Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-187)
MR IAIN
WRIGHT
18 MAY 2009
Q180 Mr Betts: It is a very important
question.
Mr Wright: Absolutely, and I have
had it in my own patch, not particularly in regard to planning
but in regard to NHS reconfiguration of services. Any consultation
and people do say it is a stitch-up and people have the answer
already. It is how you engage in the whole reforms we have put
in place in recent years with the statement of community involvement
and things like that, trying to have some sort of framework where
people can get engaged at appropriate stages, as early as possible.
Largely, I would say, as a first step to say, "What sort
of town centre do we want, what sort of offer?" I know I
have been here before, Chair, and talked about markets, for example,
but that sort of very clear vision, "What do we want our
town centre to look like? What is our town centre? How do we define
the boundaries? What is classed as edge of centre? What do we
want to see?" I think engaging the public in that is an important
thing for local authorities and actually politicians to take into
account.
Q181 Mr Betts: Can you identify the
sorts of things which might have a different outcome, the sorts
of applications that might have a different outcome under the
new system and the old system?
Mr Wright: No, is the short answer,
but again I feel like I am repeating myself so I do apologise
on this, but I think that is getting to the same position in a
much more holistic, comprehensive and better evidenced way. I
think that is what we are trying to do here. I think actually
there could be some developments which take place which previously
had not taken place. I was very much struck by the evidence given,
I think it was last week, from Mr Williams from Aldi and a person
from the Co-op who said that often the means test can be seen
as a bit of a barrier to entry. So by removing the need test I
think that can help promote competition and provide greater diversity
than perhaps had been the case already.
Q182 Chair: Just to follow up a point
which David has been making about engaging with the public, because
local authorities are always going to be strapped for cash however
much money they have, they often go down the route of employing
planning experts who are paid for by the applicant. Do you accept
that the public find it very difficult to believe that those planning
advisers are actually acting on behalf of the council and not
on behalf of the applicant?
Mr Wright: The short answer is,
yes, I can understand that concern.
Q183 Chair: Therefore, do you think
it is a sensible practice?
Mr Wright: I do not think really
it is for me to say how local authorities consult and spend their
money, but I do think that one of the key objectives of any consultation
exercise is to be robust and impartial and for people to have
faith, trust and confidence that what they say will be considered
and taken into account. Now, if that is done by an independent
body, by a firm of planning consultants, I think it is for the
local authority to decide that.
Q184 Chair: Can I just ask you about
the planning inspectorate in these cases? Do you think the planning
inspectorate gives sufficient weight to the local authority's
local plan or planning, or local development framework in its
decision-making?
Mr Wright: Yes. I have got a great
deal of confidence in the planning inspectorate with regard to
that. When I look at planning cases and look at whether things
need to be called in, or what have you, on a whole range of matters
not just on retail, I am very confident that that is always stress-tested
against the core strategy and the local development framework.
I am very confident about that.
Q185 Chair: Even if the plan may
be quite elderly?
Mr Wright: I think that will be
taken into account, but I think the planning inspectorate sometimes
gets a bit of criticism in a way that is not justified. I think
they do an excellent job and take into account a whole range of
evidence and test it against the plans and policies which are
in place. I can understand concerns. Sometimes the plans are a
bit archaic, but I think in general I have a huge amount of confidence
in them.
Q186 David Wright: Does the Department
have any feel about the scale of additional applications which
might come through when the systems change? I have asked everybody
else so I may as well ask you. Does the Department have a feel
about whether developers are sitting on large amounts of land
which is going to come through in terms of new applications when
the system changes, or does the Department have a feel about whether
developers are going to, as the Chair quoted earlier, "chance
their arm"?
Mr Wright: My feeling on that
is, no. The impact assessment in terms of PPS4 makes it clear
that the benefits of this approach, certainly in terms of bringing
together various planning policy statements into one comprehensive
document, can help streamline a whole degree of approach. There
is no evidence in terms of land banking. I know there is always
the accusation that some retailers are holding onto land in order
to stifle competition, stopping competition from taking place.
All the evidence seems to suggest that that is not the case and
actually people are holding onto it to determine when the appropriate
economic time is to develop it. I think that is probably more
true now than in previous years, actually. So I think as the economy
grows in the next couple of months and years you will see an increase,
but that is just part of a natural economic cycle. I do not think
that is a response to changing the planning framework.
Q187 Chair: Just to return to the
issue about the planning inspectorate, do you think they will
also be robust in backing up local authorities' decisions under
the impact assessment framework?
Mr Wright: Yes. I am so confident
in this that I do think when a local planning authority has robust
plans and policies in place which are transparent and are testable,
the planning inspectorate can look at them and decide appropriately.
I think that is one of the strengths of the planning system.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
