Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2003.

Standing Committee A

New Clause 27 - Qualified third party right of appeal

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing new clause 47—Appeals (non-compliance with development plan)—

'1. After section 78, subsection (2), of the principal Act there is inserted—(2A){**em**}Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission and—

(a) the planning application does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or

(b) the planning application is one in which the local authority has an interest as defined in section 316;

the persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified above are—

(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated;

(b) other persons at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.''

2. Section 79 of the principal Act is amended as follows—

''In subsection (2), leave out (''either'') and after ''planning authority'' insert ''or the applicant (where different from the appellant).''

In subsection (6), after ''the determination'' insert ''(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B)''.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Hurst.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) rose—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. I call the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) first, on a point of order.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sorry to interrupt proceedings so soon in our second week of proceedings, Mr. Hurst. I welcome you to the Chair, and I also welcome other members of the Committee and the House of Commons staff.

I wish to put on record my gratitude to the Government for their speed in responding to the Committee's deliberations on high hedges in new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). They acted with admirable speed, and have taken a better route than would have been achieved through this planning Bill—through the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, with a conciliation and arbitration procedure. I know that all of the 10,000 people who have problems with high hedges will be absolutely delighted with the Government's announcement. I hope that the change is accepted in the other place and that we can consider it once that Bill returns to the House, and that it is put on the statute book as soon as possible.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. That is not a point of order, but a point of civility.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I am afraid that I am in a rather hot and sticky state this morning, Mr. Hurst. It was not the prospect of the Committee's deliberations that got me excited, but the fact that I had to run here; I am not as fit as I thought I was.

I ask the Minister to take my comments as an opportunity for reflection. I am not threatening to side with what the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said about third-party rights of appeal, but I think that he made some interesting points that are worthy of an ongoing debate. Indeed, a debate has been taking place on such planning issues for some time.

We have two issues to grapple with. One is the democratic nature of the planning system, and where responsibility and accountability lies for taking decisions. The other is the need for an efficient and

quick planning system that will deliver the appropriate decision promptly to those who have made planning applications.

The objection to third-party rights of appeal against planning decisions has always been that it would slow down the system, making it unworkable, bureaucratic and cumbersome. It has therefore been resisted by Governments of all political persuasions. However, in some respects, it is worth reflecting whether some change might be made.

The Opposition have raised the interesting question of allowing third-party rights of appeal in certain limited areas. The first case that comes to mind is a departure from the unitary development plan or, in future, the local development framework—a decision in which the local authority has a direct interest. Such a limited right of appeal would not hold up many cases, but it would probably address the concern sometimes legitimately held by local people that their views are not properly taken into account.

Generally speaking, local decisions should be taken by local authorities. I think that we ought to look on the other side, and consider whether some rights of appeal might be removed. I shall give an example of what might happen under the current system of unitary development plans. A group of people may object to the local authority's allowing building on a certain piece of land. The local authority may decide to incorporate that piece of land into the UDP for housing purposes. The individuals concerned go through the appeal process. They raise their objections, and the case eventually comes to a final hearing before an inspector. They win their case, and as a result that area of land is not zoned for housing. The UDP shows it as open space, or it is put to some other use.

It is technically possible that within a few weeks of that, the local authority can make a planning application for housing on that piece of land. As I understand it, that can be stopped in two ways. First, the Secretary of State can call in the decision, but if the piece of land is relatively small that may not happen. Secondly, the individuals may go for a judicial review because the local authority had breached its planning obligations in its handling of the case. However, for such a small group of people, judicial review is not an easy or cheap way of challenging such a decision.

In the few cases in which the existing plan for the area has clearly been breached, and the local authority has an interest in doing something that might be seen to run counter to its planning interests—in other words, it will make money out of the sale of the land—we may need to examine the potential problem of third parties not having a right that they can exercise through a judicial review; if it were decided that the Secretary of State would not call in the proposal, there would not be another way forward.

There is another side to the coin: if the Government really want to speed things up, will any thought be given to removing the right of appeal from an applicant when the local authority's decision is absolutely in line with the current plan for the area? If a local authority turns down an application, why should

there be a right of appeal if that decision is completely in line with the current UDP or the future local development plan? If we put the two together, we might end up with far fewer appeals and a far quicker process. I throw that up as an idea for discussion, because I have sometimes wondered why an unappointed official or inspector with no accountability at local level should have rights when the local authority has taken a decision completely in line with existing plans, which the Secretary of State has also approved.

The issue is worthy of debate because there are interesting conflicts relating to quick and proper process, and where democratic accountability lies, on which the Minister might like to reflect.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I reiterate the welcome given by the hon. Member for Cotswold to you at the start of today's sitting, Mr. Hurst.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of civility in expressing support at the commencement of our proceedings for the moves to incorporate the provisions of the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill into the Anti-social Behaviour Bill in the House of Lords. The fact that we are doing that is a reflection of the seriousness with which we take the Committee's deliberations. During our proceedings on Thursday, it was a source of slight frustration to the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and myself that we knew that a decision was imminent, but were unable to let the Committee know what it was because it had not been finalised. I believe that I express the satisfaction felt by both sides of the House about this sensible and important development.

I have responded—I believe graciously—to the hon. Gentleman's point of civility, but I shall have to begin my response to our debate on new clauses 27 and 47 on a somewhat sombre note. The Committee will recall the closeness with which the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and I operated in response to his proposals in new clause 26. In contrast to our previous exchanges, however, I fear that the love-in between the hon. Gentleman and myself may now be at an end.

New clauses 27 and 47 seek to introduce a right for third parties to appeal against the planning permission granted by a local planning authority in specified circumstances. Both clauses envisage a limited right of appeal. I am encouraged to see that at least there are no calls for any blanket third-party right of appeal. I am also encouraged by the hon. Member for Cotswold and his rejection of some of the categories of development included in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow.

The inspiring intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), which was characteristically thoughtful and serious, was well worth the journey. In many respects, it was as much a call for greater flexibility in the planning process as for extending third-party rights of appeal. I very much hope and expect that the Government's new proposals for a change to the planning framework, which we will

debate this afternoon, will in many respects deal with those elements of greater flexibility for which my hon. Friend is, in part, calling.

The planning Green Paper clearly set out the reasons for ruling out any right of appeal for third parties, even one limited in scope. A right of appeal for third parties would slow down the system and would not be consistent with our democratically accountable system of planning. It is the responsibility of local planning authorities to act in the general public interest when determining planning applications. They must take account of the views of local people before decisions are made, and subsequently justify their decisions to their electorate.

The hon. Member for Ludlow rightly recognises the need to secure a faster, more balanced planning system. We need greater community involvement in the planning process. He and I are at one on that matter. It is right that anyone affected by, or with an interest in, the development of an area should have the opportunity to make their views known and to have them taken into account. The planning system already provides ample opportunities for that. However, it must take place at the right stage in the process, before decisions are made. We do not want increased opportunities for argument and debate after the event.

We intend to build on and further strengthen the opportunities for contribution by making the planning system more accessible and transparent, and by strengthening opportunities for community involvement throughout the whole process. The provisions will strengthen the opportunities for people to comment on and influence development proposals earlier in the process, even before a planning application has been submitted. By listening to people's concerns up front, we should be able to minimise the need for action after a decision has been made.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Surely, in the brave new planning system where problems are dealt with ahead of planning applications in a more effective way, the chances of there being the same number of appeals as under the existing system will be reduced. We would not expect a lot of appeals under the new clause. The Minister is confident about the effect of the consultation, and I too am confident that it will speed up the process, so there will be less chance of appeals being lodged; why not, in that case, allow the new clause in, because it might be needed in the odd few cases?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand that point. However, as I intend to demonstrate, the hon. Gentleman does have anxieties about the possibility of abuse of the planning system, as I do. There is a serious issue regarding abuse through the provision of third-party rights of appeal, however qualified.

Clause 17 provides for a statement of community involvement. We are seeking effective community participation in the preparation of local development documents and in the exercise by local planning

authorities of their development control functions. It will not only become a statutory requirement to prepare a statement as to how the local planning authority intends to involve the local community in the planning process, but that statement will have to be tested through independent examination.

As for the scenarios cited in the new clause, clear and strict rules and procedures are already established to ensure the propriety of the decision-making process and the decisions taken. First, proposals must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Secondly, when proposals for substantial developments do not accord with the development plan, the Secretary of State must be notified so that he can consider whether to call in the application for his determination. Thirdly, the Secretary of State may be requested to call in other applications, including those accompanied by an environmental impact assessment.

I now turn to the category for which Opposition Members see particular merit in their proposals—applications in which the local authority has an interest. Local authorities operate under strict rules to deal with possible conflicts of interest and to avoid any impropriety where a local authority has an interest in an application. Moreover, judicial review is available if impropriety can be shown.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister asserts with confidence that local authorities act under strict rules. The rules may be strict, but most members of the public find that they are not very effective, and that judicial review is not a useful route. Will the Minister set out those strict rules, so that we can examine them in this Committee?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who anticipates my intentions in my few succeeding remarks.

Local authorities are often required to take decisions on issues in which they have dual interests. I believe that local authorities grant planning permission in some 5,000 cases a year in which they have an interest in the land. Those cases sometimes involve town centre sites and regeneration projects that will benefit local communities by creating homes and jobs, and by improving the environment. We need to ensure that such projects are delivered quickly.

Concerns were expressed about local authorities' ability to act fairly and in an unbiased manner where they have a pecuniary interest in a proposed development. For the benefit of the Committee, I shall briefly outline some of the safeguards that apply to such decisions, as requested by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.

First, local authorities are obliged to act fairly towards those persons affected by planning decisions, and to adopt decision-making procedures that provide adequate fairness safeguards that comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Decisions are subject to control by means of judicial review in the courts. That ensures that decisions are taken in accordance with the

law and within an authority's powers, and that they do not act for any illegitimate purpose or extraneous motive such as bias or vested interest.

In addition to those legal safeguards, there are several administrative and procedural safeguards to ensure propriety in local decision making. First, the local government ombudsmen have powers to investigate allegations of maladministration. Secondly, there is guidance on ethical conduct for local authorities, such as the national code of local government conduct. Thirdly, local authorities have monitoring officers, who investigate allegations of maladministration or injustice. Fourthly, to ensure propriety in land disposal and in the promotion of specific developments, there are arrangements for the discharge of planning functions under the new constitutions for local governance, under which planning decisions are the responsibility of the planning committee, not the executive. Finally, there are special procedural arrangements, which already apply to local authorities' own development, such as the need to notify the Secretary of State of proposals that are not in accordance with the development plan. Those powerful safeguards render third-party rights to appeal, in whatever form, unnecessary.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Most of the safeguards in that list apply to councillors rather than to officers. I will quickly give an example from my constituency, although the Minister may not be able to comment on it in detail, because it will probably land on his desk in the end. The Bridgnorth district council has just granted planning permission on a site on which there will be a supermarket. As a result, there is a relief road on the land. The district council has a financial interest in part of the land, and for the past two years, the main promoter of that solution has been the head of development control, who is also the head of economic development. He wrote the planning report, which recommended approval despite the proposal being against the local plan, and then spoke extensively at the committee meeting, answering questions on why the plans should be approved. He may only be an officer, but he is very influential.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Again, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In any circumstances we have to accept that it is normal within a planning function to have a proactive, developmental, regenerative role as well as a development control function. The broad situation that he describes is common in planning, and we want to support it. The Government are keen for local planning authorities to become increasingly proactive in their approach to planning. The purpose of planning is to promote sustainable development, not to find an elegant way of saying no to change.

The hon. Gentleman also alluded to specific aspects of the relationship between individual proposals and the plan. He is right to say that, because of my quasi-judicial capacity, it would be wrong for me to make any comment on the case that he mentioned. That is not an evasion; it is a statement of the law.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I do not ask the Minister to reflect on those most recent words, but I would ask him to reflect on his general statement. If it is the will of the Government and of councils that regeneration should be promoted through the planning process, surely that is a matter for the planning process—the unitary development plan or whatever succeeds it—not for the development control function, which is there to ensure that development is in line with the plan. Most local authorities have a planning policy officer, who sits alongside the development control officer. Is it not for the planning process itself to promote regeneration?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

That is a perfectly reasonable point, and I do not see much difference between the hon. Gentleman's contention and the view that I expressed.

I find the proposition that a third-party right of appeal should be available where officers' recommendations to reject an application are overturned by elected councillors astonishing. It challenges the heart of the democratic process. Elected members must be allowed to reject their officers' advice; they, not the officers, are responsible to the electorate. In any event, councillors must have good planning reasons for rejecting officers' advice. Judicial review is available in the event that impropriety can be shown, or the decision can be shown to be irrational or perverse.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister has referred three times to judicial review. On how many occasions, in whatever period happens to be convenient and within his knowledge, have planning decisions been overturned on judicial review?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I certainly cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that off the top of my head—and as I gazed around in my usual fashion for the usual sources of inspiration, I saw a shrugging of shoulders. However, I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman, and therefore to the rest of the Committee, with that information. Again, I draw his attention to the fact that there are powerful safeguards in the planning process, and judicial review is not the sole recourse in the event of an allegation of impropriety in that process.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

When the Minister writes to the hon. Gentleman about judicial review, will he draw a distinction between judicial review called for by the applicant and that called for by a third party? He is likely to find few instances of third parties going for judicial review and succeeding.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Again, I understand my hon. Friend's point; it is essential to the contention in his initial contribution. I shall certainly aim, if possible, to make those distinctions in the note that I supply.

I have said that there is an absolute requirement for the final decision in planning matters to be in the hands of councillors, not officers, and that it is absolutely correct for councillors to have the right, in the correct and proper circumstances, to reject officers' advice, but the difficulties with the new clauses do not end there.

It is envisaged that the right of appeal would apply to anyone who had objected at the application stage, and to anyone else, at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose. The former provision would be likely to encourage the submission of objections, so as to safeguard the right of appeal should permission be granted at the application stage. The latter would inevitably lead to delay, by introducing an additional procedure to establish whether an appeal could proceed. A developer would be unable to implement the permission until the sifting process had been completed.

It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which a person could legitimately seek a right to appeal against a proposal to which he did not object in the first place, yet that would be possible under the proposal in question. The effect would be to frustrate the development. The proposal is a recipe for chaos.

To return to my response to an earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Ludlow, perhaps I may take the Committee back to the exchanges of last Thursday, on new clause 18, which dealt with the procedure for authorisation of compulsory purchase. In relation to the Government's innocent and well-meant proposals to extend the category of persons with a right to object to the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order, the hon. Gentleman spoke with anxiety and disapproval of the possibility that objectors could exploit the new clause. He said:

''There is the potential in all this for determined and well organised objectors to create an unforeseen difficulty.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 October 2003; c. 91.]

He went on to warn that the provision could become ''an objectors' charter''. I want to know, and I am sure that the Committee will want to know too, what has changed between then and now. For that reason, and for the others I have mentioned, I see no merit in introducing a third-party right of appeal, and I ask the hon. Gentleman and the official Opposition to withdraw the new clauses.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The Minister has been very persuasive. I can speak only to new clause 47, and must leave the hon. Member for Ludlow to speak to his new clause. On reflection, there may be sloppy drafting early in our new clause, in the passage that begins:

''Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission''.

We have specified two sets of circumstances in the provision: where the proposal does not accord with the development plan, or where the local authority has a vested interest. Those would obviously be known beforehand. My intention in supporting the new clause was not that people would have to wait until planning permission had been given. Clearly, if a local authority puts in its own application to develop its own land, we can all tell what the answer will be. In the two sets of circumstances specified in the new clause, third parties should have an immediate right to have their say.

All the issues could be overcome. I keep stressing that I want any legislation to be as simple as possible. What we intended by tabling new clause 47 could come about without any change in the law if the Secretary of State were minded to say, ''Where these two conditions exist, I will make it my practice to call in the application for determination''—after a public inquiry, of course. Although we agree with the Minister that the process should be speeded up, I sense that a majority of the Committee's members—certainly those who have spoken—feel that the problem could be overcome if the Secretary of State declared that he would call in after a public inquiry where a local authority has a vested interest in an application that either it has put in or that someone else has put in on its behalf, where there has been a significant departure from the development plan. I do not know whether the Minister feels that he could go that far, but that would relieve a lot of the doubts and concerns that prompted us to table the new clause.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I did not intend to speak a second time to the new clause, but I must address some of the issues to which the Minister referred. I was agreeing not with him, but with the hon. Member for Ludlow, when I said that it was reasonable that regeneration projects should be addressed through the planning policy, not through the development control function. The misunderstanding was probably my fault, for not making myself clear. My local authority divides responsibility within the planning department. Under what the Government propose, it should in principle be possible to address a new development that is outside the existing local plan first, and perhaps for it to be called in by the Secretary of State or subject to a public inquiry, and certainly for it to be subject to a third-party right of appeal, although that should apply at the development control point, not at the planning inquiry point, where there are plenty of processes already.

However, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe said, the problem is when the local authority knows that something is against the plan, yet still gives permission. Unfortunately, members of the public do not agree with the Minister that local authorities are bound by all those safeguards—and it is perhaps even more important not only whether they are bound by those safeguards, but whether they are seen to be so.

The first of the safeguards to which the Minister referred is judicial review. He is resting on judicial review as an option for third parties, but if he cannot tell us how often it has been used—and I do not expect him to be a walking encyclopaedia—he ought at least to consider the difficulty that individuals have in taking it forward. Judicial review is beyond the power of most people; they simply cannot afford it. In a case in my constituency in which the local authority gave planning permission, having financially sponsored a development, a member of the public has taken the authority to judicial review. This case probably will not end up on the Minister's desk, but that member of the public told me that he had set aside £2 million for taking proceedings against the local authority in the

High Court. Most people do not have access to such resources, or anything approaching them, so there is no defence for putting forward judicial review as a means of redress for members of the public.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the vast majority of cases, developers have the financial resources to be able to contemplate judicial review, whereas local objectors almost overwhelmingly do not? None the less, the Minister keeps citing judicial review as an avenue to be used in such circumstances. His argument is undermined by the fact that that avenue is available to one side but not, in most cases, to the other.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Indeed. That is encapsulated in the phrase, ''One law for the rich and another for the poor.''

The Town and Country Planning Association has given an example:

''In one case a damaging planning permission that removed already scarce daylight and sunlight from some one's home was effectively unchallengeable by the by the individual concerned. This is because appeals to the High Court generally deal only with errors in the decision making process (not with interpretation of policy)''.

In other words, if half a dozen councillors believe that something is the right thing to do, however absurd it might be, they can get away with it so long as they manage to jump through the right hoops on the way.

The Town and Country Planning Association continued:

''and because the Local Government Ombudsman has no powers over planning decisions.''

I interpret that to mean that although the local government ombudsman has the power to investigate planning decisions, he has no power to overturn them. Once planning permission is granted, especially by a local authority to itself, it is highly improbable that anyone will revoke it.

The association goes on to say:

''Furthermore the client was advised by counsel that it would be unwise to defend her right to light in a civil case as the court would be unlikely to uphold a right that the planning authority had already deemed unimportant to uphold. So called individual rights therefore (such as the right to light) can in a small minority of cases therefore, come to nothing under the current system.''

The Minister gave examples of administrative safeguards, and I referred to the powers of the ombudsman. The ombudsman is dependent on the information that the local authority gives to him. In many cases, it is the sheer partiality of that information that led to the decision in the first place. I should also add that local authorities are notorious at being unable to find the relevant records when the ombudsman wants to conduct an investigation.

There is guidance on the ethical conduct of individual councillors and the role of the monitoring officer, but again a good deal of work is required on the part of individuals who may not be familiar with the working of the council and who may not have access to confidential information. In many cases, the information is kept confidential even from councillors, unless the councillor concerned knows that the

information exists. A member of a local authority can ask for a piece of information if they know that it exists, but they cannot do so if they do not know that it exists.

Finally, the Minister referred to the responsibility being given to planning committees but not to the executive. I regret to say that some planning committees, including the one in my constituency of Isle of Wight, are composed largely of members of the executive. There is a requirement for planning committees to operate independently, but there is no requirement for members of the executive, who may have responsibility for economic regeneration or for resources, not to sit on the planning committee. It is therefore fairly easy for them to translate what they learned in the executive, and perhaps in a political group that meets before the executive, into a decision taken in the planning committee.

I am especially concerned about the case of a planning consultant who used to be the leader of the local authority and who is promoting the development of supermarkets in three or four towns throughout the island on property owned by the local authority. The local authority is now seeking to have a building de-listed to facilitate the development of a supermarket. That seems to me to be a total abuse of the planning process and a perfect example of a conflict of interest in which planning permission would be granted under the Minister's desire for effective regeneration. We all want regeneration, but we want it to be balanced by effective planning and we want members of the public to see it as fair. The Minister has not yet persuaded me that it is fair.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We cannot let the matter rest on the Minister's reply. I give him notice, so that he and his officials can think about it, that I am about to adduce a case on a detail of article 6 of the European convention on human rights. It is important that there should be something on the record from the Minister, as it is almost a racing certainty that, now that article 6 of the convention is incorporated into our law, somebody will challenge the Bill in the European Court of Human Rights, and that might well concern third party rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) raised the point in the previous sitting, and I am grateful to him for alerting me to it. Since then, I have done some reading, in particular the House of Commons research paper 02/38, ''Third Party Rights of Appeal in Planning''. We should pay tribute to the House of Commons Library, which gives us an excellent service. Our debates, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, are considerably enhanced by its material, which is often produced when we want things yesterday.

I shall mention a couple of practical points before I go into the legal arguments about article 6. It is accepted in the Committee that third party rights of appeal should be limited to the two categories in new clause 47. Indeed, I made a similar specification in new clause 4 for the Report stage that never happened, so that we did not get a chance to discuss the matter.

Let me deal with the category in which there is a departure from the local plan. At the moment, if there is a departure from the plan, the relevant Government office is notified and has to decide whether to call in the application. For most larger and controversial applications, a departure from the plan would be called in. Therefore, the crucial question is, how many cases in which there is a departure from the local plan are not called in? If the Minister cannot answer that now, I should be grateful if his officials would write to us. I am thinking of small but significant cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet called them: those that fall between the large and controversial and those in which there is a silly departure such as a building being a few feet out of line. I accept that there could be a difficulty in defining significant cases, but we need to know about them in order to decide whether there is a need for the third party right of appeal in that category.

The strongest category is that in which the local authority has any form of pecuniary interest in the land and grants planning permission. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, has come up, as always, with an interesting example in his constituency, that of the local authority owned land on which a supermarket might be built. Whether or not it is the right site, if a supermarket is to be granted permission, the system needs to be seen to be fair, open and transparent. Indeed, the Minister used the words ''accessible'' and ''transparent''. Those words will be held up to bright lights in the future.

Of the 500,000 or so planning applications a year, 90 per cent. are granted, so the Committee is dealing with a law that affects people who have an interest in land in the remaining 10 per cent. However, that is still 50,000 cases, of which only 5,000 concern situations in which the local authority has an interest in the land. If all 5,000 landed on the Minister's desk and all of them required a local public inquiry, that would add significantly to the planning inspectorate's work load. However, I do not expect that all of them would require a public inquiry. Only a proportion of them would.

If we do not introduce some form of third-party right of appeal, an appeal will eventually be made to the European Court of Human Rights, and the European court will insist that such a right is incorporated into our law. The Minister needs to consider the point more favourably.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

On the important point about the possibility of going to the European Court of Human Rights, I understand that, under the Human Rights Act 1998, our courts have to anticipate decisions of the European Court. As a result, appellants would not have to go to the time, trouble and expense of going to the European Court of Human Rights; they could go to court here.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As I shall say in a few minutes, such cases have already been heard; and I shall parade details of them before the Committee so that we can see exactly where we are in legal terms.

As I said, the Human Rights Act 1998 opened up the possibility of using the European convention on human rights to challenge our planning system, mainly through article 6, the relevant part of which states:

''In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.''

The well known planning expert Professor Malcolm Grant gave evidence to the Environment Sub-Committee. He said:

''When one looks closely at the convention rights and looks at the case law that has arisen from the court in Strasbourg and from our national courts, it is difficult to avoid two conclusions. One is that in planning appeals Article 6 applies to appeals by developers because it involves the determination of people's civil rights and obligations.''

Most important, he continued:

''If that is true of prospective developers, it is also equally true of objectors, although not in every case.''

That hinges on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on access for everybody to judicial review. Clearly, the system is currently unequal. Professor Grant continued:

''However, there will be cases in which it would be foolish to deny that people who are objectors to a development had civil rights and obligations that were being determined. If that is the case, at present we would be falling short of our convention obligations were we not to have a third-party right of appeal in such instances.''

In December 2000, a test case known as the Alconbury judgment was heard. In it, a group of four test cases resulted in a High Court ruling that the planning system was incompatible with the convention. Needless to say, that case went to the House of Lords, where it was known as Alconbury v. SSETR. It was heard in early March 2001, and judgment was given on 9 May 2001. The House of Lords ruled that although the Secretary of State did not constitute an independent and impartial hearing—that is one part of article 6 with which we clearly did not comply—the whole procedure, including the public inquiry, was compatible with article 6.

The Times law report gave Lord Slynn's judgment, with which the other Lords concurred. The report stated:

''Lord Slynn said that it seemed plain that the dispute was one which involved the determination of civil rights within the meaning of the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights had, however, recognised from the beginning that some administrative law decisions which affected civil rights were taken by ministers answerable to elected bodies...It was not suggested [by the respondents] that there was actual bias against particular individuals, on the part of the secretary of state or the officials who reported to him or who advised him. But it was contended that the secretary of state was involved in laying down policy and in taking decisions on planning applications in accordance with that policy. He could not therefore be seen objectively to be independent or impartial''.

Again, that point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight last week.

The Times law report continued:

''But none of the judgements before the European Court of Human Rights required that the court should have full jurisdiction to review policy or the overall merits of a planning decision.''

The Library conclusion was:

''It would be possible to take the challenge to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, but that process normally takes around two years.''

When a case is bought, it will be a long time before we change the law.

The Sweet & Maxwell Encyclopaedia of Planning Law and Practice Monthly Bulletin, the bible of planning, gave a conclusion on the Alconbury case. I will not quote the whole conclusion, but merely this part:

''Given that a third party may challenge the grant of planning permission by a claim for judicial review, under broad rules of standing, does this overcome the evident want of independence and impartiality on the part of the local planning authority? It is not evident that it does so.''

Importantly, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, who had nothing directly to do with the House of Lords case, made comments afterwards in the Sir David Hall memorial lecture that may prove to be the best guide to what may happen next. He pointed to the judgment of Lord Slynn and was reported in Planning as follows:

''Slynn said that 'in exceptional circumstances' courts may be able to reconsider the merits of a particular case. Slynn's judgement, Woolf claims, gives the green light for a widening of the scope of judicial review which at present can only assess the facts of a given case and not its merits. Slynn said that exceptional circumstances can occur when courts weigh up whether a development is important enough to justify the potential infringement of an individual's human rights. Woolf pointed out that this would involve the introduction of the European human rights legal concept of proportionality into UK administrative law.''

Another piece of law and convention touches on planning law—that is, the Aarhus convention. The main provisions concern the right to environmental information, public participation in decision making and the right to challenge environmental decision making in the courts. Its main impact will therefore be to improve the alternatives to third party rights of appeal.

It seems to me that the Government are under pressure on third party rights of appeal on two counts. That pressure is due first to article 6 of the European convention on human rights and secondly to the Aarhus convention. We have a narrow judicial review, which is inaccessible to ordinary citizens on the grounds of cost and complexity as well as because of its narrowness. I hope to goodness that we never get away from that narrowness, as a judicial review can challenge only the law and the way in which the planning authority has gone about a decision, not the merits of the decision itself. Once judges can challenge and make judgments on the merit of the decision, every single case will end up in the courts. Narrowness in planning and arbitration decisions has been a fundamental convention of the law. Practitioners should debate the merits of a case; the law should debate the mechanics and the law of the case.

Given the narrowness of the judicial review, which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has touched on, it seems to me that somebody will challenge under article 6 before long on the basis that they do not have full access to a proper, fair and easy system of tribunals and appeals. In that situation, the Minister will need to consider carefully whether we ought not to introduce some form of third party rights of appeal to our law.

Unfortunately, in the time available I could not get the chapter and verse for what I am about to say, but I believe that it is correct. The final reason that the Minister should introduce those rights is because where a national Parliament legislates clearly on a matter, it is much more difficult for the European Court of Human Rights to overturn that particular law. Rather than wait for somebody to challenge the Government under article 6, it would be much better if we clearly provided in the Bill for the limited circumstances set out in our proposal. I accept the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet that we may not have got the wording right—either for the category of people who have the third party right or for the mechanism—but the principle is there. We are debating the principle and the Government need to address that matter very seriously.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to colleagues for their serious and knowledgeable interventions. I say to the hon. Member for Cotswold that I will deal with article 6 at some length.

As ever, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight makes a generally knowledgeable and informed intervention. However, he may have put his case a little too forcefully. A huge body of planning law constrains local planning authorities. There is a huge body of procedure and of opportunities for appeal on the ground of impropriety. Above all, there is the safeguard of democratic accountability. It is at least arguable that elected representatives are generally a little too responsive to the sentiments of local populations.

Every year, thousands of decisions are taken in which local authorities have dual interests. As far as we know, there are relatively few objections in those cases. That is the evidence. None of us has been able to adduce statistics. If there were blindingly obvious statistics on the matter, someone would have them to hand.

I do not believe that the sole explanation as to the objections can be the constraint of judicial review costs, although I take that point. We live in an increasingly litigious society in which people are increasingly inclined to pursue matters through the courts if that is feasible. It is a matter of judgment. A balance must be struck. Successive Governments have taken the view that, against the need to progress, to make the planning process more efficient and effective, and to ensure that it delivers more extensively, the balance comes down on the side of declining third party rights because of the risk of abuse.

I return to the proposition underlying the Government's proposals, which is to encourage negotiation at the pre-application stage and to encourage the elaboration of a statement of community involvement through the statutory obligation laid on local authorities. The whole emphasis is on the involvement of local communities and local people in the processes. If there is a basis for concern about local people's rights, although I do not concede that there is, the arrangements that we are considering will go a long way towards securing people's rights in those situations.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I hear what the Minister says, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight is on to a good point, as he often is. The problem is not the system but the perception of that system. In a controversial case in which the local authority granted itself planning permission, there was a general feeling afterwards that local people had not had the opportunity to object. Of course they had, but people do not know what their rights are and touch the planning system only when it affects them in a controversial case such as that. We need a system in which such cases are more widely advertised, and there is more opportunity for public meetings and for people to go along to the local planning committee and have as much time as they want to put their case. Very often people go to the planning committee and are told, ''Oh, only a spokesman can address the committee.'' People's rights are being taken away and they do not even have an opportunity to address the planning committee. Thereby they feel very aggrieved—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. I am afraid that that is not brief enough for an intervention.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

If I may say so in a nutshell, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is such a perception. The purpose of the Bill—to widen the opportunity for community involvement and to encourage local authorities in their statements of community involvement to set out exactly the procedures that they will adopt to involve the local community, which must precisely involve, for instance, publicity and adequate advertisement of impending planning decisions—will be implemented. Members should again remember that the local authority's decision on the means of involving the local community will not be taken, as it were, behind closed doors, but will be subject to independent examination as an essential part of the new planning process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It is not at the plan-making stage that people do not feel involved, but when the application comes up. Please will the Minister consider my example, in which a group of objectors goes along to the planning committee, which says, ''Oh, we can't be bothered with you, we'll just hear one of your spokesmen.''? That is not an acceptable way to proceed.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I apologise; I now better understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which is serious. I assure him that we shall think hard about precisely that issue in the draft guidance on the extent of community involvement that we expect to publish in the near future.

The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet speaks, as ever, on the basis of great experience in such matters and with eminent reasonableness. He made a plea for a wider use of call-in powers, but we would be reluctant to make a commitment to widen that practice. Our anxiety is that the already slow process of planning, granting of planning permission and subsequent development would be slowed down even further. The Secretary of State must exercise his judgment on the need for calling in any decision on a case-by-case basis. However, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet knows, those powers exist and they are exercised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford and I very well know as Ministers with responsibility for planning. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we would be reluctant to issue an edict that widening the call-in should be a more general policy.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

On that point, the Minister will be aware that regional Government offices follow the guidelines of the Secretary of State on the exercise of the call-in powers. I do not suppose that most requests to call in reach the Minister. In his view, does the guidance that he gives to regional offices on whether to accept requests to call in give applications of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet referred a reasonable chance of getting through to the Minister?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

That question is as long as a piece of string. We need to be more precise about the applications to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet was referring before we can decide whether it is already the practice of the Government offices to ensure that such cases be called in and that they reach the Minister.

I shall reflect on the matter, but we already deal with a large number of called-in cases. As a new boy on the block, I am impressed by the extent of democratic involvement in this context; I regard myself, as a Minister, as reflecting and forming part of that democratic process. The fact that many local cases that obviously relate to local people—at an extraordinarily microscopic level—should reach the higher reaches of government already reflects positively on our democracy, but whether we should extend that democratic element further is a matter for reflection.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

May I put the matter another way round? Can my right hon. Friend think of any circumstances in which a planning application that was contrary to the local plan and had been approved by a council that had an interest in it would not be called in?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I have often had cause to comment, from my experience at the Dispatch Box, that there is nothing more deadly than a friendly intervention. I remember, too, the questioning from my hon. Friend when I appeared before the Select Committee. However, I get there in the end, and I am sure that I shall do so this time; I should like to give the impression that I have reflected. The matter is at the back of my mind as I respond to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Cotswold about article 6 of the European convention on human rights. It is an important issue and I need to respond at some length.

Article 6 requires, among other things, a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. In the context of applications for planning permission, and planning appeals, neither the local planning authority nor the Secretary of State is an independent and impartial tribunal. The requirement for a fair hearing is satisfied in all cases by the right to apply to a tribunal that undoubtedly is independent and impartial—the High Court. There is no general right for objectors to be heard by the local planning authority that determines the planning applications to which they object. There is, in general, no need for a hearing at that stage.

Of course, local planning authorities can hold hearings if they wish, and many do. In a case that came before the High Court about two years ago, the local planning authority's planning committee set aside a whole day to consider one application and to hear objectors state their views on it. That leads me to reflect that nevertheless, after what sounds on the face of it like a very fair approach, the matter went to the High Court.

It might be necessary in exceptional cases in which matters of fact are at issue for local planning authorities to give objectors a hearing, or even to hold local inquiries. They can do that under their present powers. If a local planning authority that should have done so fails to give a hearing, the court can quash the decision. The authority will then have to reconsider the application by the means indicated by the court.

That process of consideration of a planning application by a body that is not independent or impartial, followed by review by a body that is independent and impartial, has been approved in Strasbourg in the case of Bryan v. United Kingdom, and in cases before the domestic courts. The position was made clear by the Court of Appeal in the case of the Queen on the application of Adlard and others against the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. In his judgment on 17 May 2002, Lord Justice Simon Brown stated that he had reached

''the clearest conclusion that the statutory scheme as a whole is plainly compliant with article 6''.

The statutory scheme to which Lord Justice Simon Brown referred is the scheme for the grant of planning permissions by local planning authorities. I accept that objectors to the grant of planning permission may not be entitled to a hearing of their objections by the local planning authority that is considering the application,

but that does not mean that their article 6 rights are infringed. In the same case, Lord Justice Simon Brown said:

''The remedy of judicial review in my judgment amply enables the court to correct any injustice it perceives in an individual case. If, in short, the court were satisfied that exceptionally, on the facts of a particular case, the local planning authority had acted unfairly or unreasonably in denying an objector any or any sufficient oral hearing, the court would quash the decision and require such a hearing to be given. This presents no difficulties''.

The judgments show clearly that there is no need for a third party appeal right in order to satisfy article 6 of the convention. I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold is reassured by my words. I rest my case.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I had not realised that we were going to have an entire debate all over again. I have listened carefully to the Minister and he teased me over the objectors' charter. The new clause was drafted by a number of outside organisations, and one of the reasons why I tabled it was to prise from the Minister the circumstances that he might agree to be possible routes for a third party right of appeal. I can see that that was a futile exercise in this Committee, but I suspect, given that there is some agreement on this side of the Committee, that we might be able to return to the matter on Report or in another place.

I should like to deal with a couple of the points that the Minister made when he said that the system had built into it a series of controls, particularly in respect of decisions made by local authorities about their own land. I mentioned the case of Bridgnorth district council. I know that the Minister will not want to respond and I am not asking him to talk about it. Bridgnorth is slightly behind the times in that the director of development control and planning is also the director of economic development; a single person negotiates with the developers, then writes the report, then speaks on the matter in the planning committee and has promoted the scheme in the press for two years. The other district council in my area has separated the roles. Most people would hope that councils would do that, but there are clearly places in which it has not been done, and there is no diktat that it should be. There is therefore potential for abuse by officers.

My second point concerns the concept of the ombudsman. We heard from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight about access to information. He is right. Even councillors can find information only if they know that it exists. Even executive councillors do not always have access to information. In a recent case, which affected part of my constituency, the council granted itself planning permission because it had locked itself into a commercial contract. However, the councillors—not merely those involved in planning, but others as well—were not allowed to see the contract. It was only when I threatened to name in the House the officers who were refusing access that they relented and let an independent officer see the information in order to provide a precis for those involved. The limiting of access to information within local government can sometimes have a major bearing on planning applications. If information is not even

available to councillors who are trying to come to a decision, I struggle to see how it might be available in other cases.

The Minister also pooh-poohed subsection (2A)(e) of the new clause, which concerns the planning officer who has recommended refusal of planning permission. That would almost certainly be the same as the provision in paragraph (a),

''where . . . the planning application does not accord with the provisions of the development plan''.

A planning officer is most likely to recommend refusal of planning permission if it does not meet the needs of the development plan.

The Minister mentioned democratic rights. Let me give him the example of a number of councillors in my constituency, mostly independents, who will virtually vote yes every single time somebody proposes building a house in the open countryside or in the green belt, because they believe that the Government's policy—I think that it is PPG7—is wrong. We do not have recorded votes in relation to most planning applications, which is a great shame because I cannot prove statistically that that is the view of some of the councillors, but I know that it is. If they happened to be in a majority—fortunately, they are not on either of the councils—and therefore had a majority on planning, we would almost certainly see applications go sailing through every time somebody put in an application, even though it was contrary to the local plan. Applications for single houses would not be called in by the Government office and would not land up on the Minister's desk. Some circumstances might constitute local democracy but they could result in blight to an area and be completely contrary to planning policy guidance.

The issue of votes brings me to a further matter. The Minister spoke of accountability—at the end of the day the councillors have to live with their electorate. There are two issues there. One is that there are mostly single-member wards in a big rural area. All the objectors are likely to come from one ward, so the accountability will fall on one councillor, who might not even be on the planning committee. The others can make hay and not worry about accountability. Secondly, it is not compulsory to record votes in planning committees; it is the exception rather than the rule.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some planning authorities, including mine, guide their members not to vote at all on applications in their own wards?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am aware of that. One local council lost a seat at the last local elections because it had earned itself a reputation for sitting on the fence on every local decision—it had followed officer advice and never taken part in any decision and had become the object of ridicule in the local pubs. That policy might protect a council against the Standards Board, but it does not protect if from the electorate. It is a serious issue. Unlike here, where every vote is

recorded, there are no recorded votes in planning meetings. If the Minister is serious about local accountability, he should consider ensuring that every vote in a planning committee is recorded. That would enhance accountability.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting away from his new clause.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Thank you, Mr. Hurst. The Minister cited judicial review as a protection and as another reason why the new clause is unnecessary. I wonder whether the Minister knows that, in a judicial review ruling last year, Lord Chief Justice Woolf made it fairly clear that councillors were allowed to have predisposition but not predetermination. Predisposition means that, because they make policy, they are also expected to enact it. That is absolutely right. However, not only will councillors have made the policy; they will sit on the planning committee and vote for it. That, and the fact that a local authority can have an interest in a planning application, strengthens the case for the new clauses.

It has been a useful debate. I feel that we are heading towards common ground, at least on this side of the Committee, although the other place may have to use its muscle. However, I return to a point that I have made before. The Minister should be confident about his new system, as it involves much more consultation, and allows engagement with the public at an earlier stage. He should therefore also have the confidence to accept that, in some limited circumstances, a limited group of people—I do not pretend to have got it right in the new clause—should have a third party right of appeal. That is necessary to balance the system, because at the moment it is stacked in favour of those who make the application.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

The hon. Gentleman refers to muscle being exercised in another place. I emphasise that not only Opposition Members have spoken about the need to alter the system. Labour Members have said that some alteration may be needed. I hope that those who might wish to exercise muscle will take note of that.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

After all those comments, it is obvious that I have not framed a new clause that the Committee can favour. It clearly contains some technical inaccuracies.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

If the hon. Gentleman withdraws his new clause, I cannot then move ours. I give notice, Mr. Hurst, that, if possible, we shall press new clause 47 to a Division, even if the hon. Gentleman does not press new clause 27.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I want to see whether—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. Can we be clear about the procedure?

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

If the hon. Member for Ludlow indicates that he wishes to withdraw new clause 27, and if the hon. Member for Cotswold wishes to

proceed with new clause 47, the first will be withdrawn by leave of the Committee and the second will be divided upon when we reach the appropriate place.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank you, Mr. Hurst, for that clarification. You are right to anticipate that I shall seek leave to withdraw the new clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I do not wish to pursue the matter; we have debated it at huge length. I simply say that the critical phrase in article 6 of the European convention on human rights states is that

''everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.''

I hear what the Minister says, and I know of Lord Justice Simon Brown's judgment. In my view, however, judicial review will eventually not be held to constitute an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, particularly while it deals only with the mechanics of the law and not with what Lord Chief Justice Woolf called the proportionality or merits of decisions.

I hope that we never reach that state with judicial review but, in time, the Government will not be able to rely on it—especially, as has been pointed out this morning, because of the expense and difficulty of applying for judicial review and the fact that it is rarely, if ever, funded by legal aid. Effectively, the ordinary citizen of limited means has no access to judicial review, and the Government will not be able to rely on it for ever more. They need to think carefully about that otherwise, as I said in my opening words, it is almost a racing certainty that such cases will end up in Strasbourg.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have trespassed as far into those judicial matters as I wish to. I have given the Committee a full explanation of the Government's understanding of the requirements of article 6 of the convention.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow for his contribution, which was as lively and as colourful as ever. I continue to welcome his support for the Government's proposals for greater community involvement in the planning process. I suggest that we should perhaps explore the possibilities and see what emerges. That would go a long way towards allaying the fears surrounding the issues that have been raised in Committee.

I promised to reply to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe about whether there are any circumstances in which a decision to grant permission at variance with the local plan would not be called in. The answer is that it cannot happen; the Secretary of State must call it in before the decision is made. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy and his great patience in answering all our questions. Despite that, we shall press new clause 47 to a vote at the appropriate time.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28 - Development control

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 33—Planning permission for increasing the floor area of large shops—

'After section 57 (Planning Permission required for Development) of the principal Act there is inserted the following section—

''57A Planning Permission for increase the Floor area of Large Shops

(1) Planning permission is required for works which increase by more than the specified amount the area of large shops.

(2) Permission given by a local planning authority for such works may be conditional upon all or a proportion of the additional area being devoted to the sale of local produce.

(3) In this section

(a) 'large shops' has the same meaning as in the Shops Act 1994;

(b) 'the specified amount' means 25 per cent, or increases which aggregate to 25 per cent, of the area available for retailing for which permission has been granted;

(c) 'local produce' has such meaning as the local planning authority shall determine.''.'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

New clause 28 is about a matter that Friends of the Earth brought to my attention a few months ago. It concerns Asda, which is owned by Wal-Mart, and its use of a loophole in the planning system to increase dramatically the retail floor space of 40 of its stores by installing mezzanine floors. In many stores, that would double the floor space. It can do that without seeking planning permission because planning law excludes internal building works from the definition of development that requires planning permission. Such works can go ahead provided that they do not affect the external appearance of the building however significant their other impacts may be.

The addition of significant areas of retail floor space—equivalent to a new store in some cases—may have a significant negative impact on high street stores, and may lead to increased traffic, noise and

disturbance, yet local planning authorities will have no opportunity to assess those impacts, and local communities will not be given the chance to become involved.

Asda installed its first mezzanine floor in York, and its second such floor is under construction in Sheffield. That floor will add 33,000 sq ft of retail space with the specific, and declared, aim of expanding its range of non-food goods, which will change the nature of the store, and will pose a new threat to local non-food shops. An Asda spokesman is on record as saying that the non-food range in the York mezzanine is encouraging people to drive to the store from further afield. That is hardly a worthy environmental aim. It makes a mockery of the intention behind PPG6 on retailing, which seeks to maintain diversity of local shops, and sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres by protecting them from the negative effects of large-scale out-of-town developments.

However, it is not just small shops that are risk. At the moment, Asda is installing mezzanine floors, but any one of a number of supermarket or DIY chains could follow suit. Doing so gives Asda a competitive advantage because, by chance, it built high in the past. There could be a lower store next door that does not have the opportunity to put in a mezzanine floor, so other big retailers could suffer just as much as smaller retailers. The issue is therefore not about the small fighting the big, but about fairness and where the planning system ought to come in.

The new clause deals with section 55 of the 1990 Act, which creates a broad definition of development and provides for various qualified exceptions. The new clause extends the qualification to the exceptions in subsection (2) to exclude the material increase of retail floor area. Such increases would constitute development and therefore be subject to planning control. The inclusion of a 10 per cent. margin allows for minor operational changes to premises that would not pose a significant risk to the local community. The Minister may say that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to pursue those aims, but if so, we would like him to reassure us that the Government plan to close the relevant loophole another way.

New clause 33, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has tabled, is similar and has a caveat that if more floor space is granted, some of it must used to sell local produce. On the face of it, that is a super idea, but it is difficult, when giving planning permission, to dictate exactly where something being sold was purchased from in the first place. Although I share the sentiments, the proposal is a difficult concept in planning terms.

It is only a matter of fairness that the loophole is closed, before we see a race to develop mezzanine floors. One group of stores is doing so now, but I am sure that others will follow.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on whether he considers the new clause to cover the eventuality where an out-of-town store not only compartmentalises but departmentalises? Departmentalising is developing an alternative high street in a flat floor store through either filling in an atrium or compartmentalising the existing flat floor permission by extending to mezzanine and creating additional stores, thereby taking the high street as a whole out of town, rather than just building sheds out of town.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman has raised another potential loophole that I do not think the new clause, which deals with the increase of retail floor space, covers. I have even heard that, at some stores, there have been projects to dig down and put in new floors below the ground level of the existing shop. Again, that does not require planning permission, but goes against the spirit of using the planning system to ensure fairness across the retail sector.

The idea is not that there should not be mezzanine floors, but that proposals for them should come before the planning committee and be considered like anything else. If there is good reason for them, they will be granted planning permission. Such proposals would also require environmental impact assessments and probably traffic impact assessments, because, given the size of some mezzanine floors, the doubling of a floor space could easily lead to a significant increase in traffic to a certain store.

If the new clause were accepted, all that would be considered. The new clause does not mean, ''No mezzanine floors,'' but, ''Let us have mezzanine floors only where they have gone through the planning process.''

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the clause, which is of interest to my constituents as one of the stores is in my constituency. It has now been built, and is open and operating. I speak from first-hand experience, as I had a tour round it with the manager only a few weeks ago to examine the situation. There are significant benefits to Asda being in my constituency; for example, it tries to enable people without transport to get to the store by putting on free community buses. I should declare an interest, in that Asda occasionally offers me space to conduct my surgeries in the store.

There are problems, however, which the hon. Gentleman rightly identified. What was initially a major and very large food retail outlet with some non-food goods has almost become a food store and a mini department store in the same building. It is a massive development. The mezzanine floor stretches virtually the entire length of the original store. It has almost doubled the capacity, and has changed the nature of the store as well as the amount of floor space.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly mentioned the highway implications. There have been significant traffic problems from the very beginning when the store first opened in the mid-1990s, which have been of real concern to the people who live closest to the store,

and to others simply trying to get home in the evening. The back-up created by people queuing to get into the store and people trying to get out of it caused significant traffic problems even before the new development took place. Imagine the repercussions since the mezzanine floor was constructed. Traffic is considerably heavier, yet there has been no analysis or plan to deal with it, because there has been no requirement for the store to sit down with the highways authority and the planning authority to work out these problems, because there is no need for planning permission.

The planning permission system is now changing the way in which cars can enter the store. There is slip road off the Sheffield Parkway, which itself has significant environmental consequences for constituents of mine who live nearest to the store. Again, that slip road was an afterthought, rather than an integral part of the plan to build extra floor space.

I am not saying that the mezzanine floor should not have been developed and that the store is not a good facility for the many people who want to shop there, or that Asda does not try to respond to community issues. As a fundamental principle, however, there should be a requirement for such a development to go through the planning process before it takes place. The local community should have a right to have its views taken into account, and the local planning authority should be able to take a decision about whether such a large expansion of floor space is appropriate. As I understand it, existing planning law does not allow that to happen. It is clearly the view of the planning office in Sheffield that it had no right to intervene. I do not know whether the new clause is technically the right way to go about making that requirement, but something must be done to ensure that such expansions go through the planning process.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I will not repeat the remarks made by the hon. Members for Ludlow and for Sheffield, Attercliffe about my new clause, because proposed new subsections (1) and (3)(a) and (b) aim to achieve the same objective as the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, and because he drew on the brief submitted by Friends of the Earth, which I had intended to use. It will expedite proceedings if I do not go over that brief again. The only reason why I tabled a new clause in a different form was because I did not understand the one with which Friends of the Earth had supplied us.

I did, however, want to add something to it. I wholly concur that there is nothing wrong with mezzanine floors, but they do significantly affect the flow of both traffic and people around towns. I have added, in my proposed new section 57A (2), a requirement for an entitlement for the local authority to make the grant of an application subject to

''all or a proportion of the additional area—''

perhaps it is inconceivable that it would be all of it—

''being devoted to the sale of local produce'',

and subsection (3)(c) would allow the local authority to define what it meant by local produce.

I specified that because local farmers in particular, but other producers as well, find it difficult to acquire outlets. Although many supermarkets have, at least in theory, a commitment to the sale of local produce, the local produce that they sell is often mixed up with other produce from elsewhere in England or the world. Sometimes, it is difficult to tell whether the produce that is on sale as such is, in fact, local produce. It is fair for the local authority to take account of that, for the economic benefit and regeneration of the area.

I shall give two examples. Sainsbury's is very kind to me. It allows me to hold my surgery in its entrance, and is helpful at several different times of year. On one occasion when I visited the Sainsbury's supermarket in my constituency, I found a row of shelves that claimed to be devoted to local produce. Although there were some local products on other shelves, such as cider from Godshill and wine from Rosemary vineyard, the only other example on those shelves full of goods that were claimed to be local produce—apart from one pack of biscuits, which were definitely made on the island—was fudge with a postcard of Newport town centre on the outside. When I examined it, I discovered that it was made in Torquay: most people on the Isle of Wight do not consider that to be local.

I have permitted local authorities to set their own definitions because although in my constituency nothing is not local if it does not happen on the island, I am sure that there are constituencies in which something is regarded as local if it comes from within 30 or 40 miles. The definition that has been adopted by the farmers market movement is 30 miles—but places 30 miles from parts of my constituency are not local at all.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning farmers markets. Farmers markets have to get approval from the local council—but putting in 33,000 sq ft of mezzanine floor does not.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too wide of the discussion.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I hope that I shall not be out of order if I say that the hon. Gentleman would be right if he were talking about any development that was not within one of those stores. There is an imbalance between a development outwith one of the stores that happens to have room for a mezzanine floor, and one within. I should like to hear the Minister's response to the point about local produce, because that issue is of great interest not only to farmers but to consumers. If I say that on the ''Today'' programme of 15 October it was revealed that farmers are now getting 10p a pint for milk, but the Co-op charges 38p a pint, it will be evident to the Minister that there is room for members of the public to obtain their supplies at considerably less cost if the outlets are available. I would have no objection to the bigger stores, in particular, being obliged to provide such outlets.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am attracted to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, and to most of the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the

Member for Isle of Wight. Will the hon. Member for Ludlow confirm that he would exclude any increase in floor area of less than 10 per cent?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I can confirm that. The provision would affect only increases in retail floor area of more than 10 per cent.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight talks in terms of 25 per cent. I do not suggest that 17.5 per cent. is a happy compromise, but I stress that there must be an exclusion for a relatively minor increase in floor size.

Secondly, I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight about introducing the subsection relating to local produce. My reasons are almost the same as he has given in its favour: I have looked at some of the supposed local produce at the farmers market not far from where I live, which has to obtain permission from the local authority to take place every Friday morning. Local produce? Frozen chickens might have come from 3 miles down the road, but I very much doubt it. My serious point is that it would be impossible for a local authority to police such a condition if it were incorporated in the new clause.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall address first the issue of local produce, which is raised in new clause 33, and then the broader points that have been made about mezzanine floors. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight seems to be proposing that a form of protectionism be built into the planning laws—one can imagine the trade barriers looming as one approaches the Isle of Wight across the water. I understand his enthusiasm for local produce, but that would build into planning law proposals that would fundamentally undermine the single market and the concept of a free market in traded goods. I know that the Conservative party has shifted its position on a number of issues, but for it to ditch its keenness for the market in favour of a form of protectionism would be an interesting development.

If retailers want to support local producers they can do so, and there may be good reasons for that. To specify in planning law that there should be restrictions that support the produce from particular areas would be to undermine the single market in traded goods; it would create systems in planning legislation that made it impossible to provide alternative goods from elsewhere in a single market in the affected shops or mezzanines. It is hard to tell how we might justify that, given the impact that the single market has had on improved competition and economic growth.

Implicit in some of the things that the hon. Gentleman said was a concern about competition and big supermarkets. Those concerns are probably best addressed in debates about competition and fair trading—that is a better forum for such matters than planning legislation and, as he will know, the Office of

Fair Trading has considered those issues with regard to major retailers. Therefore, I strongly resist the proposals in new clause 33 concerning local produce.

On the broader issue of mezzanine development, I understand the concerns raised by hon. Members. It is possible for local planning authorities to control the addition of mezzanine floors. When planning permission specifies a maximum floor space, any proposal to increase that amount materially, regardless of whether the original has already been built, will require permission. To make it clear: if the original planning permission specifies a maximum floor space, putting in a mezzanine floor that would substantially increase that floor space will require planning permission.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

A recent case was reported in Planning magazine on 3 October. An Asda mezzanine in Staffordshire gained a lawful development certificate despite the existence of a condition on the outline permission restricting the retail floor space of the building. The inspector concluded that

''had the intention been to preclude any internal works then the condition should have said so directly so that it would be clear to future occupiers that planning permission would be required for such works.''

The inspector said that, since the wording did not make that clear, it would be ''unreasonable'' to interpret the condition in the manner sought by the council. Clearly, the council sought that interpretation and failed.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I am aware of that case. I cannot comment on it because it is within the period of statutory challenge so it would still be possible for a case to be made challenging the decision. I can, however, clearly set out our interpretation of the legal position and the powers available to local planning authorities. If I am given a moment to clarify things, I may be able to say something more to reassure the hon. Gentleman on his original concerns.

Local planning authorities can control development when the planning permission specifies a maximum floor space. When there is a limit and a mezzanine floor is built without permission, the local planning authority could take enforcement action. When there is no limit in the original planning consent, the local authority could seek to modify the original consent, although that could involve compensation.

We understand that most retail planning permissions—certainly most major retail planning permissions—specify the maximum floor space. I want to consider further what proportion of cases do not have a maximum floor space specified in the planning permission, and therefore whether the matter is likely to be a serious concern in relation to cases in which there are not maximum floor space restrictions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I hear what the Minister says about investigating which categories of planning permission involve provisions limiting floor space that can be enforced. I suspect that the older, in-town supermarkets will have no maximum specified. When

the more modern, out-of-town supermarkets were being built, people had become a bit more sophisticated, and limits were imposed. However, in some of our bigger inner cities the traffic impact is likely to be greater and less controllable.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I hear the hon. Gentleman's point. I simply do not know whether that is the case, but it is one of the issues that I want to consider further. I am also keen to consider whether there is a need to clarify the position so that everyone is clearly aware of our interpretation of the powers that planning authorities have in this area and of the need to get planning permission for a mezzanine floor when planning permission specifies a maximum floor space.

The Government are clearly of the view that if a maximum floor space is specified within the planning permission, and if someone wants to build a mezzanine floor, planning permission will be required. On those grounds, I urge that the new clause be withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am not convinced by the Minister's arguments that the law does not need tightening up and that this is a case of interpretation. Certainly, there are insufficient safeguards with many stores that were built without any conditions being attached. There is a danger that unless prompt action is taken, stores will rapidly get their mezzanine floors before any steps can be taken to put in new controls that might prevent them.

I am disappointed that the Minister does not think that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for strengthening the law. This would be a timely way of ensuring that we act before advantage is taken of that loophole. Let us bear in mind that this had not come up as an issue 12 months ago, and a number of stores have now had mezzanines put in. We can foresee that in another 12 months that will have happened in many other stores throughout the country. We do not have time to deliberate on the matter.

I might be inclined to press the new clause to a vote, but I do not think that we have the numbers. As usual, we can do the maths in Committee. None the less, we would like something stronger from the Minister before Report, because we may have to return to the matter; if it is not dealt with promptly, we will not be able to solve the problem at all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 29 - Strategic environmental assessment

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 130, in

clause 5, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

'( ) carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the proposals in the draft;'.

Amendment No. 133, in

clause 5, page 3, line 38, after first 'the', insert

'Strategic Environmental Assessment and of the'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I shall try to be brief on the new clause and amendments, which relate to an area that we covered in the original Committee in January. They would require the Government to make the planning system compliant with the strategic environmental assessment directive by July 2004. New clause 29 would ensure that all plans, from local development documents to regional spatial strategies, were subject to strategic environmental assessments.

When we debated that in January, the then planning Minister, now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said:

''The draft guidance is structured to enable authorities to comply with the directive within the context of the broader sustainability appraisal framework. There may be things in our framework that go well beyond what is in the directive and enhance it . . . I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 9 January 2003; c. 23.]

I should like to know from the Minister for Housing and Planning whether that consultation has ended and what its outcome has been, because we are running out of time. We are talking about next July. When we were in Committee last January we had 18 months to go, so the assurances from the Minister of the time carried some weight. We are now halfway through that 18 months, and I have tabled the new clause and amendments to tease out from this Minister what progress has been made, and whether he is satisfied that the Government will meet the needs of the strategic environmental assessment directive by next July.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I, too, shall attempt to be brief in my reply. We do not need the new clause or the amendments because under the terms of the Bill, local development documents and revisions of regional spatial strategies will be subject to European directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, which is known as the strategic environmental assessment, or SEA, directive. The consultation has now been completed and guidance for planning authorities on the SEA directive will be published next week. Draft regulations will appear in December. It seems to me that that was what the hon. Gentleman was seeking to tease out. I hope that I have given him the answer, and with that I can sit down and invite him to withdraw the new clause.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the Minister for that. This is another situation in which the response to the consultation and the draft guidance is just about to be published. There would be far less need for new clauses and amendments if they had been published a few

weeks ago, but with the Minister's assurances that we shall have compliance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30 - Access for disabled people

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 132, in

clause 5, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

'(c) Include details of the steps to be taken to meet the access needs of disabled people.'.

Amendment No. 147, in

clause 10, page 6, line 24, at end add—

'(j) the steps to be taken by the RPB to ensure the draft revision and appraisal under section 5 furthers the social inclusion/access needs of disabled people.'.

Amendment No. 173, in

clause 56, page 40, line 40, at end insert—

'(c) The authority's policies for meeting the access needs of disabled people'.

Amendment No. 148, in

clause 14, page 8, line 25, at end insert—

'(ff) how it will meet the access needs of disabled people.'.

Amendment No. 172, in

clause 54, page 39, line 33, at end insert

'including how the Plan will meet the access needs of disabled people'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The new clause and group of amendments would give planning authorities a statutory duty to have special regard to the needs of disabled people when considering planning applications. There is a Government manifesto commitment to revise section 76 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to do exactly that. The new clause and the amendments, many of which are supported by Conservative Members, have been tabled by a coalition consisting of the Disability Rights Commission, Radar, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, and the joint mobility unit at the RNIB and the Town and Country Planning Association, which

has given us the wording, and the briefing behind it. I hope that the Government will leap at the opportunity to meet their own manifesto commitment.

New clause 30 requires developers to submit an access statement with their planning application demonstrating how their scheme will be accessible and exclusive, and gives the planning authorities a statutory duty to have special regard to the needs of disabled people when considering planning applications. Amendment No. 132 requires regional spatial strategies to include details of how they will meet the access needs of disabled people.

Amendment. No. 147 would ensure that the regulations made provision for the steps to be taken by the regional planning body to ensure that the draft provision and appraisal under section 5 furthered the social inclusion and access needs of disabled people. Amendment. No. 173 requires local development plans in Wales to include details of how they will meet the access needs of disabled people. Amendment. No 148 requires local development schemes to specify how they will meet the access needs of disabled people, and amendment No. 172 requires the Welsh spatial plan to include details of the policies of the National Assembly for Wales for meeting the access needs of disabled people.

I could speak at length on this subject, not least because I have been provided with an extensive briefing. I hope that the Minister will accept the thrust of it, and I shall not have to quote the reasons why she should accept it. Not wanting to detain the Committee so that we can move on, and—I hope—get the Government's acceptance, I shall leave it at that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We, too, considered the question of access for disabled people. We tabled many amendments similar to those of the hon. Gentleman, but he got there first, so his amendments were selected. In principle, in the plan-making process, it is absolutely right that there should be full consideration of access for disabled people, which we wholeheartedly support. Every planning applicant should be expected at least to consider this matter. However, I have a slight concern that if we go completely over the top, we could involve the country in a huge cost that is not required. I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. To require every house in a housing estate development to provide access to disabled people would clearly be an unnecessary use of resources, but requiring a proportion of those houses to provide such access might be reasonable. We need to keep a sense of proportion and strike a balance in dealing with this subject. Having said that, I am hugely sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's amendments. I hope that the Government will also be sympathetic to them and that they will honour their manifesto commitments.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall not repeat the purpose and effect of the new clause and amendments, which have already been set out by hon. Members, but I should say that I have considerable sympathy for the intentions behind them. I met representatives of the DRC and

other groups to discuss the issue. They cited as an example of the problem that concerned them the London Mayor's building, which was designed throughout to be accessible to wheelchairs, and to promote pedestrian access and sustainable development over car use. They pointed out that, perversely, it is actually very difficult to get to by car if one is disabled. They argued that issues relating to access and disability should therefore be considered at the beginning of the planning process rather than at the end. I must say that I find their arguments very persuasive.

I will set out how we are seeking to respond to these concerns. New clause 30 seeks to include in the Bill a requirement for access statements for all sorts of planning permission, but clause 41 already introduces new powers to make an order. The order can specify the form and the manner in which a planning application must be made, what must be included in an application, and the documents and other material that must accompany it. Those powers are intended to introduce the standard application form for all local planning authorities.

Before making any prescription, we obviously want to seek stakeholders' views on the forms as part of our proposed consultation, which is due around the turn of the year. I must not prejudge that consultation, but a strong case has been made for including an access statement as one of the documents that would accompany the form in appropriate cases. Such an access statement would be a way of ensuring that developers are aware of disability issues at the beginning, rather than the end, of the process. This statement is probably a more appropriate way of achieving access than including the requirement in the Bill, because it allows for greater flexibility to respond to new issues that arise over time, which is exactly how we deal with much of the work within the planning framework.

Amendments Nos. 132, 173, 148 and 172 require regional spatial strategies, local development schemes, local development plans in Wales and the Wales spatial plan to include details of how they will meet the access needs of disabled people.

However, clause 38 already places a statutory requirement on those responsible for preparing the regional spatial strategies, the local development documents and local development plans to undertake these functions with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. This will be defined in PPS1—planning policy statement 1—which we hope to issue in draft for consultation very shortly.

PPS1 will set out four objectives for sustainable development: economic development, social inclusion, protection of the environment and prudent use of resources. It will refer explicitly to issues relating to meeting the needs of those with disabilities, and will make it clear that planning authorities should consider how their plans address the four objectives for sustainable development, which should include social inclusion. They should also seek to develop policies to optimise outcomes that deliver across all those objectives.

PPS1 will also make it clear that the impact of development on the social fabric of communities will be taken into account. Factors such as the provision of social facilities, public space, accessibility and diversity will all need to be considered. As I have said, that will include taking into account access issues and the needs of disabled people and other groups such as black and minority ethnic groups and other disadvantaged groups. I have a personal interest in ensuring that social inclusion also means access for pushchairs, given the number of shops, railway stations and other buildings where manoeuvring a pushchair can be difficult.

Regional spatial strategies and local development documents need to reflect the aims of sustainable development, including access and inclusion. Local authorities will determine applications in line with the development plan, so policies for sustainable development will set the framework for decisions on planning applications. The recently published consultation drafts of PPS11 and PPS12 set out how sustainable development considerations can be addressed in regional and local plans.

Amendment No. 147 would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the steps to be taken by the regional planning body to ensure that the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy and the accompanying sustainability appraisal would further the social inclusion and access needs of disabled people.

Clauses 5(4) and 18(5) would already require a sustainability appraisal of the proposals in a plan, at the preparation stage. The appraisal is intended to test the performance of a plan against the objectives of sustainable development as set out in PPS1, and to provide a basis for improvement. In the light of that, the sustainability appraisal will need to take account of any consequences for disabled people's access.

Many of the issues encompassed by the amendments are already included in existing proposals. I am thinking of PPS1 in particular, but also PPS11 and PPS12, which set out issues relating to access to documents and processes.

It is our clear intention that people with disabilities should have an early opportunity to influence the content of regional spatial strategy and local development documents. In addition, the recently published draft regulations, to be made under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, make it clear that regional planning

bodies and local planning authorities will be required formally to consult certain bodies, including those that represent people with disabilities.

We intend, through clause 38 in particular, to ensure that the planning process is inclusive and that at every stage account is taken of the needs of people with disabilities. I recognise the concerns of hon. Members, the Disability Rights Commission and other disabilities groups. The approach to the planning framework has always been to put the outline in legislation, while many of the most important issues are dealt with in the planning policy guidance and planning policy statements, or other guidance and regulations, so that there is flexibility to respond to new concerns. For example, issues relating to renewable energy, planning out crime, design, brownfield rather than greenfield sites, and retail development are set out in guidance rather than in legislation. Green belt policy itself is in PPG2. Yet all those issues are powerfully taken into account in the planning process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister will be aware that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 brought the Disability Rights Commission into being, and that provisions under that Act are about to come into force so that for all public buildings there will be a requirement if not to provide access, at least to give consideration to access for all disabled people by a specified time; I think that the time available is fairly short. That clearly impinges on new planning applications, and I find it slightly odd that the Bill will not specify anything about new planning applications and disabled people's access to buildings, but that everything is to be done in regulations.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. First, as I have already said, one of our intentions with regard to the access statements is to establish early awareness of the issues, and particularly of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I am sympathetic on this issue. Important points have been raised. I want to ensure that disability issues are dealt with in practice throughout the process. The approach has always been that many issues are dealt with in planning policy statements, and so on, so we should explore that approach first. However, I am keen to consider the matter further.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee A

Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), it is convenient for me to say that I understand that it is the Committee's intention to continue until about 7 pm tonight. Given that, Members should try to adjourn before any Division is called on the Floor of the House, or I may be in difficulty and we may have to come back. I tell the Committee that as a note of friendly guidance.

The second point is that it is my intention to suspend the Committee for about 20 minutes for a break at a convenient point at about half-past 4. In other words, when someone finishes speaking around that time, I shall call a break.

New Clause 30 - Access for disabled people

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:

No. 132, in

clause 5, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

'(c) Include details of the steps to be taken to meet the access needs of disabled people.'.

No. 147, in

clause 10, page 6, line 24, at end add—

'(j) the steps to be taken by the RPB to ensure the draft revision and appraisal under section 5 furthers the social inclusion/access needs of disabled people.'.

No. 173, in

clause 56, page 40, line 40, at end insert—

'(c) The authority's policies for meeting the access needs of disabled people'.

No. 148, in

clause 14, page 8, line 25, at end insert—

'(ff) how it will meet the access needs of disabled people.'.

No. 172, in

clause 54, page 39, line 33, at end insert

'including how the Plan will meet the access needs of disabled people'.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As I was saying earlier, may I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the new clause?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I found the Minister's response disappointing. In dealing with the five amendments rather than the new clause, she once again said, ''Ah, but we're just about to produce some draft regulations or''—in this case—''some draft guidance.'' We had that back in January: every time we tabled amendments, we were told that the issues were about to be dealt with in draft guidance and regulations, and we have had a regular spate of such assurances all over again. It does not help the Committee to be told that such things are about to appear next week. That does not endear the Government to those in opposition—not that they set out to do that.

However, I am more concerned with new clause 30, which I am tempted to push to a Division. Four years ago, the Government's own disability rights taskforce recommended:

''The Government should consider the future roles of Section 76 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires planning authorities to alert developers to disability access requirements, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. Developers should be alerted to disability access legislation at the earliest opportunity in the planning process''.

The Government's response in ''Towards Inclusion'' in 2001, after another two years had elapsed, was:

''We agree with the Task Force and will review Section 76 when a suitable opportunity arises''.

In 2001, the Labour manifesto committed the Government to implementing basic rights for disabled people and the recommendations of the taskforce to which they had signed up. Time is now running out for the Government to implement their commitment.

Although new clause 30 is not exactly what the Government had in mind, it is pretty much the essence of what they have said they support. The argument that the problem can be dealt with purely through regulation and guidance does not quite cut the mustard, so I am fully minded to push the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

New Clause 31 - Enforcement of planning controls

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is backed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and, I believe, the Conservatives. It aims to improve the effectiveness of, and therefore public confidence in, local planning by placing local authorities under a statutory duty to enforce planning decisions and to remedy breaches of planning control.

Enforcement is the basis of quality control in the planning system, and proper enforcement is crucial to the credibility of planning. Its neglect undermines public confidence in the whole planning system and may result in significant harm to the environment and to people's quality of life, yet enforcement action is in steady decline and is at its lowest level since records began. The explanation for that does not appear to be a reduction in breaches of planning control but, rather, a retreat from action by local authorities.

Possible reasons for that spiral of decline are: the complexity of the system; the perverse incentives that make planning breaches financially worthwhile for offenders; an imbalance in the system that favours those who breach controls and that leaves local authorities vulnerable to compensation claims; a lack of local authority resources, especially in small, rural district councils, which often have a disproportionately high burden of planning enforcement; and the extensive opportunities for offenders to evade and delay enforcement, thus draining local authority resources.

Other possible reasons are the deterrent effect on local authorities of all those problems, particularly those affecting resources, and the fact that local authorities have the discretion not to take action. Local authorities often give more weight to the reasons against taking action, and choose not to do so, because there is no duty to enforce and because they understandably perceive their primary responsibility to be the provision of that which they have a statutory duty to provide.

Enforcement is commonly underfunded and many authorities fail adequately to monitor conditions that have been placed on planning permissions. Even when the most flagrant breaches of planning control are reported, members of the public can neither require that action be taken nor be confident that the breach will be remedied.

One local authority—I wish I knew which—apparently told a complainant that it does not carry out any enforcement. Ministers may be surprised by that, as am I, but local authorities can say that because there is no such statutory duty on them. I could give many examples of when there should have been enforcement but there was none, as I am sure other members of the Committee could. To make progress, however, I shall not list such examples from my constituency.

I hope that the Minister will seriously consider placing a statutory duty on local authorities to enforce. The glory of that would be that another Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would presumably have to find the money for the planning departments to fund it. Given that we have laws, one expects them to be enforced and that people will be given the funds to do so.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It is nice to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Pike.

As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the Opposition basically support the new clause. We believe that there is a real problem of enforcement and that far too many retrospective planning applications seem to be granted automatically. The problem is that the system favours those who proceed with a development without obtaining the proper planning permission. Once a development has gone ahead, it is very easy to manipulate the system in the developer's favour.

It might be worth citing the seven or so reasons given by the CPRE for such lack of enforcement. It refers to

''the complexity of the system; perverse incentives which make planning breaches financially worthwhile for offenders; a bias in the system which favours abusers and leaves local authorities vulnerable to compensation claims; a lack of local authority resources; extensive opportunities for offenders to evade and delay enforcement, draining local authority resources; the deterrent effect on local authorities of all of the above; and local authorities' discretion not to take enforcement action.''

Ministers and other members of the Committee who have dealt with the planning system will know what happens in practice when a developer, or even someone who does not wilfully want to flout the planning rules, goes ahead with a development. As the hon. Member for Ludlow says, many unauthorised developments never even get as far as incurring an enforcement notice, but even if the local authority does serve an enforcement notice the person having carried out the unauthorised development will appeal against it, which probably adds at least another six months' delay to the process. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the person will seek a judicial review, which probably adds yet another year. Meanwhile, it gets more and more difficult for the local authority to enforce against something that has already been there for a year and a half or for two years. There is a need for a new clause like this. It would place further strain on the planning authorities' already scarce resources, which the Government will have to address, but if a law is being widely flouted something needs to be done about it, otherwise it falls into disrepute.

I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the new clause, but if they are not I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow pushes the matter further.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I entirely endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who systematically listed the reasons why councils find it difficult to do the right thing in taking enforcement action when they know that they should do so. I also endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow when he said that rural district councils have a particular problem with this. I cite the example of one of my local authorities—Rochford district council in Essex—which, to its credit, attempts to take a robust attitude to enforcement. Like many other rural district councils, however, it is stretched when it tries to do so, as my hon. Friend says. It does not have especially large numbers of planning staff and it is not especially well off. It is trying to do the right thing, but that puts its small planning and enforcement team under particular pressure.

If Ministers want to avoid the situation in which too many councils go down the path of least resistance, the Bill presents a good opportunity to put right a problem in the system that has been there for several years. I urge them not to allow the problem to drift further. I hope that they are minded to accept the new clause today. If, for any reason, they are not so minded, perhaps they might reconsider the issue in the not too distant future.

This has been a problem for a long time. Many councils are attempting to do the right thing, but the system is weighted so heavily against them that it is very difficult for them to do so. If Ministers exist to put right such problems, this is an excellent opportunity for them to do so.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

There is a series of problems with new clause 31. I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Gentlemen about enforcement, but the new clause could be interpreted in a way that implied that local planning authorities had a duty to take enforcement action in every case that involved a breach of planning control. That would effectively remove all discretion from local planning authorities, yet discretion is an important part of the enforcement system.

The fact that the enforcement powers of local planning authorities are currently discretionary was considered as part of our review of planning enforcement arrangements. We hope to announce the outcome of that public consultation later in the year. Local authorities have primary responsibility for taking whatever action may be necessary in the public interest. That provides them with the flexibility to tailor their approach to each case so that it fits the nature and circumstances of the alleged breach of planning control. Local authorities have been issued with policy and procedural guidance to assist them to undertake effective enforcement, and they have a range of powers at their disposal.

Minor breaches can often be remedied without the need for formal enforcement action. Such breaches often arise out of a genuine misunderstanding of the planning position, or a mistaken belief that planning permission was not required for a particular development. It is important that a balance can be struck between situations where a development, though unauthorised, is not causing particular harm, and those where enforcement action is essential in order to remedy more serious breaches of control—ones that unacceptably affect public amenity or the use of land, when it is clearly in the public interest for enforcement action to be taken.

If planning permission would have been granted unconditionally had an application been made, the better approach might be to invite the submission of a retrospective application rather than requiring local authorities to enforce every case, even when it would not be appropriate.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister is pointing out some of the problems with the new clause. Does she not agree that we have problems with a lack of enforcement now? If so, how else would she propose solving them?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Many of the concerns expressed about enforcement were discussed as part of the enforcement review that I mentioned earlier.

Local authorities have discretion and are able to make a proportionate response. However, we need also to consider the role of democratically elected councillors. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Ludlow said about a local authority not doing enforcement. Like him, I would be interested to know which local authority it was, but I would also be interested in the view of local councillors. They are accountable to the local community, and I suspect that many of them would have a lot to say if they thought that the local authority was doing no enforcement. It is appropriate for the community to demand action through their local councillors on appropriate enforcement levels in their area.

Local planning authorities need to consider taking enforcement action to ensure compliance with planning controls in their area. Complaints about alleged breaches of control should be recorded and investigated. If a local authority, having considered the circumstances of an alleged breach, has decided that enforcement action is unnecessary, it should be prepared to explain and justify its decision to the local community and to its elected councillors. Failure to take enforcement action that is plainly necessary could result in a finding of maladministration by the local government ombudsman. It might even be the subject of judicial review. A duty to take action in all cases, as the amendment seems to imply, would remove the freedom of local authorities to exercise judgment, a freedom that is appropriately exercised by the democratically elected local council in this case.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I have listened carefully to the Minister. She is making much of the fact that councillors have discretion and can therefore exercise their judgment. I understand her point. However, it works two ways. When councillors seek to undertake enforcement action, they have to look at the resources that are available to them and at the amount of officer time and the potential cost to the council tax payer that will be involved. As the law stands, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has clearly laid out, it often takes up to two years to bring a successful enforcement action. The cop-out is to go for retrospective planning approval. Everybody involved in the system knows that. I remind the Minister that discretion works both ways: if she wants local councillors and their officers to do the right thing, they need help.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is asking us either to impose another statutory duty on local authorities or to provide them with ring-fenced resources. The approach that we have taken has been to give local authorities greater freedoms and flexibilities. It is right for them to be able to take more decisions about how to use their resources. We have also substantially increased the resources available to them, again so that they can decide the priorities in their areas. We are right to do that, rather than continually imposing priorities on them from the centre. What the hon. Gentleman is asking for is not necessarily right—these should be matters for local councillors.

We recognise that there are concerns about enforcement and have been considering them as part of the enforcement review. We held consultation that finished, at the beginning of this year, with 500 responses. A working group that includes people from local authorities with expertise in the field has been considering the matter in detail. Among the issues that have been raised are resources, the role of the courts in the enforcement process, retrospective planning permission and time limits for taking enforcement action. We intend to publish a response to the enforcement review before the end of the year. We shall discuss the issues further under clause 52, so I shall not say anything further at this stage. I do not think that the approach in new clause 31 resolves the problem, so I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the new clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

With great respect, the Minister is doing a great job but, on this occasion, her reply is unsatisfactory. We all know, particularly those of us who represent smaller, cash-strapped local planning authorities, how difficult it is for them to undertake enforcement. That is much easier in a larger, urban authority where development takes place in a much smaller area. In a constituency such as mine—60 miles long by 45 miles wide, with 120 villages and 11 market towns—it is exceedingly difficult, even if the local planning authority knows that there has been a breach of the planning regulations, for its officers to get round to find out what stage a person has reached in breaking the law and whether it is capable of enforcement.

The Minister is being slightly unrealistic about the issue. She made it clear in her opening remarks that enforcement is a discretionary matter for local authorities. We all know those small cash-strapped local authorities. When anything is discretionary, it almost becomes impossible when they are trying to eke out each penny. They have to deal with the statutory matters first, and discretionary matters come second. That is a weakness in the system. I am all for regulating with a light touch; that is exactly what we ought to be doing. In a perfect world, there would be no need for the new clause, as everybody would obey the law absolutely. However, that is not happening.

The Minister went on to make the point that where planning permission would otherwise be granted as a matter of course, it would be unnecessary to take enforcement action. I would say that it is necessary to take enforcement action, because if action is not taken in one case, others will do exactly the same. Such an attitude encourages a breach of the law.

Another point that the Minister relied on was the issue of retrospective applications. I do not know about her local authority, but in mine nearly all the retrospective applications go through. That is because the officers know very well that if a retrospective application is made and they are using staff to carry out the enforcement procedure, that will, for the very reasons that I have made clear, be expensive and difficult; they are already trying to deal with a host of new applications, let alone retrospective ones. Many of those retrospective applications should not go through and, if someone has broken the law, I would take that line as a matter of course. That would encourage people to make a proper application in the first place.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I can tell the hon. Gentleman the facts about retrospective planning permission across the country. Retrospective applications make up just over 3 per cent. of the total number of applications processed. The success rate for retrospective applications is slightly lower at 85 per cent. than that of 88 per cent. for applications submitted before the development has taken place. For major developments, the success rate drops still further to 76 per cent. for retrospective applications. It is not true that retrospective applications are more likely than prior applications to gain planning permission. It is certainly not true that all retrospective planning permissions are accepted.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before the hon. Member for Cotswold replies, I inform him that we will be discussing retrospective planning applications under new clause 52, so will he please keep his comments brief and relate them to this particular new clause?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Thank you, Mr. Pike, for that guidance. It is helpful that we will be coming back to the subject. My only reply to the Minister's figures is that an 85 per cent. success rate for something that is otherwise unlawful seems to me to be a very high percentage.

The Minister also relied on an argument about increased resources for the planning authorities to deal with such problems. We have not got on to the issue of resources, and I might be ruled out of order if we do, but I suspect that a vast quantity of increased resources are not going to the local planning authorities but to the regional planning authorities. We will discuss that another day.

I am not surprised that the Minister has received so many replies to her consultation on enforcement. I hope that those will be taken seriously. I would like to have seen, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow would have too, a little more commitment from the Minister today. If we could have that commitment now, we would not need to press the matter to a vote. I ask the Minister to consider making a commitment that if the responses are such that further action needs to be taken, the Government will not hesitate to do so. I invite the Minister to come back to what I have said.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. The issue is one of particular interest in my constituency, which is why I have come back for a second bite of the cherry. Small rural district councils face real challenges with regard to such matters. I heard the Minister's comments about the conclusions of the review on enforcement being made available before the end of the year. I am sure that we all welcome that. Given the amount of time that it has already taken for the Bill to be re-committed, it would have been nice if the information had been made available to us in October so that we could have had it at our disposal for the purposes of today's debate.

The people who are under pressure are attempting to do the right thing. They are often up against people who are flouting the law, who understand the law in great detail and know precisely what they are doing. We have a small, thin—blue, red, yellow, or any colour one might want to give it—line of enforcement officers who are doing their best to uphold the law. If any were here now and permitted to speak, I am sure that they would personally appeal to the Minister for action as a result of the review. On their behalf, I encourage Ministers to take concrete action following the review—perhaps even to finding a way of working something into the Bill, if they have an idea of the likely outcome of the review. The issue is very important in parts of the country.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Before the hon. Member for Ludlow winds up, perhaps I may respond. If our conclusion as part of the enforcement review is that we need to take further action, we shall clearly do so. It is worth pointing out that the enforcement review is likely to report before the Bill's ultimate passage through another place, so it will be possible to consider the matters further. At this stage we do not anticipate further legislative measures; otherwise we should have presented them in Committee.

As for whether local planning authorities are attempting to do the right thing, they have the powers to do the right thing. They already have the power to

take enforcement action. Effectively, the Government are being asked to force local councillors to do what they argue they want to do in the first place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

May I try to explain one more time? I should love the Minister to come to talk to the planning officers in my constituency, because about 90 per cent. of my constituency is designated in one way or another; there is no place more affected than the Cotswolds. The officers are working flat out dealing with new applications, and they have time to take retrospective action only on the most flagrant breaches of planning control, which means that there is a whole raft of cases that they cannot enforce.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Those planning officers must make their case to the local democratically elected councillors in the area for the allocation of resources. It is not for me as the Minister to overrule the councillors because their planning officers have asked for something. The decision needs to be taken by the local authorities.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is asking for more ring-fenced resources for the planning authorities in question, but we have substantially increased resources for local authorities. I am resisting making political points and comparing the allocation of resources to local authorities by the present Government and by previous Governments. However, not only have we given local authorities more resources, we are also promoting greater flexibility for them to decide how to allocate them. The decision is for them to take, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to force their hand on the issue if the planning officers cannot make a strong enough case to the councillors who must decide on the budget allocation.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

We are not here to debate council tax, and you would rightly call us to order if we began to do that, Mr. Pike. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has pointed out, in the real world, when councils are under financial pressure, as so many of them are, the statutory responsibilities take priority and often the discretionary services at the margin suffer. Councils must prioritise, like everyone else.

What we are talking about is a classic example of one of the services at the margin that tends to suffer when other, statutory, services come first, including the need to deal with regular planning applications in the time scales of which we are all aware. The people who are attempting to defend the areas in question are very pushed, and need more help. We are being persistent because this is a genuine problem, and the people involved need assistance. I make no apology for the fact that we keep coming back at the Minister on this question, because we know how real the problem is.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I must point out that Opposition Members' stance is not logical or consistent with other things that their party is calling for. They are asking

for further restriction of local authorities' discretion in decision making and in funding allocation. My experience of discussions with Conservative-led councils is that they, like Labour-led ones, often want more discretion over the way in which they use their resources. They would find it rather perverse to hear their Front-Bench spokespeople arguing for local councils to have less discretion in the way in which they allocate funds.

The second aspect implicit in what they are calling for is more ring-fenced resources. I wonder where they think that such resources will come from, given that their party is so keen to cut the resources allocated to many public services.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

For the first time the Minister is getting us into real politics. We know very well that the increased resources that the Government provide for planning go straight to the regions, not to local planning authorities. If local authorities had sufficient resources, there would not be a problem with enforcement. It is not a question of the resources being ring-fenced; councils do not have sufficient resources for planning, full stop. My authority does not have enough, and I am sure that other hon. Members could say the same. Councils cannot undertake enforcement on a discretionary basis. We want to legislate with a light touch, and we are in favour of discretion; if that were enshrined in the Bill, the Government would have to provide the resources. If they were to stop giving resources to the regions and put them back into the local authorities, we would take the new clause away like a shot.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Let us not go too wide; we must keep to new clause 31.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Let me conclude, then, Mr. Pike, by pointing out again to the hon. Member for Cotswold the contradictions in his position. He asks for the statutory duty to be imposed to force the Government to provide more resources. I ask him again: where does he want the additional resources to come from?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Take them away from the regions.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We are already providing substantially more resources to local authorities than were provided by previous Governments, and the hon. Gentleman's party wants to reduce the resources provided for public services across the board. I do not see how he manages to make his sums add up.

Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman one last time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister is grossly misrepresenting my position. A large percentage of the additional resources that the Government are putting into planning is for setting up the new regional planning boards and bodies, regional spatial strategies and so on. I want to see that money redirected to local people who know what should be going on in their areas, not given to regions 200 miles away.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman's point is not right. We are providing substantial increases in resources for local authorities across the board, for them to use in whatever way they see fit. This is not simply about planning, it is about the resources going to local authorities so that they can choose their most important priorities, as local democratically elected councils should be able to. We should not continually try to pre-empt the decisions of local councillors; they should have discretion. We recognise that there are concerns about enforcement, and that the question of resources has been raised, and it is our intention to publish a response to the enforcement review before the end of the year. It is easy, whichever individual issue comes up, for hon. Members to try to encroach on the decision-making powers of local authorities. We should respect those authorities and give them the discretion to make decisions on such matters.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I shall try to avoid going down a similar, political, route. It is dangerous for the Minister to point out that the Conservative position may be full of contradictions. Probably all our positions are full of contradictions, but there are plenty of contradictions where she is coming from. People in glass houses should not throw stones. For instance, the Minister would not expect a local council to decide that enforcement was more important than getting its planning applications in within the statutory time limit laid down by the Government. A local authority that decided that enforcement was more of a problem in its area than the speed at which it dealt with planning applications, and diverted resources from one to the other, would, as a consequence, fail to meet its statutory obligations. The Government accept that there should be statutory rules on speed but not on enforcement, so there is a contradiction in their position, just as there are contradictions in all our positions. We need to be careful about that.

Now I want to talk about the scale of the problem, especially in small rural districts. I have probably bored the Committee about this before, but my constituency is the size of greater London, yet contains only 63,000 adults. Two thirds of the constituency—two thirds the size of London—contains only 32,000 adults, and is covered by South Shropshire district council, which receives planning applications at a rate four times the national average. For a population of 32,000, the council has a tiny planning budget, out of a total budget of, I believe, £2 million. Its resources are tiny. I believe that there should be a unitary Shropshire, as the present council has reached the point of unsustainability, but it still exists, because Ministers will not allow us a unitary Shropshire.

If the council receives four times the national average rate of planning applications, I am fairly certain that its enforcement should run at a similar rate. A few years ago it was such a small authority that it had no enforcement capability at all, but the councillors forced a review of their planning area and installed two enforcement officers, so the council now has an enforcement capability. One of the officers is especially zealous—I am tempted to say over-zealous at times. To give Members an idea of the scale, £20,000 is a 1 per cent. rise in council tax in South Shropshire. A few years ago, the district council introduced a council tax rise of several per cent. just to pay for the enforcement officers.

only a few years ago, just to raise £20,000 to pay for the enforcement officers, South Shropshire district council introduced a 1 per cent. rise in council tax. Having enforcement officers is not a statutory duty; the council chose to have them.

As the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire said, council tax has reached the limits of acceptability—I believe that that was his phrase. It is beyond small rural councils to say, ''Well, it's our choice. Let's stick the council tax up a bit more,'' to ensure that they can carry out the enforcement. The problem is purely about resources. In fact, South Shropshire district council is diligent about pursuing enforcement; the other authority in my constituency, Bridgnorth, probably does not pursue enforcement as well as South Shropshire does. That gives the Committee some idea of the scale of the financial problems that small rural councils face.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

The Minister mentioned a set of statistics that purport that the results of retrospective planning applications are broadly on a par with those of other planning applications. Surely, however, retrospective applications are overwhelmingly concentrated in the relatively small number of rural district areas, in which case, in net terms, the bulk of them are concentrated in the areas with the least financial resources to deal with them?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Indeed, I caution the Minister against quoting those figures, because of the high percentage of planning applications that are withdrawn before they reach the committee because they have been recommended for refusal. Many applications that would otherwise have been submitted are pulled. Clearly, that will not happen with a retrospective application, as applicants have no choice about obtaining planning permission, so the positions are the same.

Unfortunately, the Minister has failed to convince the Opposition that the Government are sufficiently abreast of the problem, probably as it is particular to a relatively small number of local authorities, and is a much greater problem to them than it is for many other authorities. That may be why the problem does not appear to be as significant to the Government as it does to other hon. Members. I am therefore minded to press the matter to a vote. Until council tax is scrapped and we have a fairer system—I am sure that the Government will reach that position eventually—local government will not have the flexibility to decide to choose to perform non-statutory duties. As we have already heard, most of those non-statutory duties are being wound back because councils can no longer bear to ask pensioners for extra money through the council tax. I shall therefore press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

New Clause 32 - Regulations to control light pollution

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee will be pleased to know that this is the last time that I shall start a debate—

Terry Rooney (Labour, Bradford North)

That is the first time that he has been right all day.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am grateful for the information provided by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The new clause aims to make lighting subject to planning control by providing for enabling regulations to be made.

The CPRE offered a long new clause that would have gone into great detail. I decided that that would give Ministers too much opportunity to tell us that it would not work. The clause therefore simply gives Ministers the ability to make regulations to

''make provision for restricting or regulating the use of external lighting so far as appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety.''

The matter is now in Ministers' hands. How could they possibly refuse another power? They normally like accruing power, and I would be surprised if they did not accept this one.

The problem is that light cannot be classed as development, and is therefore not subject to planning controls. In some cases, however, it can be a problem. When excessive light is beamed upwards it can cause light pollution, which has a damaging effect on the environment, particularly if it is on all night. It is not physically damaging, but it affects our view of the sky. When we drive at night in rural areas, we realise that we can see an orange glow in the sky from nearby urban areas. It spoils the view of the stars and the sky. In a sense, it pushes the urban area out into the countryside.

Other problems that affect neighbours and surrounding areas are lights that are too powerful, floodlights that light too big an area, lights that stay on for an excessive time, and floodlights that light buildings excessively. There are clearly issues of public safety, and we do not want unlit areas to be dangerous and perhaps encourage crime. However, I am sure that all hon. Members can think of areas in their constituencies where there is too much light, or the light is inappropriate.

As I said, I leave it entirely to Ministers to decide whether they want a light or a heavy touch—or indeed, whether they want to make regulations at all. The new clause would not mean that they had to do so. It is an enabling new clause, which would allow them to deal with the problem later, should they wish to do so, and as such, I struggle to see how Ministers can refuse it.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Much as the hon. Member for Ludlow would like to tempt me to take new powers, I shall resist. However, the new clause addresses a genuine issue: the concern that in too many places, external lighting increasingly prevents people from seeing the stars.

The adverse effect of some external lighting is well known. In the past, a lot of street lighting was provided by low-pressure sodium lighting units, which often lead to orange sky glow. Newer technologies, particularly high-pressure sodium lighting units, allow much finer control of light distribution and reduce the amount of light directed towards the sky.

The Government are sensitive to these issues. In 1997 we issued a document entitled, ''Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice'', which is available on our website. It demonstrates what can be done to lessen the adverse effects of external lighting, including street lighting and security lighting. The Department for Transport has published advice on good street lighting practice to reduce sky glow and light pollution generally, as has the Institution of Lighting Engineers. The institution has also published advice on security lighting.

The hon. Member for Ludlow specifically mentioned nuisance lighting, which I agree is at issue. Last year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued a consultation paper entitled, ''Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities''. One issue addressed in that paper is nuisance from domestic security lights. Opinions were sought on whether the Government should extend the statutory nuisance regime to include security lighting, which we are considering.

The paper also questioned whether the guidance in the document ''Lighting in the Countryside'' should be updated. We are considering that question. On 6 October 2003, the Select Committee on Science and Technology published a report on light pollution and astronomy, which the Government are considering. We will consider whether any additional guidance on light pollution is needed, and will also consider any recommendations that emerge from the consultation exercise and from the Science and Technology

Committee's report. It is worth recognising the fact that the Committee did not recommend a planning solution.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am glad that the Minister mentioned the Select Committee. It recommended making obtrusive light a statutory nuisance, thus enabling local council environmental health officers to take legal action against serious neighbourhood light polluters. Unfortunately, there may not be time for the Minister to perform another miracle under the Anti-social Behaviour Bill.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman is right. That issue, which can be separated from that of orange sky glow, needs attention. The Government are considering nuisance lighting, and the relevant legislation issues, as part of the consultation led by the DEFRA. However, it is important to note that the Science and Technology Committee did not recommend a broad planning solution to the problem.

It is difficult to design a feasible means of assessing external light for statutory planning control purposes. Any legislation would have to be practically enforceable. That would require the ability to make assessments that are sufficiently robust and clear to survive argument in the courts, where cases may end up. We must also recognise that the main source of orange glow is street and highway lighting, which are being addressed in other ways. The planning system would not provide the best solution.

Given those practical difficulties, the issue is probably best dealt with not through the Bill or the new clause, but by considering the guidance issues, the response to the Science and Technology Committee's report and the consultation on nuisance lighting led by DEFRA. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Having listened carefully to the Minister, I would like to make two comments about two different examples of the problem, the first of which concerns security lighting. There is a house in my constituency that is slightly set back from the public highway and footpath. However, if one passes it on the public footpath, the security light goes on. That is clearly a nuisance to neighbours—and to the pedestrian who is going about his lawful walking business. It is not unreasonable for the planning system to insist that although security lighting is welcomed, it should be within the curtilage of a property, rather being allowed to expand beyond it. Perhaps my constituent who is the owner of that property has deliberately made that arrangement to provide a certain security when he parks his car in front of his house. That is only a thought, but that example shows how the planning regulations could be reasonably and practically used.

The second situation, which has not been touched on, is where, for example, school playing fields or other school grounds are surrounded by houses. The benefit to those in the houses is that they have a nice stretch of green field behind them, but the disadvantage is that if someone suddenly decides to put down an all-weather hockey or football pitch, tennis courts, or whatever,

people can use those at all times of the day and night. It seems to me perfectly legitimate for the planning authority not only to decide whether an all-weather pitch should be permitted, but to control when floodlights can used for the purposes of participating in a sport—but can the Minister confirm that, perhaps in a letter? I am sure the local planning authority can insist on restricting the hours of use, so that even though lights are necessarily used in the evening, they need not be on at the dead of night. That is another example of when the planning system could be used practically to deal with a problem.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I shall follow on from the hon. Gentleman's comments about how the existing planning system could be used, which were most helpful. There is another example in my constituency, in which the residents complained about the light from a car sales area attached to a showroom. In that case there was a large parking area with columns tens of feet high that spread the light over an enormous area. The planning authority eventually enforced its initial condition that those lighting columns be much lower, so the spread of light and the disruption to residents was controlled. That is another example of how the current planning system can be used positively to try to control what can be a considerable public nuisance.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall try respond to the points that hon. Members have made. We recognise that the nuisance caused to neighbours by security lighting is an issue, but I am not convinced that the planning system would be the best way to deal with it, which is why DEFRA is taking the lead in consideration of a wide range of issues involving nuisance. As I said, although I cannot promise to achieve the same feat that we achieved with high hedges in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, I can assure the Committee that we are looking into nuisance lighting and the issues associated with it.

On the question of whether local authorities can impose conditions on things such as floodlighting for sports and recreation, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is right. PPG17 advises that when considering applications for floodlighting, local authorities should ensure that local amenity is protected. They can impose conditions on planning consents that they grant—for example, by restricting the height of lighting columns or the spread and duration of light from the new light fixtures.

Light pollution is identified in PPG12, on development plans, as one of the environmental considerations that should be taken into account when drawing up development plans, and the 1997 lighting in the countryside guidance, which I mentioned earlier, advises local authorities to consider including policies on lighting in their development plans, and supplementary planning guidance to elucidate those policies. There are examples of local authorities introducing such policies.

I understand that the unitary development plan for the London borough of Sutton contains a policy to the effect that development proposals involving the use of

external lighting and floodlighting will be permitted only where there is no unduly adverse impact from increased levels of light pollution on the environment or on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Local authorities are increasingly interested in the issue within the existing framework.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am half reassured that there are things that councils can do. I suspect that they need to be more aware of that fact and best practice should be encouraged as soon as possible. The Government could still need new planning regulations and the new clause would have enabled them, if necessary, to make such regulations—the Minister is wrong completely to rule out changes and it is unnecessary to reject the new clause on those grounds. I welcome the fact that there is a review on nuisance lighting, but my concern is that if it fails to be added to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill I cannot think of a Bill that is likely to come up in the next year's legislative work load on to which the Government might be able to tag it. [Interruption.] The Hunting Bill—yes. That is not one of the Minister's better observations. I do not think that I would be encouraged to support the Hunting Bill even if lighting were in it. [Interruption.] Oh dear.

Mr. Francois: Keep going.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Keep digging.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Government are churlish to turn the proposal down, because it would give them an opportunity that they might want to use if their review shows that they need to do something. They are determined to resist and I am not sure that I have much support—I can do the maths. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35 - Enforcement

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee will be keen to observe that the new clause was to have been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He has asked me to apologise to the Committee because he has a long-standing and important constituency engagement and he begs to give apologies for his absence from this sitting. He accepted the invitation not only before it was known when the Bill would be recommitted, but before it was known that it would be recommitted.

The new clause constitutes an obligation to take enforcement action. I need not rehearse all the arguments because they were dealt with tangentially by the Minister in earlier responses. It is one of those smaller new clauses that has a significant meaning. It refers to section 102 of the principal Act, which is headed:

''Orders requiring discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of buildings or works''.

That section states that if it appears to a local planning authority expedient or in the interest of the proper planning of its area to do so, it may order the discontinuance of the use of a particular piece of land, impose conditions on the use to which it is being put and require steps to be taken for the alteration or removal of the buildings or works where the use of the land is to be discontinued, or if conditions are to be imposed on the continuance of the use of that land. It also refers to the alteration or removal of any buildings or works.

Section 102 includes the words ''they may by order''. The purpose of my hon. Friend's new clause is to change the ''may'' to ''must''. In other words, instead of giving the authority the option and simply permitting it to take action, the new clause would oblige the authority to act.

Whenever one puts forward an amendment or new clause, one likes to act as the devil's advocate to ensure that one does not miss a trick. I suspect that a more jaundiced or cynical person than my hon. Friend might ask what is the difference between an authority being able to order a discontinuance notice if it is expedient to do so in the interests of proper planning and making that obligatory. The problem with making it obligatory is that the authority may find that it is not expedient in the interests of proper planning to serve such a notice. That is a possible lacuna, but the new clause deserves sympathetic consideration. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I, too, express my delight, Mr. Pike, that you are presiding over our proceedings this afternoon.

Currently, local planning authorities have the primary responsibility for taking whatever action may be necessary in the interests of proper planning in their areas. That includes discretion over whether a discontinuance order is issued. Section 102 of the 1990 Act enables a local planning authority to make an order requiring that any use of land shall be discontinued, or continued subject to conditions, or that any buildings or works shall be altered or removed. That provides planning authorities with the flexibility to tailor their approach to each case to fit the nature and circumstances of the case.

Making the power obligatory, which new clause 35 would do—it was ably moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman)—would remove that flexibility. It may also bring into play other elements of section 102, such as the compensation arrangements. A duty to implement in all cases, irrespective of the nature and circumstances, would place an additional and unwarranted burden on local authorities.

It is important that local authorities are able to target their resources—we have heard a great deal about resources today—on those cases that are causing most harm. In other words, my answer is about whether we should leave it to the discretion of local authorities to act in the expedient fashion that the hon. Gentleman described or whether we make it obligatory. The argument is about local discretion. I therefore urge him to withdraw the new clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I thought that the Minister would use the argument about discretion, but he and, with the greatest respect, my hon. Friend have ignored section 102(1) of the principal Act, which states:

''If, having regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations, it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of the proper planning of their area''.

The local planning authority may consider two large categories of discretion before it must act. I do not see why it should not have to act once it has considered those circumstances. Even when it has acted it may impose conditions, such as having to apply for planning permission, and even when it has done that the Secretary of State must confirm the order, and he might decide to convene an independent hearing to allow everyone to be heard. There is plenty of discretion in the system.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, expert and persuasive up to a point. We are very keen that local authorities retain not only the two large areas of discretion to which he alluded, but other thorough-going powers of discretion. We see no compelling grounds for placing obligations on the authorities, which the new clause would do. I urge the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to withdraw the new clause.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I will try to be as brief as possible, but by illustrating the fact that in those exceptional circumstances there are trigger points that enhance the suggestion that we should move for a requirement rather than an option for the local planning authority, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made a very germane point.

I have listened to the Minister in the sure knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has tabled three further new clauses, which the Minister will find irresistible. I shall therefore show a magnanimous attitude and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 47 - Appeals (non-compliance with development plan)

New Clause 48 - Design and masterplans

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is the second of the four new clauses that were to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. His constituency and mine have few similarities. Isle of Wight has 106,000 electors, and mine has more or less the English norm of about 75,000. His constituency covers about 150 square miles while mine covers less than a tenth of that. His constituency is surrounded by water while mine is landlocked, although in the previous Session I had the privilege of piloting the National Heritage Bill, which was about marine archaeology, in this House.

The new clause, which is inspired by the Town and Country Planning Association, also has the support of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I declare an interest as I am involved with the Town and Country Planning Association and have just retired from the Royal Institute of British Architects. The new clause aims to promote and ensure good design.

It may help the Committee to know that during the short time in which I practised as an architect, the firm with which I was associated were architects to a brewery. When I move on to another earth, all that the country will have will be a few of the pubs that I designed. It was only when I had to design pubs that I realised the importance of field research.

I shall save the Committee time by quoting heavily from the brief prepared by the Town and Country Planning Association, which succinctly and positively stated:

''This clause is prepared by the TCPA to address the problem of disregarding the original design or masterplan for a site once the principle of development has been agreed with initial planning permission. In these cases a good design can be replaced at a later stage of the planning process (at application for reserved matters or full planning permission) when an inferior scheme is put forward in the knowledge that the principle of development on the site has been agreed and that it is always difficult to reject a scheme in these circumstances solely on design factors.''

Indeed, to my knowledge—I do not believe that things have changed—a planning authority would find it very difficult to turn down an application purely on grounds of design, although I believe that they can do so in such beautiful places as the Cotswolds, where a brick building in village built entirely of stone would quite rightly not be permitted. In other parts of the country, however, I have rarely seen a planning authority successfully turn down an application for reasons of design.

In any case, I acknowledge that design is subjective. What one person finds beautiful, other people may find an eyesore. I shall try to stay within the rules of the proceedings, but the mediaeval clergy did not take kindly to Sir Christopher Wren's masterpiece. Incidentally, Christopher Wren and I have two things in common: we are both architects and Members of Parliament. The agreement has worked very well: Sir Christopher has promised to make no more speeches if I promise to design no more buildings.

My real point is that in some cases, the ability not to carry out the original outline design that excites the imagination and that is permitted could be substituted when the principle of a development and the land on which it would take place has been established, because the outline, or initial, planning permission quite properly gives rights to the applicant.

The TCPA goes on to say:

''In some cases this can be described as 'trophy architecture' where a high quality masterplanner or designer is used for the initial application only to see the original scheme replaced with one of much poorer quality later on.''

I accept that this breaks new ground, but I hope that the Minister will not decline to accept the new clause for that reason.

The TCPA continues:

''This new clause would for the first time give statutory recognition to design and masterplans and would introduce a duty to have regard to any such schemes which form part of an existing planning permission on an application site.''

Finally, it is my belief that the public are becoming more interested in, and demanding about, good architecture. In the early part of my career, both in politics and at the drawing board, there was a time when the good electors of my constituency decided that it was not appropriate to re-elect me. I had to go back to the drawing board, literally. In the post-war years, there was a great need to get rid of the slums, to replace the bombed buildings, and, with an exploding population, to provide more homes very quickly. Design was secondary to putting a roof over somebody's head.

Now, in one sense, we have a surplus of buildings. However, there is great demand for new buildings. Families are breaking up so more people are demanding smaller dwelling units rather than bigger ones. There is a great demographic and social change in our country. I think that people recognise the importance of good design, and they are prepared to pay for it. If the Government were to respond sympathetically to the new clause, they would be knocking at an open door. The people of our country would appreciate it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend is right. I congratulate him on the way in which he has moved the new clause. It is particularly apposite on a day in which we have seen two articles in the press, one in The Guardian and one in The Times. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost the one from The Guardian on my way here, but I have a copy of the one from The Times. It is headed:

''Prescott plans flatpack homes to beat shortage''.

The article says that the Deputy Prime Minister

''has instructed English Partnerships, the regeneration agency, to tender for hundreds of new pod-like homes in 'millennium communities' as part of the drive for greener buildings and eco-friendly construction in Britain.''

It goes on to say:

''The units are a world away from the 1940s aluminium-framed prefab huts and also have new names, including OSM (off-site manufactured house) and even M-ouse (from mobile house).

Mr. Prescott has become hooked on the dwellings after visiting a number of house-builders''.

It continues:

''Mr. Prescott is so impressed by the designs and high quality of materials he sees no reason why the buildings should be seen in the same way as postwar temporary huts.''

There is a real issue, and it is design. Nobody could want more than for a much larger number of houses to be built than we have now. However, it is no good building houses for the sake of it and finding that in 20 years they have become tomorrow's slums. That is what happened in the case of post-war technology, with pre-cast reinforced concrete houses and so on.

Although some such technologies are proven, others are not. We would be ill advised to rush wholesale to unproven technologies. I have seen some of the new technologies working well. That is the case with pre-fitted bathrooms, for example—they are almost manufactured in one, with tiles, baths, and showers—which go into the house almost as one unit. That sort of thing can be successful. Imitation slates sold by the square metre rather than as individual slates to reduce building costs can work well. I have some worries about outside construction panels that are put on a concrete slab and bolted together. We need to consider such things very carefully.

Particularly at this dark time when the Government have set up a commission for design, we need to consider the matter carefully and learn from the lessons of the past if we are not to make tomorrow's slums out of today's poorly designed houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has made a good point. Design should be one of the critical matters that should be considered at the planning application stage. If the Government cannot accept the new clause, I hope that they will indicate that design should be given a much greater priority in the planning process.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me, as I suspect the Opposition parties anticipated, provide the Committee with the usual technical, quasi-legalistic response to the new clause, which boils down to saying ''No, we cannot accept it''. Then I shall tell hon. Members what is in the Government's heart. As the Committee is aware, under the current system, existing planning decisions are based on the land-use merits of each proposal. When a further application is submitted for the same site, decision makers must consider each case afresh. However, the planning authority is already able to consider any relevant planning history of the land, including any previous permission, if it wishes—to that extent the new clause is not required.

Before I speak about design, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Cotswold on the issue of off-site manufacture. We are unlikely to rush in to the large-scale application of modern methods of manufacture. Building is a traditional industry, as he knows, and progress is slow. However, various aspects of it are changing—he mentioned the use of pods for bathrooms that are manufactured in far-away places. There is a place across the river, Salamanca street, off the Albert embankment, where I have observed perfect bathroom pods being slipped into a block of flats. They are manufactured in Kilmarnock, and they are exquisite.

The technology for modern methods of manufacture is proven elsewhere. It is extensively used both on the continent of Europe and in north America. It is safe and cost-effective in many respects and it offers a very high quality of design. The Government are most enthusiastic about it, particularly against the backdrop of the skills shortages in not only the construction industry but the whole development industry. Sir John Egan is currently inquiring into the issue in order to encourage the most extensive use possible of modern methods of manufacture.

I come on to the new clause, which was so ably moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I welcome the commitment implicit in it, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks about good urban design. We are very sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause. The Government are committed to higher-quality design—it is absolutely essential to the provision of inclusive and sustainable communities and underpins much of what is set out in the communities plan. Government planning policies have, for some time, made it clear that, when submitting planning proposals, applicants should be able to demonstrate how they have taken account of the need for good design. PPG1, on general policy and principles, underlines that

''good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere''.

The policy is supported by good practice guidance, ''By Design'', and planning authorities are encouraged to reject poor design. Indeed, on this, the day of the better building summit, let me make it absolutely clear that the Government would be more than content if more authorities rejected applications on the basis of poor design. That would send out a powerful message. The Government's commitment to good design will be restated in the promised update of PPG1.

I agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The judgment about what constitutes good design is bound to be subjective at one level, but we all know what unimaginative, inhumane and soulless developments were inflicted on our communities in past decades.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that people are now far more open to good design, that they are willing to pay for it and that they want to see it. I might add that it has great benefits for developers, too. With those assurances—that the Government are not merely committed, but passionately concerned to promote the principles of good design in development—I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his views. I shall, of course, seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the new clause. However, I hope that he will allow me to express a scintilla of disappointment first.

The new clause would not give local planning authorities a blanket authority to turn down applications on the grounds of design. It would be strictly confined to previously submitted designs that might have had a great influence on the committee or council that determined the application—perhaps an exciting project that would be welcomed in the area—but for which inferior designs have subsequently been substituted. The new clause would have given the Government the opportunity to put a marker down to encourage and persuade people to say that the Government were serious about good design in buildings—and in the relationships between buildings.

I express a slight disappointment, but I do not want to detain the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 49 - Local development plan

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 149, in

clause 14, page 8, line 35, after 'appropriate', insert

'within 8 weeks of receipt of the scheme.'.

Clause 14 stand part

Amendment No. 285, in

clause 15, page 9, line 12, leave out 'scheme' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 286, in

clause 15, page 9, line 15, leave out 'scheme' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 152, in

clause 16, page 9, line 28, at end insert—

'(aa) a strategic planning statement;

(ab) the appropriate authority's Local Transport Plan;'.

Government amendment No. 80

Amendment No. 150, in

clause 16, page 9, line 42, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment No. 151, in

clause 16, page 10, line 9, after 'document', insert 'or'.

Clause 16 stand part

Amendment No. 154, in

clause 18, page 10, line 29, after 'to', insert 'all material considerations including'

Government amendment No. 83

Clause 18 stand part

Amendment No. 155, in

clause 19, page 11, line 22, at end insert

'who will decide whether the examination should be in the form of a public inquiry examination or hearing.'

Amendment No. 156, in

clause 19, page 11, line 28, at end insert 'in all material respects.'

Clause 19 stand part

Government amendment No. 2

Amendment No. 157, in

clause 20, page 12, line 3, after first 'a', insert

'local development document other than a.'

Government amendment No. 84

Amendment No. 158, in

clause 20, page 12, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—

'(d) The document may be taken into account for the purposes of developmental control by the authority until the Secretary of State has approved, modified or rejected the document or part (if the direction relates to only part of a document).'

Clauses 20, 21 and 25 stand part.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This huge group of amendments and new clauses is headed by my new clause 49. At an informal meeting with the Minister during the summer, I said that the real problem with the Bill was the complexity of the local plan-making system. I should add that the new clause, in two pages, would make clauses 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 33, 35 and 36 unnecessary. In other words, what the Opposition do in our new clause would obviate 14 clauses.

Although I have been through it fairly carefully, the Government could probably find some power that I did not include in my new clause, but I think that I have covered most of what the Government want to achieve in those 14 clauses in two pages. That is a serious indication that we have the opportunity to simplify the local plan-making process.

The Government's excellent precursor document, ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change'', received 15,000 responses, one of the largest responses to any Government Green Paper. Paragraph 1.5 of that document is fundamental to all that we are discussing. It states:

''To be successful, the planning system needs to have the confidence of many different groups. These include almost half a million direct customers who are applicants for planning permission every year and who want a quick, predictable and efficient service,''—

I believe that we can all say amen to that—

''families and individuals affected by plans and planning applications and the wider community who care about proposals for the future development of their area. All parts of the community -individuals, organisations and businesses -must be able to make their voice heard.''

Paragraph 1.6 continues:

''The customers of planning departments have a right to an efficient and user-friendly service. Business, in particular, needs to know that their planning applications will be dealt with efficiently and predictably. Time delays caused by bureaucracy, lack of skilled staff or over-complex systems are bad for business and do little good for anyone else. Delays in receiving a planning decision can mean loss of competitiveness for business, something that we simply cannot afford in the modern global economy.''

We all say amen to that, too.

Chapter 2 criticises the current system for its complexity. Paragraph 2.3 states:

''Planning is complex, remote, hard to understand and difficult to access. Issues commonly raised include . . . the multi-layered structure of plans with up to four tiers in some areas -at national, regional, county and local levels. Plans are often out of date and can be inconsistent with one another and with national planning guidance.''

Finally, it says:

''the planning appeal procedure can seem obscure. People find it hard to understand the way in which the system works. Both applicants and others with an interest in a proposed development can find it hard to understand the basis on which decisions are taken.''

If that is criticism of the current system, people will be absolutely baffled by the new one. On careful examination, or even if one skims through them, clauses 14 to 36 talk about local development frameworks, local development schemes, local development scheme documents, local development plan documents, development plans and policies. Each of those documents and schemes has a different mechanism for revisions, revocations, making powers for the Secretary of State, powers for the regional body and powers for the local body.

The new system is horrendously complicated. I would like to examine it in some detail, but first I shall turn to my new clause, for fear that I be ruled out of order. I start by apologising to the Committee, because there is a typographical error in subsection (11)(c). It says:

''the spatial development strategy if the authority in a London Borough''.

That does not, of course, make sense. It should read, ''are a London borough.'' There is some argument about whether an authority is singular or plural, but the new clause definitely contains a typographical error. It is also slightly deficient in that it does not talk about sustainability.

Finally, there is insufficient follow-through, because, once the new clause has set up the independent examination, there should be another subsection, subsection (20), which should say something like, ''The local authority or Secretary of State may direct that all, some or none of the independent recommendations shall be incorporated in the plan, following which the Secretary of State may direct the local authority formally to adopt the plan.'' Technically, my new clause does not get as far as adopting the plan, which is obviously a lacuna.

Now I shall examine what my new clause does and what the Bill does. Subsection (1) covers all of clause 36. It states:

''The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a plan to be known as the local development plan (''the plan'').''

I do not know what could be simpler than that. I do not know why we must talk about local development frameworks, local development schemes, local development documents, local development plan documents, development plans and policy. Why not simply have one plan? Everyone knows what a local development plan is—indeed, the Government use those words in relation to Wales—so for the life of me

I cannot see why, if they use them in the part of the Bill that relates to Wales, the name of the documents relating to England cannot be as simple.

Subsection (2) deals with what is contained in clause 14—I am sorry that my order is slightly different from the Government's, but that is how things have worked out. It simply says that

''The plan must specify . . . the documents which are to be local development plan documents''.

If one has a plan, one must have some documents with it; everybody accepts that. The plan must set out the

''matter and geographical area to which each document is to relate''

''which documents (if any) are to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities which will be treated the same as if one single authority had prepared it''.

Again, that is a very simple proposal that in one paragraph deals with what clause 27 deals with. I accept that new clause 49(2)(c) probably does not contain precisely the same powers as those in clause 27, but the new clause has plenty of powers for the Secretary of State to deal with anything not covered elsewhere, and in the Bill there is an ultimate number of powers for the Secretary of State to deal with any matter he wishes. The Bill effectively makes the Secretary of State the complete controller of the planning system. Even though my proposals are simpler, there are plenty of powers left reserved for the Secretary of State.

Subsection (2)(d) says that the plan must specify

''any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed (or propose to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28''.

That is clear—there should be the power to have joint committees. Finally, the plan must specify

''the timetable for the preparation and revision of the documents'',

and, again,

''such other matters as are prescribed.''

That gives the Secretary of State all the powers that he needs but which are not set out in the new clause.

Again, as in the Bill,

''The local planning authority may withdraw their plan at any time before it is formally adopted'',

which is clearly a sensible power. To deal with the matters in clause 33, the local planning authority must both

''prepare the plan in accordance with such other requirements as are prescribed''—

again, that gives the Secretary of State plenty of powers—and

''submit the plan to the Secretary of State at such time as is prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) directs''.

I have tried as much as possible to follow the wording of the Bill, so that there is no legal problem, precedent or anything else. At that time, the planning authority must

''send a copy of the plan to the RPB or (if the authority are a London borough) to the Mayor of London''.

We do not approve of the regional spatial strategy or the regional planning bodies, as we do not think that that tier is necessary. However, for the purposes of the new clause, I have assumed that the Government are going to steam ahead with their regional planning policies, so I have framed the new clause to give them every power that they need to co-ordinate with the regional planning bodies.

Under subsection (4)(d), the planning authority must

''prepare, publish and have regard to a Statement of Community Involvement as negotiated by Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c22).''

Again, that is largely set out in clause 17. However, it does not need to be spelled out, as it has already been spelled out in a previous local government Act, so why not simply refer to that Act?

The new clause continues:

''The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the plan as he thinks appropriate''.

Unlike the Bill, however, I have included a conciliation safeguard, in that that may happen

''only when the Secretary of State and Authority cannot agree on any matter.''

What is the point of Secretary of State using a huge sledgehammer to crack a nut by issuing directions and enforcing them, when he should try to negotiate with the local authority prior to issuing a direction to see whether the matter can be sorted out amicably? I would bet that in most cases, if the Secretary of State were reasonable, the local authority would be equally reasonable and a compromise would be reached. That of course is what I seek to achieve with subsection (5).

Subsection (6) says:

''A direction under subsection (5) . . . must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.''

Again, that is essential, but not contained in the Bill. Where the Secretary of State issues any direction, he should as a matter of course state his reasons for doing so.

Skipping on fairly quickly, I deal with the matters in clause 35 in subsection (8), which says:

''The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the following matters'',

which are set out. Under subsection (9), the local planning authority

''must revise their local development plan . . . at such time as they consider appropriate; or . . . when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.''

Again, however, I should not expect the Secretary of State to issue such a direction; rather, I would expect the Government office in touch with the local planning authority to say, ''Look, your plan hasn't been revised for four or five years. It's about time you considered revising it.'' The authority would surely say, ''Of course, we must get on and do it.''

That brings us back to a fundamental point that is worth reiterating now: rather than producing a whole new Bill with all its complexity, a far better way of dealing with the planning system would have been to make the present system work properly. One of the big problems at present is that a number of authorities

have no plan at all. Whatever happens, I hope that when the Bill reaches the statute book, if not before, we shall put a bomb under those authorities and ensure that they produce plans. It is twice as difficult to carry out a development in an area that does not have a proper plan as elsewhere. The real test of the Bill will be if it speeds up the present system and provides greater certainty.

Of course, in subsection (10) there have to be provisions for revisions of the plan and the same sort of provisions for revision of anything needed to make the plan in the first place. In subsection (11), which is fairly large, I deal with the matters in clauses 18 and 23—what the local development plan should have to consider. Those are pretty straightforward. Again, I provide a power for the Secretary of State. I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have such a wide power over the planning system, but I have tried to frame the new clause in a way that the Government might accept. Therefore, I have provided most of the powers that are provided for the Secretary of State in the Bill, even though I do not necessarily agree that they should exist.

Moving to subsection (12),

''The local planning authority must submit their local development plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination.''

We all accept that all local plans, when they are eventually prepared, should be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination. That is an important stage in the plan-making system. When we reach that independent examination, which is provided for in the Bill, everybody who wishes to object or make representations about the local plan has an opportunity to do so. That comes back to a point that was made this morning: people should feel involved in the planning system, not alienated from it. My fear is that, with the complexity of the Bill, people will feel alienated from their own planning system. If they do feel that, and then an adverse development, of which they do not approve, takes place, they will feel even more aggrieved. We should try to engage people more in their local plan-making system, and I hope to get the Government's agreement to that.

Under subsection (13),

''the authority must not submit such a document''

until

''they have complied with any relevant requirements contained in regulations under this Part, and

they are satisfied that the plan is ready for independent examination.''

That would be clause 21. Under subsection (14),

''The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the development plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.''

That is taken straight out of the Bill.

In subsection (15),

''The examination must be carried out by a person ('the independent inspector')''—

I do not think that that name is given in the Bill, but the function is provided for in clause 26. I go on to describe the purpose of the examination in subsection (16), while in subsection (17), which is a change from the Bill,

''Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development plan must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to submit his representation in writing to the independent inspector, who shall decide whether or not that person shall be heard at the examination.''

I would give a warning to the Minister. The way the Bill is drafted, anybody has an opportunity to be heard independently. That means that such a person may give evidence orally. Sometimes, the independent inspector must have the power to curtail some of that process—there is a judicious need for it—because I do not want to conflict with the point that I made this morning about people who turn up wishing to make representations and are told, ''Go away, we want one person to represent all of you.''

When it is clear to the inspector that 40 people have turned up and they are all making the same point, it is reasonable to say, ''We've heard some of your oral evidence; the rest of you must submit something in writing.'' There is a balance to be struck. To say that people have to give evidence orally is to make a rod for the inspector's back.

The new clause goes on to say what the independent inspector must do under subsection (18). He must make recommendations and give reasons for them, and they must be published. I do not mind whether they are published by the local authority or the Secretary of State. I have specified the local authority; the Bill says the Secretary of State. Subsection (20), which is missing, would say how the amendments must be incorporated into the plan and how it was to be formally adopted. Contrast that process, which I have gone through in five minutes, or perhaps 10 minutes, with those 15 clauses of the Bill. The problem with those clauses is that they have all the categories that I have mentioned and more, in terms of joint committees and so on, they have their own timetables for preparations, revisions and recommendations, and they will all conflict with each other. If I were a planning officer having to adopt the system outlined in the Bill, I should go boggle-eyed trying to work out what I was supposed to do when.

I shall be very interested indeed to hear what the Minister has to say, because I believe that in two pages I have done everything that needs to be done with a local planning system and have also given the Secretary of State every power that he needs. Having read through those 15 clauses, I thought that I understood the measures and that I had got on top of it all. I kept reading and reading, and suddenly I came to a clause that mentioned the policy. I scratched my head and asked myself what on earth the policy was.

I had gone through the local development framework, the local development scheme, the local development document, the local plan documents and the development plan, each with a clause setting out exactly what it does, then suddenly I found that there was to be a policy. It is in clause 37(5)—one has to read a long way through part 2 before finding it. The policy encompasses everything else:

''If to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the development plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy'',

but we are not told what the policy is, how it is described or what it means. While we have made it clear that there are other parts that we welcome, such as compulsory purchase arrangements, I have to say to the Minister in the strongest possible terms that this is absolute gobbledygook—and to you, Mr. Pike, in the most serious way that I can, that if the Government enact the stuff in this section of the Bill, the planning system will become completely gummed up. Everybody will be alienated from the system because they will not have a clue how it works and that, in time, will do us a great disservice. Let me conclude with paragraph 1.8 of the Government's great planning White Paper:

''We believe in good planning. The present system, by general consent, does not deliver our objectives. We want a system that is capable of reaching decisions that command public confidence and which is seen to be open and fair: A system that underpins our desire to improve productivity by being capable of reaching a proper balance between our desire for economic development and for thriving communities.''

Then comes the bit that ought to be in italics:

''A system that is clear, comprehensible, that comes to robust decisions in a sensible time frame.''

Anybody who thinks that the system that the Government have laid down is clear and comes to decisions in a sensible time frame needs to be locked up in a cold shower for a very long time.

Matthew Green rose—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I believe that this is an appropriate time for me to suspend the Committee until 4.45 pm. I shall call the hon. Gentleman immediately on resuming.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. So that we can tailor our proceedings, it would be helpful if the Government told us when the Bill will be considered on Report. Will that be before or after the Queen's Speech? I understand that the Government may say that this is a matter for the business managers, although they may not know at this point what will happen. However, if the Government could give us some indication of that before the Committee concludes at 5.15 pm on Thursday it would help the Opposition and practitioners in making their representations.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That is not a point of order for the Chair. I do not know whether the Minister can help; otherwise, Members can raise the matter at business questions on Thursday.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I can assist the Committee in that regard. This is a matter for the business managers and the usual channels, but we expect the Bill to reach the Floor on Report after the Queen's Speech.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

This is huge group of amendments attached to new clause 49. In January, I would have had huge sympathy for the Conservative's new clause. Back then, when we first considered the matter in Committee, the Government's proposed new system was as clear as mud to just about all members of the Committee—without doing anyone a disservice, including probably the Ministers. We also dealt with each clause in detail, one by one, rather than looking at the system as a whole. That was rather unfortunate, because we did not discuss the principles of the system. As a result, it appeared very confusing. It looked likely to lead to a breakdown in the current planning system while people took years to sort out what they were supposed to be doing.

Having looked at the matter for nine months, I am now a great deal happier about the Government's proposal—it is potentially an improvement to the current planning system and I will not support new clause 49 for that reason. The problem at the moment is essentially that local plans, for those areas that have them, take a long time to draw up. Although they are supposed to be done every five years, the process stretches further. Both my local authorities are revising their local plan, which takes a couple of years. That is without going to a public inquiry.

In the meantime in South Shropshire, for instance, where there is a lack of business development land on the old plan, the council needs to allocate more land. It has a planning application coming forward, which has been approved. However, it will end up on the Secretary of State's desk because it is contrary to the current local plan even though it is in the draft of the new local plan that will come into effect in 18 months. It has to do that because of time constraints, yet it was two years ago that it started looking at the issue of business development land and held an inquiry in public.

What the Government are trying to create with the local development schemes and local development documents is, roughly, a box file on the shelf with a series of folders in it. The box file is the local development scheme and the folders are local development documents. Every time that the local authority wants to amend one of the sectors, be it business development land, housing numbers or whatever, it pulls out a folder, revises it—which is a lot quicker than revising an entire local plan—and puts it back. There is a rolling framework of plans.

I hope that I have explained that relatively straightforwardly. Sadly, in January no one did. The Government have a selling job to do because, frankly, people in the industry do not understand the measure either. It will be a huge step forward, provided that all the detail is got right. That is where the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) come in. I shall go through them one by one.

The proposal in amendment No. 149 was also debated in January. Giving the Secretary of State an eight-week deadline would ensure that the preparation by a local authority of a local development scheme was not delayed because the authority had to wait for the

Secretary of State to decide whether to issue a direction. Interestingly, in January the then Minister said, in effect, that having an eight-week deadline would create delay. That was fascinating to us at the time—how would a maximum deadline create delay?—but that is what the Minister said.

To sum it up, the Government's position was, ''Don't worry. Leave it up to us. We'll know when to intervene. We don't need a timetable.'' My response was that I had every confidence that the then Minister was good at doing that, so perhaps we could have confidence in leaving it up to him to move quickly. I am sure that the new planning Minister will also have every ability to do that, but due to the rate at which the Government get through planning Ministers we can never have any confidence as to whether there will be a Minister who shifts things through quickly. It is particularly pertinent to hear the Government again try to justify why an eight-week deadline would delay the process. I think it would ensure that the process moved along swiftly.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I give the hon. Gentleman support, because in any case his amendment says

''within 8 weeks of receipt of the scheme.''

If it could be dealt with more quickly, it would be.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which adds to my argument. I am intrigued to hear the Government try to justify refusing the amendment this time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves amendment No. 149, I put it to him that a much better mechanism would be the one that I proposed in my new clause: before the Secretary of State issues any direction to a local planning authority, he should try talking to it and negotiating peacefully first. Only in the dire situation in which he cannot agree with the authority should he issue a direction.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

In principle yes, but I still think that an eight-week time frame would be sufficient for that to be carried out. The difficulty is that because new clause 49 would not allow the flexibility of the Government's approach, the detail becomes hard to support.

Amendment No. 152, for which I am grateful to the Campaign to Protect Rural England, would formalise the link between the local development framework and the regional spatial strategy. It would ensure that the local development framework took account of the appropriate authority's local transport plan when appropriate. Again, that is fairly straightforward and it should be a welcome development. I am sure that the Minister will say that it will happen anyway, but if it will let us have it in the Bill and make it clear.

Amendment No. 150 would require the definition of those local development documents that are development plan documents and details of their form, content and production to be included in the Bill, but not in secondary legislation. The amendment, in deleting subsection (6), would force the Government to set those out as the Bill is confused about local development. Under the present system, each local

planning authority has a single development plan, but in future there will be a package of local development documents, differing from one authority to another, not all of which will have the status of a development plan document. The issue of status is critical. We want the definition of a development plan document to be included in the Bill, rather than relying on regulation to make it clearer to practitioners.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Does he accept that having one term instead of six means that we do not need the different definitions that have to be amended in case they are not perfect?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Government have made a slight mistake in renaming things. They could have referred to local plans rather than local development schemes and had folders for those plans, which would have been more simple. People would have understood the term because they had used it before. It seems that when drafting new legislation the draftsmen go along the shelves, pick out the terms they have not used for a while and use them as headers. They refer to local development schemes rather than local plans.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Frameworks, policies.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman is right—there are lots of new headings, which could have been made easier to understand, although the system that the Government propose will work quicker and be more effective in delivering change in what used to be called the local plan.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

Could not the Government talk about one plan, which might contain a number of different chapters? It would thus be possible to update individual chapters independently, which would achieve the objective.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman has found another descriptive term. He says chapter, I say folder—we can pick our own words. Yes, this could have been called the local plan rather than the local development scheme. That would have given people more reassurance, as many constituents have no idea what the matter involves and those who have just discovered what it is about will find that the name has been changed. That could have been avoided, but I will not be overly critical as the proposal is trying to achieve the right objectives.

I am grateful to the Law Society for amendment No. 151, which seeks to clarify the basis on which a document is to be regarded as a local development document. Clause 16(7) determines that a document can be treated as a local development document only in so far as it has been adopted by the local planning authority and approved by the Secretary of State. It would speed the process considerably—the Minister wants more haste in it—if the conditions could stand as alternatives. That would not allow the authority to create a local development document against the wishes of the Secretary of State, because clause 19 requires the authority to submit every local development plan document to him for independent

examination. It would, however, allow it to move on faster. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.

I am also grateful to the Law Society for amendment No. 154, which clarifies the factors to which local planning authorities must have regard when preparing a local development document. In doing so, the planning authority should have regard to all material considerations. That is a basic requirement of the planning system. At present, the relevant subsection contains a list of 10 matters to which the local planning authority should have regard in preparing local development documents, and that list appears to be exclusive. The amendment would make it clear that authorities must have regard to all the listed matters and also to any other material considerations. It would allow more to be taken into account than just the 10 considerations listed by the Government.

Amendment No. 155 is designed to clarify the nature of the independent examination to which each development plan document is to be subjected. Clause 19 is silent on the nature of the independent examination. The amendment would clarify that it is a matter for the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to undertake the independent examination to determine whether a public inquiry or a hearing would be most appropriate.

In future, development plan documents will cover a range of different types of document. There will be some that can be examined by means of a hearing, while others will necessitate a full public inquiry. A strong case exists for subjecting to effective scrutiny at an inquiry documents that have a status equivalent to the current development plan and which can affect the value of property through the designation of particular sites. The amendment would ensure that the nature of that examination was spelled out in the Bill.

Amendment No. 156 would insert the words ''in all material respects''. It is designed to provide a more useful criterion for the definition of the purpose of an independent examination of a development plan document. Clause 19(5)(b) states:

''The purpose of an independent examination is to determine . . . whether it is sound.''

The amendment came from the Law Society, which is not happy with the word ''sound'' on its own, and would like to add ''in all material respects''; I think that that is right. It says that the additional purpose of determining whether a document is sound is both meaningless and an opening for legal challenge. The secondary requirement, with the relating the subjective soundness to material planning considerations, would be more relevant and comprehensible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

After those nine months that he has told us about, the hon. Gentleman obviously has intimate knowledge of how the Government propose to organise things, so can he tell the Committee why the Government require under clause 19 that the local plan development document shall be subject to an

independent examination, yet the local development scheme, which is what stands at the top of the hierarchy, shall not be subject to local independent examination? Are we not talking about just another complication and inconsistency in the Bill, with all these categories of documents?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

No, I do not think so. That scheme is another name for the outer cover of the folder. We would not want an inquiry into whether it was to be a red, a blue or a yellow folder. It is the sub-folders within it that will be scrutinised. The local development scheme is just an encompassing measure, not a document in itself.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

If we are talking about the cover alone, can the hon. Gentleman explain why clause 14(2)(e) states that the local development scheme may specify

''any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed (or proposed to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28''?

That seems pretty wide, and clause 14(2)(g) is even wider:

''such other matters as are prescribed.''

The list of matters could be huge. Why should it not be subject to independent examination?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

At the risk of doing the Minister's job, may I explain that as I understand it, the scheme specifies the list of folders and their contents. In the case of the joint committees, the type of area under which a committee has been set up may be specified, and presumably that is yet another folder within the scheme. The outside of the folder will include a table of contents, which is an attempt to make it intelligible.

I can see that the hon. Member for Cotswold is going to enjoy himself by asking me questions that he should direct to the Minister. I think that I had just dealt with amendment No. 156, which, the Committee will be delighted to hear, means that there are only two to go.

The Law Society suggested amendment No. 157. The amendment's purpose is to make clause 20 consistent with itself and to avoid duplication of review by the Secretary of State. I will take a little bit of time to explain that. Clause 20 is intended to deal with local development documents. Clause 19 ensures that all development plan documents—that is to say, the development plan documents of the local development documents—are submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination. Clause 22(4) ensures that the modifications proposed by the Secretary of State's independent examiner are incorporated in the development plan documents. However, clause 23 as drafted would also allow the Secretary of State to call in any development plan document, which is unnecessary because they will be submitted to him anyway under clause 19. A two-stage process is both unnecessary and potentially likely to cause delay, which the Minister is desperately keen to avoid.

The Law Society also suggested amendment No. 158. The amendment would enable development plan documents agreed by a local planning authority but

subject to a direction by the Secretary of State to be treated as a material consideration for development control purposes pending the final decision of the Secretary of State on the document. Any development plan document agreed by a local planning authority should reflect the authority's intentions for the area covered by the document. The only obstacle to its adoption would be intervention by the Secretary of State.

The outcome of the direction by the Secretary of State may be a modification of the document, and in the interim it would be reasonable for the local planning authority to use it as a basis for development control decisions. If nothing else, it would serve to encourage the Secretary of State to proceed with dispatch. If the document were awful, he would have to move very fast to ensure that no decisions were taken on the basis of it.

I have run through the nine amendments tabled in my name as quickly as possible, and I will now comment briefly on the Government amendments, all of which I can support. They are all helpful in trying to make the legislation work. I cannot support new clause 49, but I hope that the Minister will look favourably on at least some of my nine amendments.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Our main focus must be on new clause 49, which contains an alternative to the new local planning arrangements in the Bill. It is grouped with a large and varied set of amendments that address some of the most important clauses in part 2.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow for his helpful and constructive remarks, and I assure him that we will continue to consider his amendments carefully. I liked the image of a box file—a rolling framework—of plans that he produced to describe the Government's proposals. I thought of them as a shelf in a filing cabinet, from which one can take out or slot in to make changes in individual aspects of the plan. I am sure that there is an IT equivalent of that image, but I am rather old-fashioned as well as rather elderly, and I think of these plans as a concertina file that can be opened and things can be slotted in or out according to what needs to be added and what needs to be removed or revised.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked about what he asserted were the confusions of the development scheme. It is essentially an implementation plan. I had the great privilege of meeting the representatives of three high-performing planning authorities yesterday in my office at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. They were Middlesbrough, which is a Labour authority, North Wiltshire, a Liberal authority, and Wychavon, a Conservative authority. As ever in such situations, my response was an open-minded, impartial and non-partisan endorsement of the enormous leap forward in performance that those authorities have made.

I thought of that when I listened to earlier debates about resources. The central emphasis of the councillors and planners that I met was that at the heart of the change that had been secured was a change of culture—a change of approach to planning to make

the system proactive and dynamic, and one that is supported and instigated by elected members as well as by the planners themselves.

The distinguished chief planner for Middlesbrough gave me a copy of the Middlesbrough local action plan for 2000-01. It sets out exactly what is to be achieved in the following 12 months—the areas to be addressed and the dates by which things are to be done. It is an implementation plan and a development scheme—it is as simple as that. Because it sets out targets and deadlines, there is no need for it, like other elements of our proposals, to be subject to independent examination.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

If the document was prepared in 2000-01, it was prepared under the present system. Does that not show that the present system can be made to work?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

That is a neat point, but this is best practice: we look, we learn, and what we are seeking to do for our planning reform package is to learn from the many examples of success in the country and embrace them in our legislative proposals so that they can be rolled out more generally.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold; he has been true to his word. He said that he would come up with an alternative and he has attempted to do so: it is a serious piece of work, and I want to offer a comprehensive response to it.

I am alert to the possibility of confusion if I accept many interventions, so with the Committee's indulgence, I will make my speech first before attempting to deal with any points that hon. Members may have. I stress that they will have the opportunity to respond. Opposition Members took 45 minutes to make their points. I will endeavour to take less time to make mine.

The debate goes to the heart of our reasons for wanting to reform planning at the local level. The reforms are designed to tackle some fundamental problems. First, it takes too long to put a plan in place. From start to finish, it takes at least four years on average, but it can take as long as nine years. All authorities should have adopted a local or unitary development plan by 1996. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that 31 authorities—nearly 10 per cent.—have failed to do so.

Secondly, it takes too long to update a plan. The hon. Member for Ludlow will be interested to learn that 176 plans are out of date. They no longer reflect the realities faced by many communities. Thirdly, our plans are packed with policies—between 200 and 300 is not unusual. Those policies try to cover every type of development and often overlap or duplicate each other. That makes it extremely hard to be clear about which developments might happen where. Rather than setting out a clear strategy for development, plans have become long and complicated rule books for development control. Fourthly, it is difficult to be flexible and to take account of changing circumstances

in the plan. Finally, it is hard for residents and businesses to participate in such a slow, complicated and inaccessible process.

A few illustrations will show why those problems matter. Let us suppose that I want planning permission for a major development involving housing, retail and leisure. That would involve so many policies from different parts of a unitary development plan, many of them overlapping, that I would find it difficult to understand what the plan meant for my application. What if my application failed, but a virtually identical one succeeded? Where similar applications come up against differently worded and overlapping policies, there is a much greater chance that the emphasis placed on the policies and their application will differ. Plans can be unclear and the decisions taken under them can be inconsistent.

Suppose that a factory in my town were to close down unexpectedly, thus providing the opportunity for comprehensive regeneration of the area. To give certainty and confidence to developers and the public about the regeneration, the local authority would need to prepare an alteration to its development plan. That would take as long as preparing a whole new plan. It would also mean delays while objectors argued with the LPA about whether objections referring to other policies in the plan, which had not been altered, could be considered. Although it is for the LPA to determine whether an objection to such a linked policy could be considered, it would not wish to be seen to be imposing its judgment without first having tried to persuade the objector. That is partly why some authorities are reluctant to alter their plans and why, when they do, it can take as long to adopt as a replacement plan.

It is hard for the community to engage with proposals. What do our communities and businesses need? They need a simpler, clearer approach, which is faster and more flexible and with which they can more easily become involved. That is what the local planning arrangements in the Bill will help to deliver.

Would new clause 49 deliver that? Would it be an improvement on our system? It has two main features. Although it is confusing—it refers to a single plan in some parts and to local development plan documents in others—it appears that each authority would have a single plan. That would be instead of a separate local development scheme, a set of development plan documents and supplementary planning documents. Under PPS12, which we circulated to the Committee before the sitting, that set of documents will be called the local development framework—LDF for short.

The second main feature of the new clause is that people who had made a representation seeking a change to a plan would not have the right to appear at the examination. The person carrying out the examination would look at written representations only if people had specifically asked for that.

Under subsection 1 of the new clause, a local planning authority would prepare a plan to be known as the local development plan. It would have to list in

its plan local development plan documents and what they would cover; which documents would be prepared jointly with other LPAs; anything agreed or proposed to be done by a joint committee; the timetable for preparing and revising the documents; and other matters set out in regulations. The LPA would be able to withdraw its plan at any time before adoption. The Secretary of State would be able to direct the LPA to make changes to its plan, but only if he and the LPA could not agree on any matter—presumably what changes should be made.

If I understand the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold correctly, its first main advantage is that there is only one document, which should cover everything, including policies and proposals, the timetable for putting them together and details of joint working. Its second main advantage is that the name ''plan'' is one that people recognise and are used to, but there are many more disadvantages compared with our system. The first is that the new clause would be less clear. There is nothing to prevent LPAs from making their plans far too complicated, including myriad policies with no long-term strategy. That would lead to confusion and uncertainty for everyone.

However, under regulations in part 2 of the Bill, an LPA's local development framework will be made up of clear elements, each with a clear status. There will be a core strategy for at least 10 years, a proposals map showing how all the land in the authority's area is to be developed or conserved and area action plans if LPAs want them, showing what will happen in areas where there will be a lot of change, or which areas are to be kept as they are. All those elements will be part of the development plan, so they will be in the form of development plan documents, or DPDs. There may also be documents that give more detail on policies in the core strategy and area action plans, or set out policies on design. Those elements will be in the form of local development documents that are not DPDs. Regulations call such documents supplementary planning documents, or SPDs, and they will not be part of the development plan.

Our proposals allow people to see what the LPA's strategy is, with fewer, clearer, more important policies. People will be able to find any detailed proposals for the area where they live or run a business. In our system the contents will be much clearer for the user. In turn, that means that decisions are much more likely to be consistent.

The second disadvantage of the new clause is that people would have to wait longer for up-to-date policies. As is the case now, it would be only when the entire plan was ready that it could come into effect. Progress would be determined by the elements of the plan that took the longest. Being able to withdraw only the entire plan, even if only parts were not working, could also mean delay in adopting new policies. I cannot see how the new clause could cut the five to 10 years it takes now to prepare a unitary development plan or local plan. Under our system, there will be no need to wait until the LPA has done all the work needed for a comprehensive plan. For example, its key

strategic policies can be prepared, examined and adopted as soon as they are ready through the core strategy and more detail can come forward later through area action plans.

We are committed to ensuring that all LPAs have a local development scheme in place by the end of 2004 and that they have delivered the agreed components of the local development framework in line with that scheme by March 2007. They can do that because of the system we are introducing—the LDF—and the quicker procedures from start to adoption.

The third disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman's new clause is that it would be less flexible and harder to update—either something is in the plan or it does not exist. In addition, the local planning authority can withdraw only the whole plan, even if only parts of it need to be prepared or revised from scratch. It retains the straitjacket of having to produce or amend one comprehensive document, with all the time and complications that involves.

Under our system, local planning authorities will be able to prepare not only development plan documents, which will be part of the development plan and open to public examination, but supplementary planning documents, which will be quicker and easier to prepare. Those documents—or SPDs—will not be part of the development plan, but they are likely to contain important material considerations. A local planning authority will be able to produce just a single integrated development plan document or a series of documents, depending on local circumstances.

Local planning authorities want the flexibility to produce different documents or alter those that already exist as and when they are needed. Individual parts of the local development framework—the DPDs and the SPDs—can be updated, or new bits prepared separately. We believe that that will be clearer to, and more manageable for, local people than revising parts of a single plan. Unlike the current system, a local planning authority will find it much easier to react to changing circumstances on the ground. It could deal with a factory closure leading to a regeneration opportunity by preparing an area action plan, as in the example I gave earlier.

Every local planning authority, as the leader for its community, should have a proper spatial planning strategy for its area and keep it up to date. Our system will ensure that that can happen. If there were a single plan, as is proposed in the new clause, that would be much harder for authorities and stakeholders to do. It would perpetuate one of the central problems with the current system.

A fourth disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman's new clause is that it would do less to help a community's businesses and other interested parties participate in planning. The new clause contains a statement of community involvement, but there is no requirement for the local planning authority to comply with that when preparing its plan. Under our arrangements, each local planning authority must have a statement of community involvement. There will also be regulations setting out the minimum amount that a

local authority must do. The statement of community involvement will set out how the authority should deliver that minimum and anything it intends to do.

That is not all. It will be easier for the community to get involved with local development frameworks made up of individual DPDs and SPDs than with a single plan. That is because people can choose what to focus on, whether it is the core strategy setting out the local planning authority's policies for the next decade, details about what may happen in their area or every DPD and SPD in the local planning authority's local development framework as it is developed.

There are other problems with the hon. Gentleman's new clause. As he can tell, I am taking his proposals seriously. It is not sensible to include the project timetable in the plan. That would mix up policies and the programme for preparing them. That is not necessary and it is not compatible with the plan-led system, where planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise.

It would be confusing for people if their local planning authority had a single plan, but some of what it contains, such as documents, a preparation timetable or working details—what people generally understand a plan to be—was not part of the development plan. It would also be difficult to change the project timetable or joint working arrangements. The local planning authority would have to go through the full procedures for revising the plan, including an independent examination. That is surely not worth while. Under our arrangements, the project plan for preparing the local development documents that make up the local development framework and for keeping the local development framework up to date is rightly kept separate, and altered in a way that is sensible.

I now come to rights to appear at the independent ex amination. Under subsection (17),

''Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development plan''

will have the right to put his representation in writing to the inspector, the person appointed to carry out the examination. The inspector

''shall decide whether . . . that person shall be heard at the examination.''

Under the Bill as drafted, the inspector will hear all representations, and anyone who has made a representation seeking a change to a development plan document has the right to be heard at the examination. I understand that the examination may be quicker if the inspector sees only those written representations that people have specifically asked to be put to him, and if he decides that not everyone who has made a representation seeking a change is to be heard at the examination.

However, I put it to the Committee that the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits. How can the plan properly take account of community views if the inspector does not consider written representations that people have not asked him to or have forgotten to

ask him to consider? It would also remove a long-standing right that is strongly supported across all sectors. That was clear from the responses to our Green Paper and from the Select Committee's report on it. We listened. The person carrying out the examination can decide how best to hear oral representations—whether at a round table session, an informal hearing or in an inquiry format—while ensuring that examination goes as quickly as possible.

The accusation implicit in the new clause is that our system is complicated because it is made up of a series of component parts. I entirely disagree. Our system boils down to this: at present, each local planning authority has a single local or unitary development plan. Many local planning authorities have extra pieces of administrative supplementary planning guidance, as well as their plan. As we know, some authorities have yet to adopt a plan at all, and many have plans that are out of date.

Under the Bill—and the regulations and guidance that fill in the detail—each local authority will have a single local development framework. That will be made up of a set of local development documents. Those that set out the most important policies and proposals for determining planning applications will be called development plan documents. The others will, under the regulations, be called supplementary planning documents. Under our system, a local planning authority will be able to produce just one single integrated development plan document, or a number of separate documents. It will be up to them.

At present, local authorities do not have to set out when their plan will be ready. Under the Bill, local planning authorities will draw up a timetable for preparing their local development plan documents, and they will have to follow it. That is a new requirement, but one that is very much needed, and I make no apology for it.

We have a plan-led system. That means that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At present, local or unitary development plans are part of the development plan. Under the Bill, it is quite clear that development plan documents will be part of the development plan. Supplementary planning documents can be a material consideration. It is simply not true to say that our system is complicated; it will be clearer, more flexible and faster than the one we have now. I do not believe that the alternative proposal in the new clause would be simple. Actually, it would be complicated and muddled, and as it would keep many of the features of the current system that caused such problems, it would be much worse than the arrangements in the Bill.

I now turn to the amendments in this group. Later, I shall speak to the Government amendments. Amendment No. 149, in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow, would limit the period of time for the Secretary of State to consider draft local development schemes to eight weeks. As I hope I have demonstrated, we need the local development scheme

to tackle the serious problems of delays under the current system, in which it takes more than five years and as many as 10, to put a plan in place. However, we must face the possibility that some local authorities will propose a set of local development documents that are inadequate, or an unacceptably slow timetable for preparing them.

The Secretary of State's power to direct changes to an authority's local development scheme would be used only as a last resort. Authorities will need to have discussions with the relevant Government office at an early stage on the draft scheme. We expect problems to be resolved without having to use the last resort of a direction. We want schemes to be up and running quickly so that authorities can get on with their work. In the normal course of events, we expect that to happen four weeks after the Secretary of State receives a scheme from a local planning authority.

We will set out in regulations that the Secretary of State will have four weeks to consider the local planning authority's scheme once submitted. That scheme will come into effect if he tells the local planning authority during that period that he does not intend to direct it to make changes. It will also come into effect if the authority does not hear from him during the period, or if he directs the local planning authority to make changes to the scheme and it complies or he withdraws the direction.

The Secretary of State may give the authority notice that he needs more time to consider the scheme. That may be necessary if the submitted scheme does not contain all the information that he needs to make a decision. The notice will say how much more time he needs, and it would be wrong to limit artificially how long that could be. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow, I do not agree that an eight-week deadline would delay the process, but I understand the case for an element of flexibility. The provisions in the Bill and the regulations ensure that the key project planning document is robust and sets a timetable that people can have confidence in, while keeping burdens on authorities and bureaucracy to a minimum.

Amendment No. 152 seems to be designed to ensure that all relevant land use planning and transport documents are considered as part of the planning process at the local level. Better joining up of strategies, policies and programmes that are not directly about land use is one of the main objectives of the reforms to local planning. Our approach is strategic and comprehensive, through a primary duty in the Bill, as set out in clause 16(3), and Government policy as set out in PPS12, which makes it clear that, under the new system, local development documents should

''provide an agreed vision for an area signed up to by the community and stakeholders. This will involve linking strategies and programmes that exist at the local level through the planning system''.

They should also

''not be restricted to matters that may be implemented through the planning system. Spatial expression will therefore need to be given to those elements of other strategies and programmes, particularly

the community strategy, which relate to the use and development of land. This could include regeneration . . . housing . . . and social issues.''

PPS1 will stress the new spatial nature of the whole planning system, and regional level planning will also be on a spatial basis.

The range of policies, programmes and strategies that will need to be joined with and given spatial expression in local development documents is wide. The comprehensive, strategic approach of the reforms means that we have not given local planning authorities an exhaustive list. Although I agree with the intention behind the amendment, it is neither necessary nor sensible. The nature of the relevant documents can alter, even in the space of a few years. For example, local transport plans did not exist until 1998. We believe that it is better to set out a broad framework in the legislation, describing the relevant documents generally, and then to leave it to policy statements and good practice guidance to specify particular documents. This will give us a system that is flexible and robust.

Government amendment No. 80 is for clarification and caters for a situation in which a policy and supporting text in a local development document conflict or appear to conflict. It makes it clear that the policy prevails in such an event. Of course, such an event should not happen, but we need a safeguard in case it does. Government amendment No. 80 is such a safeguard, and I hope that the Committee will support it. I am grateful for the support shown by the hon. Member for Ludlow.

Amendment No. 150 would remove the specific power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that set out which local development documents must be development plan documents, the form and content of local development documents, and the time at which any step in their preparation must be taken. I am aware that some members of the Committee believe that the Secretary of State should have no powers to make regulations and that perhaps all the detail should be in the Bill. I am also aware that others do not agree that there should be different types of document in the new system.

We have now published for consultation draft regulations for that purpose and for part 2 of the Bill as a whole. The regulations specify, for example, that the local planning authorities' core strategy will be a development plan document, as will the proposals map and any other site-specific policies or proposals. We want local authorities to decide what local development documents are suitable for their area, but it is right that certain core documents must be development plan documents and must undergo independent examination. We believe that regulations are the place in which to set out the detail of that, and we have published them in draft for everyone to comment on. The local authority will be able to specify other local development documents in their scheme as development plan documents or otherwise, depending on their content. In order to have certainty and confidence in the plan-led system, it is important that the key policies that will be used to determine the grant or refusal of planning permission and the proposals for

the development or use of specific areas of land are properly consulted on and are subject to independent examination.

Amendment No. 151 seeks to insert the word ''or'' to make the position clear. I contend that it is unnecessary, and I am disappointed to see it after the former Minister in the Department who led the consideration of the Bill, my distinguished colleague, now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), wrote to the hon. Member for Ludlow following a debate on an identical amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor on the Committee. When clause 16(7) is read with clause 22, which deals with the adoption of local development documents, and with clauses 20 and 26, which deal with the Secretary of State's powers of intervention and default, it is clear that clauses 16(7)(a) and (b) are not cumulative but alternatives.

The clause simply states when a document becomes a local development document in its final form. There are two routes by which a document will do this: first, by adoption by the local authority; secondly, in the case of development plan documents only, by approval by the Secretary of State. Only one can apply to any local development document or part of a local development document at any time.

Amendment No. 154 seeks to insert a reference to material considerations before the list of matters in clause 18(2), to which the local authority must have regard in preparing local development documents. It would simply add words and no value.

Government amendment No. 83 makes express provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out any documents that should be prepared by local planning authorities in connection with the preparation of local development documents and their form and content. It brings part 2 into line with part 1, in which clause 5(5)(b) and (c) makes that express provision. We have included one such document in our draft regulations on part 2—a consultation statement for a development plan document that sets out whom the local planning authority has consulted, how the issues were raised and how the authority has addressed them.

Amendment No. 155 would provide that the person holding the examination should decide whether an appearance should be in the form of a public inquiry, an examination or a hearing. I agree that this person should take this decision. Inspectors are best placed to decide how the examination should be organised, as they see all the evidence. They are best placed to judge the most effective way of exploring the issues that the representations cover. The Bill does not need to say that that is a decision for the inspector, and it does not need to specify the options. The Bill guarantees that there will always be an examination of a development plan document. Guidance is more suitable for everything else.

Amendment No. 156 would define a purpose of the independent examination as determining the soundness of a development plan document ''in all

material respects''. It is entirely unnecessary. The assessment of whether a document is sound must encompass all relevant matters.

Draft planning policy statement 12, which was circulated to the Committee, sets out the criteria by which the examination will assess the soundness of development plan documents. It asks whether the development is spatial; whether it takes into account other relevant strategies; whether it conforms to national and regional policy; whether it contains a coherent course strategy; whether it has a robust and credible evidence base; whether it has clear delivery mechanisms; whether it is realistic; whether it can deal with changing circumstances; whether it is consistent with other development plan documents; whether it has taken proper account of community views; and whether it has been prepared following proper procedures. The amendment would add words but no value.

Government amendment No. 2 is a technical amendment clarifying that the Secretary of State can direct an authority to modify a local development document and that he has the power to withdraw that document. The hon. Member for Cotswold should welcome the amendment, as he is keen that the Secretary of State should direct only when the Secretary of State and the authority do not agree.

The Secretary of State may set out in detail precisely the type of modification that he wishes to see made to a local development document. The authority may return with an alternative suggestion, which, although it does not exactly comply with the direction, meets the intention behind it. When that happens, it has always been our intention that the Secretary of State should accept the local authority's suggestion and withdraw the direction to modify it, if it is appropriate to do so. The amendment puts the scope to act in that way beyond doubt.

Amendment No. 157 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to call in development plan documents for his approval, and give him that power over local development documents, which are known as supplementary planning documents, not development plan documents.

I am puzzled by the amendment. On the one hand, it would place an unnecessary degree of control in the hands of the Secretary of State but, on the other, it would remove an essential safeguard over the contents of the development plan. It is perhaps based on a misunderstanding of how the new system will work and the purpose of the Secretary of State's powers in clause 20.

Normally, the local planning authority will prepare development plan documents and supplementary planning documents. It will submit only development plan documents to the Secretary of State under clause 19, and it will submit them not so that he might review them, but for independent examination.

Normally, the local planning authority will adopt the development plan documents and supplementary planning documents that it has prepared. It will adopt

development plan documents after consultation and independent examination and incorporate the recommendations of the person conducting the examination, and it will adopt supplementary planning documents after consultation alone. There will not be an independent examination of those documents.

Clause 20 contains powers for the Secretary of State to intervene if he thinks that the development plan document or the supplementary planning document is unsatisfactory. Under clause 21, he may direct changes to either type of document. Under clause 23, he may direct a local planning authority to submit a development plan document, or any part of it, to him for his approval. That is generally referred to as the Secretary of State's call-in power. It is a necessary safeguard, because development plan documents will be part of the development plan, in line with which planning applications will be decided unless material considerations determine otherwise. It is emphatically not the duplication of the process for submitting a development plan document to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

The Government amendment is a small, technical but important amendment. Clause 20(4)(c) covers a situation in which an authority has submitted a development plan document to the Secretary of State for examination and the Secretary of State issues a direction requiring a development plan document or any part of it to be submitted to him for approval. In such circumstances, clause 20(4)(c) requires the person who is going to carry out the examination always to make his recommendations directly to the Secretary of State. In practice, that may not be possible. The person responsible may have already made his responses before the Secretary of State issues a direction, so would not be able to make them directly to the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 84 deals with that glitch.

Amendment No. 158 would enable a document or part of a document that the Secretary of State has called in for approval to be taken into account in development control decisions before he has approved, modified or rejected the document or part. The effect of that could be to allow planning applications to be considered against policies that the Secretary of State found to be so flawed as to warrant rejection. That is clearly not acceptable.

I concede that I have spoken at great length and covered a lot of ground. I started by reminding the Committee of the problems with local and unitary development plans and how they are made. I shall conclude by summing up why I believe that the arrangements for local planning in those clauses of the Bill covered here are right for our communities. They are simpler, clearer, faster and more flexible with better community involvement.

First, the local development scheme will be a local planning authority's project plan for preparing its local development framework and keeping it up to date, and the authority will have to stick to it. The scheme is not relevant to deciding planning applications, so it will be free-standing. The Secretary

of State will see it, but it will not have to go through procedures designed for a plan to become live. It will no longer be possible for a local planning authority to take twice as much time as its better performing neighbours.

Secondly, local development documents are the components of a local planning authority's local development framework. Every authority will have a core strategy setting out its key spatial policies for at least a decade, and a proposals map. A local planning authority may choose to have area action plans setting out details for areas where much will change, or much will be conserved. Those elements of the local development framework will be development plan documents. There will be an independent examination, which will be part of the development plan. A local planning authority may also choose to have other local development documents, to be called supplementary planning documents. There will be no independent examination and there can be material considerations.

People will no longer have to cope with as many as 300 policies to try to establish what development might be possible in their neighbourhood. The key policies will be clearly set out. The detail for individual areas will be together in one place. People will not have to wait until the local planning authority has done all the work needed for a single plan covering all issues before anything is adopted and up-to-date policies bite on planning applications. It will be much easier to update individual documents or prepare new ones, than to revise an entire plan or alter part of it. People will be able to focus and make representations on those parts of the local planning authority's local development framework that interest them. They will not have to trawl through a long, complicated plan to find out what they want to examine.

Thirdly, there will be an independent examination of every development plan document. The person appointed to carry it out will decide how best to organise it. He or she will consider whether the development plan document is sound. Everyone who has made a representation seeking a change to a development plan document will have the right to be heard. The local planning authority will have to accept the recommendations that the person carrying out the examination makes. That stage in the process where the local planning authority decides which of the recommendations arising from the inquiry it will accept or reject, and takes representations before adoption—the cause of much delay—will be eliminated.

Fourthly, there will be proportionate powers for the Secretary of State to intervene. He will be able to direct changes to a supplementary planning document or development plan document and call in the latter to approve it himself, although only if he thinks the document is unsatisfactory.

Fifthly, there will be the option to withdraw an individual element of the local development framework—a development plan document or supplementary planning document—if the local planning authority believes that it is better to start it

from scratch. A statement of community involvement will also set out the local planning authority's policy, which must at least meet the requirements on community involvement in regulations and may include more. Instead of waiting to react to proposals that are almost fixed, people will be able to say what they think at the outset and remain involved as documents are worked up.

Those elements all contribute to achieving our goals. Each needs to be defined because it serves a purpose. We want plan making to be faster, we want plans to be simpler, clearer and flexible so that they can be more easily updated, and we want to strengthen community involvement in plans. Our arrangements do just that.

I have spoken for 45 minutes, which was exactly the time taken by the Opposition in making their arguments.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The Minister spoke at length and most powerfully. I am extremely grateful for what he said, whether I agree with him or not. It is important that he took time to discuss the proposals, including new clause 49, because they deal with the guts of part 2, which covers local development. We will be asked to approve seven clauses that deal with the local development scheme and the local development document, its preparation, withdrawal and revision, the independent examination and the intervention of the Secretary of State.

I want to speak to new clause 49, which I support. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, who has been burning the midnight oil. With great diligence, he has tried to simplify what is necessarily—as came out from the Minister's speech—a complicated part of the Bill. It would be wrong to try to sum up the Minister's comments, but he said basically that although his clauses may seem to be complicated, they will make the system easier and introduce flexibility, instead of the big-bang theory of a unitary development plan that people must wait years to change substantially. I admit that that does not do justice to the Minister's speech.

However, the Minister has underestimated my hon. Friend's work. It is not just that new clause 49, which I calculate is about two pages long, would replace 15 clauses that cover eight pages, making the Bill shorter and simpler. The new clause would also introduce the important concept of conciliation, which is vital in town and country planning matters and regulations. It would encourage negotiation between the Secretary of State and the local planning authority and between the local planning authority and those making representations.

I accept that I underestimated the flexibility that the Minister pointed out in part 2, but he underestimated the flexibility that could be built into the new clause. If I were typically in a halfway house, I would say that what the Minister was talking about in his powerful comments could use the framework of the new clause rather than the series of clauses in the Bill.

From my limited experience in this field, I feel that the planning system, in parts, is beginning to fail because the public are becoming confused. My hon. Friend's remarks in introducing the new clause were very powerful in that respect.

We live with a planning system that has evolved from the great Town and Country Planning Act 1947. I call it ''great'', although I violently disagreed with parts of it, particularly those dealing with compensation, which was ridiculous in those days. We are trying to perfect a planning system so we can show the public that it is open and fair. We are also trying to remove the too-easy assumption made by many people that, if they do not get their way, there is corruption in the planning system.

I remember that in my first Session in 1970, when I had the privilege of becoming a Member of Parliament for the first time, I was tenth in the ballot for private Members' Bills and introduced my own Urban and Rural Environment Bill. It never saw the light of day, because it fell through lack of time, but one of its provisions would have been to give greater publicity to people about planning applications that affected them. That provision was picked up later on, in a private Member's Bill in 1976. One of the ways that was done was to make provision for using what I call the lamp-street notice, whereby, when a significant development was taking place in the locality, it was publicised on various lamp-posts so that the people walking past would be given notice of the application. That was really an extension of the system whereby neighbours were given notification in writing of even relatively minor planning applications that might affect them significantly.

What I sought to do, in supporting new clause 49—I make no apology for it—was to introduce into the development plan system, whether it is called a framework or a scheme, a means of communicating to the public the fact that they have a part to play in it. If the new clause is rejected, I ask the Government to look behind it to what my hon. Friend is trying to do, and to try to ensure that the public are not confused by all the new terms and new ways, but are encouraged to play a part.

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the new clause. It has occasioned a debate of great importance and seriousness. I want to say to the Minister that I have been impressed by the way he has responded, and that, although we must take the decision now, I would want to reflect further on what he has said.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I want to ensure that I have followed the Minister's argument correctly. He spoke for some 45 minutes, and attempted to take the Committee through the system in detail.

If I correctly understood the Minister, local authorities—a district council, for instance—would have to lay out a local development scheme, which would explain how the council intended to go about creating its local development framework, which itself

would comprise a number of local development documents. Those in turn would comprise a number of development plan documents, and might or might not include a number of supplementary planning documents. All of those will have to be produced in accordance with a statement of community involvement, and must also dovetail with the regional spatial strategy, which will have been produced by the regional planning body. All of that must ultimately be overseen by the Secretary of State. In other words, each DC must lay out an LDS, by which it will create an LDF, which may comprise a number of LDDs, which in turn may comprise a number of DPDs, which may or may not comprise a number of SPDs within the DPDs. All of those must be produced in accordance with an SCI laid out by the DC and must also comply with the RSS created by the RPB, all of which are overseen by the Secretary of State. Really, having listened to the Minister's explanation, it could not be any simpler.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

All this, of course, is overridden by the policy, which has not been explained at all.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I would have referred to that. Unfortunately, the policy does not have a convenient TLA—three-letter abbreviation. Having heard the Minister go through all of that, can any member of the Committee imagine themselves in a situation in which a controversial planning application has been made in their constituency and a public meeting is convened by angry residents? The hon. Member concerned must stand up in front of said residents, all of whom want to understand how the process works because they will want to object to the application. He or she will then have to take 200 angry residents through the system. Would anyone actually want to have to take people who are not necessarily experts in planning law through the system and explain what the Minister has laid out?

There are ways that the present system can be improved. The Minister did his best, in his very relaxed style, to take the Committee through the system. I do not say ''relaxed'' in any pejorative way at all; he has a very confident manner in Committee, but does anyone who heard the description and summary that the Minister provided in 45 minutes of how the system is actually intended to work believe that it actually provides a more simplified system, as the Minister would have the Committee believe?

I said that I would be brief. Therefore, with those few remarks, I shall say TTFN.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman has sold himself short. He missed out SODPs, not to be confused with SDPs. However, he should not worry about it. I am following him.

The hon. Gentleman issued a challenge, and I have to say that my answer would be yes, but it has taken me nine months. That is slightly unfair, because we did not consider the matter in the whole in the first Committee. We dealt with each clause and then the detailed amendments to the clauses, one by one. We did not consider the whole system. Frankly, the approach of putting it altogether, which has taken

several hours, is actually a much better way of explaining and understanding the system. It provides a lesson for future detailed Bills. Sometimes it is necessary to look at a Bill in the whole rather than just in the clause-by-clause way we looked at it in January.

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would need to explain the process in those terms, because most of it would have taken place by the time the planning application came forward. It would not be necessary to explain local development documents or the composition of the local development scheme. Therefore, his argument is slightly specious. In fact, he repeats a point that I made in January, but I am saying now that I was wrong then. I hope he takes my comments in that spirit. I made almost exactly the same points some months ago.

On the nine amendments that I tabled, I am reasonably satisfied by the Minister's answers. In one case, I owe an apology because I did not realise that a letter had been written to me. I should slap myself on the wrist and grovel.

However, on amendments Nos. 149 and 152, the Minister has once again hidden behind regulations or, in the case of amendment No. 152, planning policy statement 1, neither of which has been published. There is a lesson to be drawn from that. The number of amendments that I have tabled on which the Minister has stood up and said, ''Ah, we will deal with that in a document that we shall publish in a week's time'' would suggest that we could have saved ourselves a great deal of time and bother if only those documents had been published a few weeks in advance of the Committee.

Basically, I am satisfied. I am a little concerned that the Minister glossed over some of the areas about which the Law Society said that there were legal ambiguities. The Minister said that the extra clarification would add unnecessary words. Clearly, neither of us is a lawyer, and we are speaking with advice from different quarters. Legal brains may tend to disagree with each other. I just hope that his advice, rather than mine, is right; otherwise, there will be legal challenges. However, that will be on the Government's head.

I am happy with the Minister's explanations of the nine amendments that I tabled. I know that they are not the lead amendments in the group, but I will not press any of them. I reiterate that the Government have produced a system that should be more flexible

and faster and should work better. However, we should not think that it is all wonderful; I may disagree with statements on the development principle.

The hon. Member for Cotswold has done the Committee a favour by detailing another system, because he has enabled us to look at the Government system as a whole. We have been presented with two options—or three with the current system, which is not too dissimilar to the hon. Gentleman's system. That has enabled us to consider them as a whole. If nothing else, we owe the hon. Gentleman a debt of gratitude for spending what must have been considerable hours burning the midnight oil—although there must be some hours of the day when it is not midnight.

I am happy with the Minister's explanations, as far as they go.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call the hon. Member for Cotswold, when I conclude the debate I will be putting the question only on new clause 49.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I feel, in microcosm, like the Leader of the Opposition replying to the Budget debate. The only difference is that the Leader of the Opposition at least has a copy of the Chancellor's written statement. I have heard a hugely complicated explanation from the Minister, but I have no written statement.

I would have preferred to reply with the benefit of Hansard in front of me. If the Government Whip were minded to suspend in the middle of my speech, I would be more than happy to resume the matter on Thursday morning. I will then have had the opportunity to see what has been said before I conclude my remarks.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Even if the Government Whip was minded to, he could not do so in the middle of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He can do so only if the hon. Gentleman chooses to sit down.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr Pike. If I choose to sit down, could I speak again on Thursday morning?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The hon. Gentleman could, if the Government Whip was minded to move the Adjournment now. However, I cannot speak for the Government Whip.

Debate adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Six o'clock till Thursday 23 October at ten past Nine o'clock.