
clause.
Amendment
agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 452,
in clause 150, page 73, line 22, at end
insert—
‘(b) by a local
planning authority, or a committee or sub-committee of such an
authority, acting by virtue of section
75A(6).’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.]
Mr.
Dhanda:
I beg to move amendment No. 453, in
clause 150, page 73, leave out from
‘particular’ in line 23 to end of line 30 and
insert—
‘(a) disapply or
modify any provision of, or made under, this Part in relation to such
an application;
(b) impose
requirements on the officer, authority, committee or sub-committee
determining such an
application.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 454, 463, 465, 473 and
475.
Mr.
Dhanda:
The amendments deal with minor
corrections and changes to help improve the drafting of the Bill.
Proposed new section 75B enables the Secretary of State to make
regulations about the determination of a planning application under
proposed new section 75A(1)(b); that is, those applications that are
specified as reviewable by a local planning authority or local member
review body after an initial determination by an officer of the
authority.
Amendment
No. 453 is a technical one. Any determination of a planning application
by an officer acting under arrangements made under proposed new section
75A(1)(b) or a local planning authority, a committee or sub-committee
acting by virtue of section 75A(6) will be a determination of the
application under part 3
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That part will apply to the
determination in the absence of provisions to the contrary. I will keep
my remaining comments very brief because we can then move on to the
substantial debate that I know hon. Members of other parties want to
have on the clause. It follows that proposed new section 75B(2) is not
quite right in assuming that part 3 needs to be applied. We believe
that the right approach is to take a power to modify or disapply part
3. That is the purpose of the
amendment. Amendments
Nos. 463 and 473 will make corresponding changes in clauses 151 and
153. Amendments Nos. 454, 465 and 475 will make similar technical
amendments to other parts of clauses 150 to
152.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Robert
Neill:
I beg to move amendment No. 422, in
clause 150, page 73, line 31, leave
out from beginning to end of line 15 on page
74.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be
convenient to discuss the following amendments: No.
407, in
clause 150, page 74, line 10, at
end insert—
‘(h) about the
fee to be payable to the local planning
authority.’.
No.
428, in clause 150, page 74, line 15, at end
insert—
‘(7) A local
planning authority may arrange for the discharge of their functions
under this section by a panel of elected members drawn from other local
planning
authorities.’.
No.
423, in
clause 151, page 76, line 45, leave
out from beginning to end of line 27 on page
77.
Robert
Neill:
This group of amendments relates to
the operation of member review bodies. We are
interested in fleshing out how this process will work. The amendment
looks draconian, but it is intended to probe how the process will
happen. We start from the proposition that we are broadly in favour of
anything that tends to pass down powers and decision making to a more
local level, so I do not have an issue with the principle of the
clause. However, if we are going to make it work and if it is to be
viable, a number of questions remain to be answered. At the risk of
sounding like the devil’s advocate, I think that it is as well
that we probe the arrangements a little
now.
It
is significant that the Local Government Association supports the idea
of member review boards for minor applications. We will have to be
careful about what the thresholds are. It used the slightly guarded
phrase that the
boards
“could provide a
welcome opportunity for councillors to have the final
say.”
As with many people
in local government, it wants a bit more detail about how that would
work in practice.
On
the other side of the coin, there are people with legitimate
professional concerns about how we can guarantee the clear independence
of councillors from their officers and ensure that such a system
operates effectively without there being any breach of natural justice
for applicants. We must ensure that we deal with that not only in
domestic law, but under article 6 of the European convention on
human rights. We are
concerned about how that could be done effectively. Some detail has been
set out, but much more will be
required. When we
discuss later amendments, we will postulate an idea for how to get over
the practical problems of getting a viable pool of
members to hear the applications. We must consider how many
applications any local authority will hear. For some local authorities,
it could be quite a lot. Should the board contain people who would
ordinarily be on the planning committee or is there to be a
distinction? It looks as if we will have two parallel systems. Will
there be applications that are dealt with by officers that are referred
to the planning committee in the ordinary way? Will there be a separate
review board for decisions that are to be made by officers? Will it be
like the planning committee with the same people, but wearing different
hats an hour later? Will there be a similar training regime? Should we
use people who are not members of the planning committee because they
could be thought to be too close to the officers with whom they work on
a regular basis? That is the other side of the
coin.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am very pleased that the
hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment so that we can have this
discussion. I see that he has proposed that members from a neighbouring
authority should be involved. A number of authorities have raised
concerns about the relationship between officers and the members of the
authority. The proposal of bringing in members might, therefore, be
helpful. Has he considered the possibility of seeking officer advice
from the neighbouring authority as opposed to members, so that the
democratic accountability remains with members who were elected to that
body, but the advice comes from
outside?
Robert
Neill:
I am grateful to the hon.
Gentleman for that thought. I am open-minded on that issue. We would
have to see what the implications would be in terms of the costs of an
officer’s time being hired out to another authority. We tabled
the amendments in a genuinely open-minded way. Perhaps something like
that could be looked at. Many local authorities face the problem of a
shortage of good, experienced planning officers. They are quite a
scarce resource. In a number of authorities, planning departments are
already thinking about ways in which they could operate to use their
expertise. That might be something that we could look
at.
Mr.
Benyon:
We had a debate last week about the difficulty of
bringing together more Select Committees in the House to look at the
responsibilities that have been given to them by Government. The same
problem exists in local authorities. Those of us who have been
councillors know how difficult it is, even in a pool of 50 or 60
councillors in a unitary authority such as mine, to draw together
people who have the necessary training at a certain time and day to
look at a particular problem in a professional way. A lot of them have
jobs and other responsibilities at the same time. It would be good to
tease out from the Government what would be the frequency of these
member review board meetings, what they would be doing and what they
would require—not only in terms of members, but in the quantity
of work they would be undertaking.
Robert
Neill:
My hon. Friend makes a valid
point. We need to do more work on that before the Bill completes its
progress. That is a further issue that needs to be considered. It links
in to our earlier discussion about the issue of predetermination and
the scope that there is for local councillors to express views. If, for
example, one were to adopt the view that ward councillors, or those who
have expressed an interest in an application, are to be excluded, the
pool of available members who could serve on the review body will
pretty rapidly be reduced. If the planning committee was also excluded,
who else would be
left?
There
are also the practical points that my hon. Friend the Member for
Newbury made about whether members will be available at convenient
times. One can see a lot of difficulties that could arise in practice.
That is why we suggest in amendment No. 428 that it should be possible
to bring in members from a neighbouring authority. We are flexible as
to how the class of that authority should be defined. It could be
another district in the same area or an adjacent borough in London.
Again, there are swings and roundabouts on that issue. We are putting
it up for discussion to see the ways in which it could be done. Some
might say that, in a two-tier authority, members could be taken from a
different tier. There are all manner of
permutations.
We
need to think the matter through if we are to end up with a potentially
useful and enhancing role for local councillors. That role will set a
significant precedent so we must get it right. With respect to the
Minister, that is why I was a little disappointed in the reply that he
gave to the points made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and
Penarth. The Minister went into some detail about the issue of
predetermination and related matters, but it would have been better to
have heard a little more about where the Government see themselves
going on that issue. I would be troubled if his brevity was intended
for anything other than to make good progress in the Committee. I hope
that it was not hinting at any rowing back from the willingness that
the current Minister for the Environment showed when he was dealing
with planning
matters.
5
pm
Alun
Michael:
I regard the Minister’s brevity as clarity
of the absolute determination to produce the assurance we seek. I know
that my hon. Friend is not someone who wastes words and I am sure that
he will reinforce that point in his
response.
Robert
Neill:
The right hon. Gentleman puts things persuasively
and I hope that he is right because, as I have said, this is not an
area where we want to raise any partisan issues. I think people on all
sides in local government and in the House want us to try to get things
right, but there is a certain inertia factor in terms of unwillingness
to change deep-seated practices and advice, which needs to be
overcome.
Chris
Mole (Ipswich) (Lab): Perhaps I might briefly
add some useful observations in the context of what
the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has just said.
Predetermination is less of an issue than the public’s
perception of independence. There are precedents relating to local
authority councillors undertaking appeal-type work in fields such as
school admissions, although
I think that has now been moved completely away from councillors.
However, in other areas such as school transport, where local authority
councillors usually have their appeal work administered by the local
authority’s legal wing, some separation, a Chinese wall perhaps,
is provided between the planning service and the councillors making
those decisions.
When
a member of the public gets the letter telling them what the process
will be, however independent that process is, I fear that when they see
the council’s logo on the top of the paper they will not
distinguish between what one bit and another bit will do, and we will
be wrestling with that reaction, perhaps until the end of
time.
Robert
Neill:
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely
right and his point is valuable and useful. The idea of different
departments and Chinese walls is well worth looking at in practicality.
I suspect that he is right about the scepticism that will remain, but
we will just have to contend with it. When I was first elected to
Havering council, I remember that it was suggested to me by someone who
probably did not vote for me that I only did it because all councillors
did not pay rates—as they were then called. There have always
been some extraordinary misconceptions about local government, which
one just has to struggle with as cheerfully as one
can— [
Interruption.
]
I did not
realise that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport had not
realised that was not the case.
I understand the point, which
is helpful, and the Minister might be able to assist us a little more
in fleshing out how we can make the process work if we are to go down
that
route.
Dan
Rogerson:
To comment on the discussion that has just been
led by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I think that the
proposal is interesting and that it can offer something significant
with regard to democratic accountability. Although I know that some
people have concerns about the prospects and think that everyone feels
that the Planning Inspectorate is fair and does an excellent
job, and that it is independent and seen to be independent, that might
be only from the applicants’ point of view and not from the
point of view of residents in a local area. One often hears
people’s dissatisfaction that a decision has been taken by
someone who is not elected locally, so people will welcome greater
provision to return to that principle. Clearly, there will be issues
around how the proposal will work, but it is useful that we are having
that discussion under clause
150.
Amendment No. 407
relates to the issue of costs and would ensure that the burden for an
appeal did not fall on the local authority. The Minister will say that
if the Government pass a measure to increase the powers or
responsibilities of a local authority they will ensure that money goes
with it so that the local authority does not have to find it from
elsewhere. However, when the Minister’s party was in opposition
they probably said that the previous Government passed things down
without giving the local authority the resources to carry them out.
That is a tendency that people in local government would identify, so
if we are to give them
extra responsibilities it is important to ensure that provision is made
for the local authority to recover the costs involved, as there will be
such costs. The prospect of local member review panels is a good one
but much examination of the details will be needed, which has yet to
come.
Mr.
Benyon:
The hon. Member for Ipswich made a helpful point
and he was absolutely right: these bodies have form in local
government. The big question is how many and how often the member
review boards will be required. As a local councillor, I sat on housing
benefit review boards and we used to play Chinese walls with the
revenue department when it gave evidence on which we had to make a
judgment.
The hon.
Member for Ipswich referred to school admissions, when people take
evidence in a quasi-judicial way and make a decision. I want to press
the Minister on the frequency of the boards, which
will have to consider growing developments and increasingly complicated
planning applications, especially in a constituency such as mine in the
south-east of England. The whole system will grind to a halt because of
the demands on councillors’ and officials’ time in
processing them. I am at heart a localist; I want decisions to be taken
locally and in that respect I welcome some aspects of the proposal, but
the practicalities of what the Government are proposing cause us and a
large number of councillors great concern.
Mr.
Dhanda:
Before considering the purpose, effect and
desirability of the amendment, it might be helpful for me to say a few
words about the clause and where it is heading.
Clause 150
introduces in a new section 75A of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 a requirement for local planning authorities to make arrangements
for certain planning cases to be determined by officers of the
authority. Examples of the types of development we have in mind are
small-scale things such as householder developments, new shop fronts,
small change-of-use proposals, advertisements and works on protected
trees. Proposed new section 75A(4) provides for the Secretary of State,
by regulation, to specify the types of planning application which,
having been determined by an officer in the first instance, would be
eligible for review only by a local member review
body.
For
those delegated applications, a proposed new section 75C establishes
the right of review of the officer’s decision by the local
planning authority through a local member review body. Proposed new
section 78ZA removes the right of appeal to the Secretary of State
under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
Amendment
No. 422 tabled by the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for
Beckenham would remove proposed new section 75C, and thus the provision
for a review of a local authority officer’s decision on a
planning application by a local member review body. Amendment No. 423
would remove proposed new section 193C of clause 151, and thus
provision for review of an officer’s decision on an application
for a certificate of lawful use of development by a local member review
body. Either way we look at it, the amendment would, in effect, wreck
what we are trying to do. We believe that the intention behind the
amendments is to retain the
right of appeal to the Secretary of State for such
planning decisions. However, to make them fully effective, further
consequential amendments would be required to clauses 150 and
151. We
regard the establishment of local member review bodies to review
decisions on minor applications taken in the first instance by officers
of the authority as a real merit, as does Sir Simon Milton of the Local
Government Association, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst
mentioned. The measure will determine local matters at the most local
level. It is probably the same in Newbury as it is in Gloucester as it
is in London; we all know many councillors who lobby us and say,
“We could be doing more at a local level.” I think that
this is an area where they could be doing
more.
Robert
Neill:
I hope the Minister gathered that
we are not wedded to any particular form of wording; these are probing
amendments. I take his point regarding the support of the
LGA.
During
discussions on the matters the Minister has been referring to, have his
advisers in either the Department or the LGA been able to give an idea
of the quantity of applications that might be dealt with? Sir Simon
Milton was mentioned; he is the leader of a London borough. It would be
interesting to know if there is any idea of how many such applications
a London borough or a district council might reasonably expect to deal
with, to establish the scale, as a number of Members are concerned
about
that.
Mr.
Dhanda:
The hon. Gentleman has taken the
words out of my mouth. I was just coming to that
point.
As
I said, the measure is about determining local issues at a local level,
in line with the Government’s commitment to devolving
responsibility wherever we can. At present, minor planning appeals are
dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of
State. The existing appeal system is not equipped to handle the
increasing volume of appeals—currently 22,000 per year, of which
about 8,000 are minor appeals. We are talking about 22 cases a year in
each locality, although that is obviously an approximation. If those
cases could be dealt with by local member review bodies, users would
benefit from a much quicker and simpler process, and local authority
planning committees and the inspectorate would have more time to focus
on the major cases, as we heard from the inspectorate when its
representatives gave evidence to us in Committee what seems like many
weeks
ago.
Concerns
have been expressed that it would not be possible to ensure an
independent review process if the same authority was responsible for
decision and for review; but it is not unprecedented for a local
council to review its own decisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Ipswich and others have said. Examples include the review of decisions
on applications in respect of homelessness and school exclusions.
Officers involved in making the original decision would not be involved
in the review
process.
The hon.
Member for Newbury mentioned members of a planning committee. It would
be possible for members of a planning committee to be members of the
local member review body, as long as they had not
been involved in any way in the original decision. The local member
review body would draw its advice from elsewhere—for example,
from planning officers of a partner authority, as has been suggested by
Opposition Members, from external consultants, or from the
body’s own legal services
department. Any
member of a review body with a personal interest in a case, would be
required to declare their interest and, if necessary, to withdraw from
the decision process, as we would expect. That is not dissimilar to the
existing planning process. Local review bodies formed through
partnership with other authorities would also help to ensure
impartiality, as a proportion of board members would have no local
interest—something Sir Simon Milton told us in the evidence
session a few weeks ago. The LGA is very attracted to that
idea.
5.15
pm
In
addition, in clause 152, we have provided for appeal to the courts for
anyone aggrieved by the decision of a local member review body. We are
working with local government and planning professionals to develop the
details of the scheme which will be subject to consultation. We still
have all of that ahead of us, assuming that the clauses are successful
and make it into the Bill. We have accepted advice from local
government that local member review bodies are likely to work best when
set up jointly by local authorities, acting in partnership. The hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will be familiar with that from his
days on the London Assembly. Section 101 of the Local Government Act
1972 already provides for that,
too.
Turning
to amendment No. 407, proposed new section 75C enables the Secretary of
State to make provision by way of regulations for reviews of planning
decisions carried out by local member review bodies. Proposed new
section 75C(4) sets out some specific matters for which the regulations
may include provision. Amendment No. 407 would enable the regulations
on reviews carried out by local member review bodies, which the
Secretary of State can make under proposed new section 75C, to include
provision for the fee payable to a local planning authority for a
review of an officer’s decision by the local member review
body.
The
Committee may be aware that clause 162 provides a power to enable a fee
to be introduced for appeals. We will come to that in the fullness of
time. That fee will be payable by the applicant to the Planning
Inspectorate. We therefore propose that a local member review body
would be able to charge a fee for reviews as well to be consistent.
However, section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already
provides the necessary power for that, so the amendment is not
necessary.
Robert
Neill:
Will the Minister help me with an issue that has
been raised by people in local government? Will there be a tariff for
the fees or will the local authority have discretion as to what fees it
sets within Wednesbury reasonableness principles? Will local
authorities be able to recoup the whole cost of their appeals process
or just a
portion?
Mr.
Dhanda:
That is still a matter for regulation and
discussion. It is something on which we need to
consult. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer, I am
afraid.
Amendment No.
428 would enable reviews of planning decisions carried out under
proposed new section 75C by a local member review body to be conducted
by a panel of elected members drawn from other planning authorities,
wider than just the local area. Local authorities already have the
power under the Local Government Act 1972 to set up committees for the
discharge of their functions, including joint authority committees. We
have signalled that we would be happy for local authorities to
establish those bodies on a joint basis should they wish to do so. The
amendment is not, although I accept that it was tabled as a probing
amendment. In conclusion, we are working with local government and
planning professionals to develop the details of the local member
review body scheme, which will be the subject of consultation and in
which we see great merit. I therefore hope that hon. Members will not
press their amendments further.
Robert
Neill:
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It
has been a worthwhile discussion on what is seen as an innovation. I
note what he says and I am not at all unsympathetic, as I understand
where he is coming from. However, if ever there was a classic case of
the devil being in the detail, this is probably it, so it is important
that we get as much indication of the Government’s thinking and
as much clarity as possible. I appreciate that much of the detail will
appear in regulations, but I hope that the Minister can update us on
progress on some of those issues on Report. On that basis, I will not
press the
amendment.
Dan
Rogerson:
I realise that amendment No. 407 is not to be
discussed formally now, because it is not the lead amendment, but I
shall respond to what the Minister said with regard to fees, because he
said that the matter was up for discussion. I hope that he will take
this as a contribution to that discussion and an acceptance of the
principle that the local authority is already seeking to provide all
sorts of good, efficient front-line services that have a big effect on
the local community. When someone triggers an appeal, the
principle that they should make a significant
contribution, if not cover the cost, ought to be taken on board. I hope
that we will come up with a solution as those discussions continue that
allows the process to contribute to local democracy and democratic
accountability without imposing an extra financial burden on the local
authority.
Robert
Neill:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
made: No. 454, in clause 150, page 74, leave out from
‘particular’ in line 44 to end of line 46 and
insert—
‘(a) disapply or
modify any provision of, or made under, this Part in relation to such
an application;
(b) impose
requirements on the local planning authority determining such an
application.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.]
Mr.
Dhanda:
I beg to move amendment No. 455, in
clause 150, page 75, line 12, leave
out from ‘if’ to end of line 16 and insert
‘—
(a) the local planning
authority—
(i) have been
required under section 75C to review the case,
and
(ii) have failed to
complete their review by the end of the period prescribed by
regulations made by virtue of section 75C(4)(f),
or
(b) the local planning
authority have been required under section 75D to determine the
application.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 456, 466 and
476.
Mr.
Dhanda:
As currently drafted, section
78ZA does not allow an appeal to the Secretary of State where the local
authority or local member review body has determined a planning
application following non-determination by an officer. There would be
no form of appeal: the matter would be dealt with in the first instance
by the local member review body and that would be it, so that needs to
be amended. We believe that when a local member review body has taken
the first decision on an application, rather than reviewing an
officer’s decision, the right of appeal to the Secretary of
State should be retained because there will no alternative opportunity
for scrutiny of the original decision.
An example of
such a circumstance is the local member review body stepping in and
making the decision because officers were late in determining it. The
purpose of Government amendment No. 455 is therefore to enable an
applicant to appeal to the Secretary of State when a local member
review body has taken the first decision on a
planning application. Government amendment No. 456 is consequential to
amendment No. 455. Government amendment No. 466 has the same purpose as
Government amendment No. 455 in relation to lawful developments and
appeals, as does Government amendment No. 476 in relation to listed
building application
appeals.
Amendment
agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 456,
in clause 150, page 75, line 18, leave out ‘such an
appeal’ and insert
‘an appeal under section 78(1)
brought by virtue of subsection
(2)(a)’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.]
Clause
150, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
