Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I want to ensure that I understood the Minister correctly when he said that the procedures for reconvening an examination in public are to be a matter of regulations, and that I was not wrong in thinking that they are not on the face of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a process to be used when the development plan needs to be changed significantly, and those principles will be set out clearly in the final version of planning policy statement 12. There will be no arguments about it. It will be written down. It will not be based on a hunch, a nod or a telephone call, but will be clearly written down in that policy statement.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for endeavouring to persuade us so far that this is a matter simply to speed up the adoption of the document. Throughout the proceedings of the Bill, we have tried to make it understood that we are deeply concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State appears to play a significant role in all the policies from the regional spatial strategy through to the final acceptance of development plans.
Despite what the Minister says, I do not see that for a local inspector to make recommendations that are then binding on the local authority does anything other than stamp the Secretary of State all over this aspect of the process.
The four amendments are all related to the binding inspector's report. Amendment No. 79 may be deficient to some extent, but all four would withdraw
Lord Rooker: My Lords, before the noble Baroness continues, I should like her to answer a question if she intends pressing the amendments. What would happen if a local planning authority refused to adopt a development plan with the inspector's recommendations? The inspector will have listened to the evidence and given some recommendations. The authority would be denying a sound up-to-date development plan document, which could be a disservice to its community when it has had an independent check on the soundness of the document.
What would be the position, if that is what the noble Baroness is advocating, and the local authority decided to dismiss the inspector's views completely?
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I have a case in point to relate. A planning inspector was appointed to inquire into a structure plan relating to housing in the Didcot area. He decided that 3,000 houses should be in one part of the town rather than another. The full county council took the inspector's report and on the evidence reached a totally different conclusion, which I believe was the right one. I think that the inspector was not really cognisant of the affairs of the area, and his judgment was based on what I would call a textbook version rather than an actual version of what happened. The county council chose the adopted structure plan in the end.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, am I not right in saying that, ultimately, the Secretary of State can overrule both the local authority and his own inspectorfor example, in the famous case that I believe was in Sussex?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Secretary of State's powers in this Bill are essentially a longstop. Under Clause 21, there is a power to call in and approve the development plan document. But, essentially, it is a longstop power, which would be required only if there was a failure at the local level.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for his intervention, in which he clearly made the point that there are occasions when the inspectors' recommendations are wrong. As matters stand under the Bill, there is no going back on that. The recommendations would have to be implemented, although my understanding is that the inspectors represent the Secretary of State in their role.
I think that there is not a great meeting of minds in these areas. Our three amendments and that put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, hang together as regards the binding inspector's report. So when we read Amendment No. 79, we must read through to the end. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 79) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 138; Not-Contents, 125.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 80:
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |