Planning Bill
Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Before we begin, I will make some preliminary announcements. First, hon. and right hon. Members may remove their jackets during Committee sittings if they wish. Please ensure that all mobile phones, pagers and any other things that are likely to make a noise are switched to silent mode or switched off. There is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution and copies are available in the room. I assume that they are in the centre and at the side.
I remind hon. Members that, as a general rule, adequate notice must be given of amendments. My fellow Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that might be reached in an afternoon sitting. I also remind hon. Members that this is one of three Bills in this Session that has been selected for a further experiment with explanatory statements on amendments. All members of the Committee have been sent a leaflet giving further details of the experiment. Copies of the leaflet are available in the Committee Room and in the Public Bill Office. Hon. Members might also wish to seek advice from the Clerk of the Committee.
We are still in the early stages of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees. This is my first experience of it, so we are all on a learning curve. It might help if I explain briefly what is proposed, so that we are all clear. First, the Committee will be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence and a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions, which I hope that we can move formally. Assuming that that motion is agreed to, the Committee will move to a private sitting. Once the Committee has deliberated, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral evidence session will commence. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, the Committee will hear oral evidence today and on Thursday before reverting next week to the more familiar proceedings of clause-by-clause scrutiny.
John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)
Thank you, Sir John.
Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)
On a point of order, Sir John. As I indicated before the sitting started, I am very concerned about some processes and the way in which papers are reaching members of the Committee. I understand the ambitions underlying the process that we are following. This is the second Committee that I have sat on that has followed the new process and it is the second that seems to me to be overwhelmed by large numbers of contributions and pieces of paper arriving at very short notice. It seems to me that the whole process will be hauled into disrepute before the experiment is properly under way if we do not get a grip on the process now.
This issue goes beyond the pressure that is being placed on members of the Committee to the wider issue of how the House handles the experiment and tries to make it a positive one. Last night, a couple of megabytes of contributions relevant to today’s proceedings were sent to us by e-mail, with a note saying that it was on the board. That is a fat lot of use if we do not see the information until after the 10 o’clock process. Most of us do not sit in our offices waiting for e-mails to pop up and indicate that this one element of our responsibilities in the House requires our undivided attention and that everything else should be abandoned. Normally, we ought to have papers by at least the Thursday before a sitting in order to have the opportunity to read them, as many of us do, over the weekend, rather than during the pressures of the working week.
Something therefore needs to be done now to ensure that the deadline for submissions is well in advance of Committee sittings, so that papers can come to hon. Members in a timely manner, and that the Committee is not pushed from pillar to post, which is certainly what happened with the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill Committee, for instance, for which additional evidence-hearing sessions had to be added at the last minute. It is also unfair to the staff of the House, who I appreciate are trying to get information to us, and to serve the public as they try to put evidence to us in a proper and timely manner. They cannot do that in the seemingly rather chaotic current situation.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a relevant and serious point. We are in the process of developing such procedures, so I apologise on behalf of the authorities that the papers have arrived somewhat later than we would ideally have liked. Two things arise from that. First, when sittings such as this take place immediately after a recess, we ought to consider the possibility of papers being sent to hon. Members’ homes during the recess. It would be helpful to everyone if right hon. and hon. Members could advise the Clerks where they are likely to be during recesses, because it will be no use sending papers to hon. Members’ homes if they are going to be somewhere else. If they will be somewhere where the papers could be sent, we should look at that seriously for the future.
We will have to consider further the question of a timetable. The whole idea is to invite public participation in our processes, so I would not want to set a time restriction which meant that some people were not able to make important contributions for our consideration. However, we will look at the possibility of a timetable for the future.
John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 8th January) meet—
(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 8th January;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 10th January;
(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 15th January;
(d) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 17th January;
(e) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 22nd January;
(f) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 24th January;
(g) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 29th January;
(h) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 31st January;
(i) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 5th February;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
TABLE
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
I add my welcome, Sir John, to that of the Minister. I have never had the privilege of sitting under your chairmanship, but am looking forward to it and to a robust debate on the Bill, which has, as the Minister said, generated a great deal of interest. With regard to this particular procedure, I am the third novice. I am looking forward to it very much and hope that it will be enlightening. I hope that, towards the end of our consideration in Committee, Sir John, you will invite us to reflect on our experience of this new procedure so that we can develop it in a way that helps the House, as taking evidence from interested bodies is a useful innovation and one that we wish to encourage to work well.
The official Opposition have no objection to the proposals before us. We are looking forward to some robust debates and exchanges of views and hope that the Government will take on board all of our points.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
I, too, echo the welcome made to you, Sir John, by the Minister and the hon. Member for Beckenham. I am sure that you will provide us with appropriate leadership during our deliberations. We are fully signed up to the programme motion and believe that it is adequate for addressing the concerns that we have about the Bill, providing of course that the Minister responds generously to the many requests for improvements to the Bill that will be made from all parts of the Committee during our deliberations.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Copies of any memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Written evidence to be reported to the House
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
We will now proceed to hear oral evidence from a representative of the CBI. I am pleased to welcome Mr. John Cridland. Mr. Cridland, would you like to introduce your colleague?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Thank you. Would you like to make a brief introductory statement or would you prefer to proceed directly to questions?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
I therefore call Mr. Neill.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
As all barristers are, I am happy to dip my toe in the water, Sir John. Mr. Cridland, I was interested to hear that you are concerned about some failures in the present system in respect of the length of time that inquiries can take. Is that influenced by things such as the terminal 5 inquiry at Heathrow, and so on?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
So the key thrust of what you seem to want to achieve from this proposal is the separation of the debate about Government, or national, policy on one hand and what you might term the more location-specific issue, in which, having decided that we will have this type of infrastructure, we ask does it go here or there?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Is that why you say in your written submission that you think the proposals have the potential to simplify? Are you particularly wedded to this scheme? Do you think it is going in broadly the right direction? Are you content provided that there is the separation of national policy from the locational decision—for want of a better expression?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
As a lot of Members want to ask questions, may I suggest a limit of one supplementary question?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
I am looking at your submission; speed-reading the sections on the national policy statements and infrastructure planning commission, it appears that you have not made any references to sustainability. Do you consider that the Government’s proposals, in terms of the sustainability remit that the national policy statement and the infrastructure planning commission should consider, are ones that the business community can live with or do you think they are too tough or too weak? Where do you stand?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
The Government have indicated that, on national policy statements, they will intervene only if there is a national security consideration or if the national policy statement is out of date. Various organisations are advocating that the Minister should perhaps also be able to intervene when there are significant issues around sustainability. Is that something that the business community would oppose?
Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)
Business can find itself on either side of major infrastructure projects, wanting to give evidence either for the importance of something being done quickly or for something not being done at all. So, I wonder if we can look at the practicalities of the Bill’s proposals. What effect do you expect the Bill to have on the time taken to decide on applications for major infrastructure projects? What do you expect to be the impact on the cost associated with such applications? On the other side of the equation, do you think that the Bill’s provisions for consultation with interested and affected parties and for taking responses into account are adequate? How do you think it will work?
Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)
Thinking back to major projects, I remember the frustrations of the eight years it took us to get the legislation through for the building of the Cardiff Bay barrage. It is difficult to think of or find any opponents now, but they were around at the time. Major issues do come up, which require investigation and research. So, are you satisfied that the process will allow for difficult issues to be dealt with, as well as—if you like—the ones that have already been explored long before the planning application comes to fruition?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
May I go on from there to ask why you think that, when there are already statutory deadlines, another set of statutory deadlines will be any more effective?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
So, in effect, if you have national policy statements, you do not necessarily need an IPC because you would have a series of deadlines that could be met under the current situation and the Secretary of State could make the decision within the timeline. Under a single planning consent regime you would take out a lot of the delays that are currently created because there are no deadlines. Why create another bureaucracy?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
Mr. Cridland, are you not living in a sort of winter wonderland with that last bit of poetry? Why does the CBI wish to see the creation of a huge new quango with almost twice as many members on the main board as are in the Cabinet and no doubt a supporting cast of thousands? If you have a national policy statement—as effectively we are going to have later this week on nuclear power—there are about 1,000 places where nuclear power stations will be built. We all know where they will be built. Why on earth, therefore, do we need a new quango to do it?
If you want speed and if there is something of national interest why do we not invite the Government to take responsibility and take the decision? Is that not the most sensible and efficient way of doing it?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
But, Mr. Cridland, those analogies simply do not hold water. The Low Pay Commission does not take a decision that puts a nuclear power station at the bottom of your garden. These are planning issues which people often feel very strongly about. Any MP will tell you that the issues which come into their surgeries more than any other are planning issues. Why on earth do you think that this commission, no doubt selected with all sorts of care, is going to deliver the sort of cheerful consensus you imagine in an area where we have not seen it in the past? If it is in the national interest, why not make the decision and then concentrate on helping people to live with it?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
The Bill includes a provision that would enable the Government to designate existing policy statements as national policy statements. Do you think that that is reasonable?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
Aviation is one of the areas that it has been suggested should be treated in this way. Would the CBI be supportive of that?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
Your written submission pays a lot of attention to the content of the IPC. Do you think that the procedures set out in the Bill for identifying the experts, who would in fact be the commissioners, are adequate?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
What about the procedures for identifying those people?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Order. I did say one supplementary question.
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Mr. Cridland or Ms Dee, could you give us your opinion or experience of the ever increasing cost of energy, not just for consumers but for businesses, and the importance of security of supply? You will also be aware that energy provision, particularly nuclear energy provision, is a matter for the devolved Administrations, who may take a different view about it from the UK Government. What concerns do you have and what provision do you think could be in the Bill to overcome the difficulty of administration costs for businesses which may have to deal with different Governments on different energy policy statements?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Would the business community, therefore, be happy with a single planning authority on energy throughout the UK?
Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)
First, happy new year. I notice from your written evidence that the CBI is, I think it is right to say, extremely supportive of these proposals. Is it your view, and is it based on evidence, that the current system actually deters investment from companies in the UK and from companies outside of the UK into the UK, and therefore hampers the economic growth of the country?
Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)
To ask a similar, if not the same, question from a different point of view, is it the view of the CBI that, should the Bill receive parliamentary consent—as I certainly hope that it will—it will significantly assist in the growth of the UK economy?
Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)
You will be well aware of the work that the Government and others have done in terms of looking for a way through with the community infrastructure levy, and I note in your written submission that you are pleased to see the community infrastructure levy rather than the planning gain supplement. This is certainly an issue of concern. Earlier you said that local concerns should be heard and this is certainly a local concern—residents invariably say that infrastructure is not being provided as well as businesses and the whole range. Just talking, then, about the way that that should be calculated, do you want to expand further on what you have said briefly in your documentation about how you think the Government should be putting that basis of charge in place?
Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)
Fine. Let me just take that further, then, in terms of the demands that come from a regional or sub-regional level. Do you broadly support contribution on a wider scale at regional and sub-regional level? How far should that go, and what should be the guidelines on that? Are there any particular safeguards that should be in the legislation in terms of the charging principles?
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
Are your members happy with the compulsory purchase arrangements for businesses? The land associated with those businesses would certainly increase with this type of Bill, if it does indeed speed up infrastructure projects.
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
Has the CBI considered paying businesses, individuals, or indeed communities, as a way of sharing the global benefit to the greater good, but bringing it down to that individual business that might be affected by reduced traffic because of a larger motorway, or that house that might reduce in value because there is a nuclear power station next door, or a community that might have concerns about a substation coming off a wind farm?
Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)
Sorry to jump subjects, but I have just one question. Do you have a view on whether the definitions in part 3 on what constitutes the nationally significant, such as the 50 MW limit for onshore power, are appropriate across all of the areas that have been suggested?
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
May I take you back to the question asked by my colleague, Paul Clark, about the community infrastructure levy? My understanding is that along with most of the business organisations, you are concerned about the proposals on the planning gain supplement because of the complications and difficulties of doing the calculations on uplift of value. You have referred to concerns about reference in clause 166 to the fact that the charge could be varied according to increases in value arising. What is your position if that aspect of the Bill remains? Do you think that it could undermine the basis on which the proposed charge, which you supported, would go ahead?
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
But you are arguing that there should be an ability at local level to have some variability in the charge, according to particular circumstances. I think that you talk about the problem of inner-city redevelopment sites, where you might want to lower the charge. Is that not covered in the Bill by reference to variability according to descriptions or purposes of development, or would you like to see something added that refers to locality? Locality was referred to in the charter proposal that you put forward to the Government in the first place.
Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)
Coming back to the list of national interest infrastructure projects and the categories in the Bill, there is provision in the Bill for further categories to be added, as long as they fall within the fields of energy, transport, water, waste water or waste. Do you feel that provisions should be added so that those categories can be expanded in the future?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
A number of Members want to ask about the role of the commission and its appointment.
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
You are referring to the number of commissioners, Sir John. Karen Dee, you referred in your early remarks to expecting few projects to come forward for consideration. The White Paper referred to there being five to 10 a year, although I think the current estimate is 45. Given the time scales set out in the Bill, which you also support, how many commissioners do you think will be needed to get through all of those inquiries at the speed at which you wish to see them done and what variety of expertise do you expect those commissioners to have? For instance, if they are talking about nuclear power, should there be a nuclear power engineer among those commissioners, should that person be in employment or retired, and, if so, for how long?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
Where will we find these creatures that have the skills to analyse evidence in areas that do not necessarily relate to their own expertise? You want it to be an inquisitorial system with cross-examination-type questions, whereby the commissioner will ask the questions rather than representatives of the various groups, which would have allowed everyone to feel that they had the proper right to be heard, as was established under mediaeval law in this country. They will have expertise in a range of subjects, but I am not sure where you think those paragons will come from and whether we will get them in sufficient numbers so that, if we agree on the 40 issues and the time scales, we will get considerably more than are set out in the Bill. Is the taxpayer going to be thrilled at having to pay for those people?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated for this witness. I thank you, Mr. Cridland, and your colleague, Karen Dee, for answering the questions so clearly and helpfully. I ask the next witness to take his place.
Good morning. I introduce David Green, the chief executive for the UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy. Welcome, Mr. Green, would you please introduce your colleague?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Thank you. A number of people have indicated that they would like to ask questions on your particular area. I will start with Clive Betts.
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
On the exemption that you are proposing for energy projects from the community infrastructure levy, why do you feel that the energy industry is so specific and different from other industries? Similar proposals will be put forward by the minerals extraction industry and the transport industry, both of whom feel that when they develop they add value rather than detract from it, and, therefore, should not have to pay a levy towards any other development issues.
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Would it be reasonable to assume, though, that if a major energy site of whatever kind is developed, there probably will be infrastructure costs in accessing that site, for example, which the local authorities may have to pay for? If it was to be a site which employed quite a large number of people in an area where such occupation did not already exist, there could be additional requirements for schools, for example, for the children of people who work on the site. Again, those would be costs to the local authority. You are saying that projects of this kind, which bring those costs with them, should not make any contribution towards the development costs in the area?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
A number of colleagues have indicated that they particularly want to ask questions on the energy issue, but if others wish to do so, perhaps they might seek to catch my eye in the next few minutes.
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
Thank you, Sir John, and thank you for coming in. We are probably going to take most of it as read that you agree with most of what the CBI has already said. I will just ask you about the particular issue of the interaction between the proposed announcement that we are expecting this week on nuclear power stations and what would be a potential national policy statement on nuclear power, and the timescales required for the building of nuclear power stations, in order to move towards meeting renewal energy commitments. Are you expecting that, from an announcement this week on nuclear power stations, there would be a challenge to those power stations that would play into the implementation of any legislation that comes out of this Bill? Hence there might be appeals for the nuclear power stations build to be delayed until there is a national policy statement.
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
Do you, then, expect one national policy statement for the whole of the energy infrastructure, whatever the source of the energy and whatever its delivery, or would you expect a separate policy statement on each aspect—in other words on nuclear, on wind, on coal-fired and on your transmission routes?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
Have you worked out how long it will take under the consultation process—you emphasise that you want a full consultation process—to get the whole of your national policy statements infrastructure in place if there are half a dozen of them? How many years will it take before you know what you will be doing?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
I am sorry, but we may be talking past one another. I am talking about the sheer practicality of putting in place six or seven separate national policy statements that are fully consulted and acceptable to all organisations through full parliamentary scrutiny, just on energy. How long do you think that will take?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Following on your comment about carbon constraint—you also mentioned climate change—there seems to be an area of slight difference between you and the CBI. The CBI said that it was happy with what the Bill said in relation to sustainability. You, however, are seeking clarification from the Government on the relationship between the Climate Change Bill and the Planning Bill. What would you, as energy industry representatives, like that relationship to be?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Does that mean you would expect, for instance, the infrastructure planning commission and the national policy statements to have regard for the reduction targets in the Climate Change Bill, so that they would actually take that into account and try to judge whether the national policy statements met those, and whether the IPC was only authorising projects that delivered on the Climate Change Bill?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
This question is to either or both of our guests. You will be aware that the Scottish Administration in Holyrood have challenged, and would deny, any new build nuclear power stations in Scotland. Could you advise the Committee what impact that would have on the rest of the UK in terms of energy policy, and whether this Bill contains, or should contain, any provisions that could perhaps overcome that situation?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
If there is no new nuclear build in Scotland and in the future we have to buy our energy from England, could the scenario be that people in Scotland will have to pay higher fuel bills?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Your written submission—I am looking at paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8—talks in particular about the importance of there being public acceptance and credibility. That is why you refer to the need for a specific requirement for the NPSs to be dealt with by affirmative resolution procedure. Is that something you would like to see specifically in the Bill?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Following your other point in those paragraphs about the importance of a clear hierarchy in relation to the rest of the planning regimes, and no doubt also other NPSs, would you expect there to be a minimum core of information, of topics covered, in each national policy statement? What would you expect to see in a national policy statement? Would you expect to see at least a core of it common to each field for which there has to be a national policy statement, to permit integration and clarity in the hierarchy?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Are you assured that those expectations are met at the moment?
Jeff Ennis (Labour, Barnsley East and Mexborough)
In your memorandum in paragraphs 5 and 6, you seem to be very strongly supportive of the establishment of the IPC. In the previous witnesses session—I think it was in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about the Government setting up another quango—John Cridland seemed to be very supportive of the establishment of the IPC. He said that the IPC costs will be minuscule if the new system works properly. Is that your view, too? Obviously, we need to shake up the current machine to make it more streamlined and the IPC is an integral part in streamlining the current machine.
Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)
Just to clarify who you represent: do you represent those looking at more devolved energy networks as well, or specifically the big infrastructure projects and larger investment?
Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)
That is helpful. In terms of the thresholds that are therefore in the Bill, in terms of when a project becomes subject to the new procedure, would you not agree that that provides an incentive to go towards single bigger schemes rather than looking at multiple smaller ways of generating and distributing energy?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
You mentioned, on a number of occasions, the single consents regime, and most of us would support that in principle. But what interests me is that, within the Bill, the legislation that currently covers the varying consents is being consolidated but not repealed. So there is the potential for two systems running in parallel. Do you think there should be a repeal of the legislation governing the current system?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
May I go back to your very sensible point that the national planning statements need to be fully consulted on and that everybody should have the right to be heard? You will have heard Mr. Cridland from the CBI talking about an inquisitorial as opposed to an adversarial system. Would you like to comment on whether the inquisitorial system would be sufficient for your members if they were put in a position where they wished to be heard or to challenge the evidence? Would an inquisitorial system be strong enough for that or would they in extremis wish to revert to an adversarial system?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
But under the inquisitorial system would you able to pick up on the fresh information or would it just lie there?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
We have a few minutes left and I am happy to take any supplementary questions that make up the time.
Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)
Are you happy about the arrangements in this Bill for the consent regimes between onshore and offshore energy infrastructure, and what are your particular concerns about the interaction with any proposed draft marine Bill?
Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)
So there are no problems internally within this Bill; the problem is the uncertainty of where we are with the UK marine Bill?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
To come back to your comments on the adversarial versus inquisitorial systems, you seemed to say to Mrs. Lait that, at the end of the day, you would not be unhappy for fresh information to come back to the Secretary of State.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
That is the change of circumstances that is in the Bill.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
The problem, I suppose, is that no one will have had the opportunity to test that further information, either through an adversarial or inquisitorial form, will they? You would have to take the Secretary of State’s assessment of that press information as read, in effect, would you not? Is that entirely satisfactory, given your desire to achieve consensus? Otherwise, you would have to reopen the inquiry, would you not?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
It is your desire for consensus, I take it, which leads you to welcome the inclusion of a right to be heard?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
So, you would not want to see anything which diminished the opportunity for legitimately interested parties to put their case?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
So, while you welcome the separation of the national policy decisions, where you can hopefully get some consensus, and parliamentary approval in the way that you have accepted, you also accept, in the case of the individual location-specific application, the need for there not to be anything that undermines the ability of interested parties to put their case? Is that right?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
So the key test, however you put it, is to speed up the process but not to leave people feeling alienated either.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
We have one minute left. Is there anything that you would like to say to the Committee, Mr. Green, by way of getting evidence on the record that has not been teased out by the questions?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
I thank you and your colleague, Mr. Winser, for coming along. We now have the next witness, Mr. Bird, executive director of the UK Major Ports Group.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
On a point of order, Sir John. I have a written submission from the next witness, although it does not appear on the list. It is a very useful submission, but it does not appear that the rest of the Committee has it. My researcher got it somehow, by means of an e-mail. He is very good, but I did not realise that he had pre-empted everybody else.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
The submission is on the table if hon. Members would like to collect it.
It is Mr. Everitt that I welcome, I am sorry. It is very good of you to come along and give evidence. Will you introduce your colleagues?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Thank you. Is there an opening statement that you would like to make briefly, before we move to questions?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Thank you.
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
Thank you for coming in, gentlemen.
In the time that I have managed to speed-read your submission, I got the impression that you wish to see the inclusion of the associated transport infrastructure in your national policy statement about ports. I wonder if I am reading that correctly and, given that you support the CBI’s position on the creation of the national policy statements and the full consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, how you see a national policy statement on ports that included the associated infrastructure and the related other transport national policy statements. We teased out from previous witnesses that they would expect a separate national policy statement on each form of energy and therefore one would assume that there would be a national policy statement for each form of transport.
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
You refer to the single consent regime, and I will ask you the same question I put to previous witnesses. Do you think that currently existing legislation—which, as I understand it, is being transferred into this Bill—should be repealed from the relevant Acts of which it is currently part?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
You cannot, for instance, see an appeal being made under separate legislation, to run in parallel with an IPC investigation, which could have an impact, malign or otherwise?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Would it be fair to say that the industry view is that birds, flora and fauna, and the environment generally, get in the way of port development?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Is your reading of the Bill that the safeguards in terms of sustainability, as they apply either to the national policy statement or the IPC, are just as strong as the safeguards in existing planning legislation?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
To join together the threads of your helpful submission, gentlemen, it seems to me that what you are seeking is, first, greater speed, for the reasons that you set out; secondly, greater integration of the single consent regime with the other strategies; and, thirdly, greater clarity in terms of the operation. That seems to be it, in a nutshell. I am interested that you look at the delays from that point of view. I suspect that your experience has been how the proliferation of issues can sometimes make an inquiry run on, create repetition and cause delay after the hearing. That is your most striking point.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
The other thing you flag up in paragraph 11 is the example of how that is being done by adapting existing structures, but in the High Court, particularly in relation to commercial litigation, there is much tighter judge-management of the cases, binding preliminary decisions, binding time frames and penalties in terms of costs for going beyond them.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Exactly. There are binding decisions at the beginning as to what the relevant issues are. Therefore, you simply rule out repetitious cross-examination if that issue has already been ventilated or if it is irrelevant.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Then you still have the parties able to cross-examine and so on, but they are strictly controlled as to what they do; that is the essence of it.
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
You state in your written submission that national policy statements should be integrated into regional spatial strategies and local development plans. Will you say how important you think that is? Do you have any ideas about how it could be done?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
You also referred to the criteria on designating nationally significant infrastructure projects. You referred to clause 20. Are there any other areas of the Bill where the definitions impede the objectives?
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
Given that you are looking to change the threshold and clear up the ambiguity about construction and extension which you described, could you give us some perspective? As a layman, it is difficult to understand how many ports over the next 10 years will have to go through a process as a national infrastructure project under current Government proposals and how many would go through that process under your reduced criteria.
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
For clarity’s sake, is that new applications for new ports or applications for extensions on existing ports?
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
May I just probe that? As someone from Southend, ports are particularly interesting to me. Is it possible that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will not give you those consents and say that, for ecological reasons, it is inappropriate for it to go ahead, full stop?
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
Does—
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Order. I will come back to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, when everybody who wants to have a go has done so. I know that others want to ask supplementaries.
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Gentlemen, in your submission you make no mention of the growing concerns of local communities who live in and around ports, or of environmental agencies, about the potential for a disaster with the ship-to-ship transfer of oil. I know that representations have been made by many parliamentarians on that. Do you not agree with the environmental groups and local communities that the Bill would be an ideal opportunity to address the concerns about a potential environmental disaster should a ship-to-ship transfer go wrong?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Could you explain why?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Up to now, you have mentioned container ships and other types of ships that come into port, but you have not mentioned the oil ships that come into ports. There is a major problem there, and it is an issue that is affecting local communities living in and around ports throughout the UK.
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
In your opinion.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Mr. Duddridge, did you want to come back?
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
Yes, I just I wanted to probe Mr. Bell further on how he would like clause 20 to be amended in relation to construction and extension. I am not sure whether it is ambiguous, or whether it is clear. However, I suspect that it does not make sense to you and that that the legislation is flawed. What would you like Government Ministers to go away and look at and what form of wording would be more helpful to you?
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
So your second preference would be absolute clarity.
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
I am sure that the Committee will want to seek that clarity on your behalf later in the process.
Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)
I know what you are saying is sufficient about the community infrastructure levy and accept what you are saying, to a certain extent, about the major benefits that you bring—and will continue to bring—to local communities in a raft of ways. In relation to clause 20, its implications and the numbers that you are talking about, when you say that the community infrastructure levy should not apply to port developments, does that refer to not only the new ports, but to extensions also?
Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)
I can think of an example where a port wants to extend its operation, and the local community and businesses clearly want to see it develop for all the good reasons that you have pointed out, but the development of that port may be hampered by the need to find the money to develop road or rail links. If you were involved in the community infrastructure levy, however, would not that help to speed forward what you and all the local community want? I suspect that Joe Bloggs, living on the edge of the road, does not necessarily see the benefits of a port expansion because of lorries trundling down a small, minor road.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Order. I am afraid that time is up. Mr. Everitt, may I thank you and your colleagues, Mr. Bell and Mr. Harston, for giving evidence this morning? It has been interesting and helpful for us. I remind the Committee that we will resume at 4 o’clock in this room. In the meantime, the room will be locked so you may leave your papers here.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Our first witnesses this afternoon are from the Royal Town Planning Institute, represented by their secretary-general, Mr. Robert Upton. I am pleased to see you and thank you for coming Mr. Upton. Would you introduce your colleague please?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Would you like to make a short statement or would you sooner take the questions and then, if you feel inclined, make a statement afterwards? How would you like to play it?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
If it is short that would be helpful.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Thank you very much indeed. We will now proceed to questions.
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
Mr. Upton, you were a local authority chief executive in a previous incarnation, were you not?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
So you will be particularly concerned, presumably, about how the infrastructure levy is going to work?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
On a scale of nought to 10, if 10 is you know absolutely everything about how it is going to be working and nought is you know nothing about it, where would you place the Bill?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
If you were sitting where the Secretary of State or the Minister are sitting and they were sitting where you are, what are the three key questions you would want to ask, to shift that zero up to about five, say?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
How it is to be banked?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
You mean not in Northern Rock, I take it?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
Would you also want to know a little bit more about the relationship between site-specific gains, through section 106, and perhaps wider infrastructure gains? With site-specific gains, social housing would probably be the classic one.
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
Finally, because we are rather time limited, although I may catch the Chairman’s eye again later, you said in your national policy statements, with happy alliteration, that there should be “clarity, consistency, credibility”—but then you could not find a “c” for the last one—and that you hoped they were going to be, if I heard you right, very “location specific”.
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
But if that is the case, Mr. Upton, then the national policy statement is a planning permission, is it not? What is left for this wonderful, great, huge quango to decide, if the national planning statement says where the location of a development is going to be?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
I may be fortunate, Mr. Chairman—but we have run out of time.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
I have been indulgent to date, but we will see how things go.
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
Mr. Upton, you will be aware of the fact that in some planning systems there is a qualified third-party right of appeal. In the paperwork that you have submitted regarding this Bill, you have expressed concerns that might arise from third-party communities and whether they would be heard and so on. Are you satisfied that the conduct of cross-examinations, as foreseen in the Bill, is going to deliver what you are concerned about? Or is it going to impede hearing what third parties have to say?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
Are you satisfied that that is so under the Bill as it stands—that third parties will be allowed to take a reasonable part in these proceedings, especially if they might be directly affected?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
On the issue of the timetable proposed by the Bill, are you satisfied that that would allow sufficient time for all interested parties to have their say?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
No, in relation to a challenge to a decision made by the IPC.
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
But many people will not be well versed in planning law, will they? I am concerned that they might be left behind.
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
You began to talk about consultation quite a bit. You say you prefer the inquisitorial to the adversarial. Many local communities will want to be able to present their views, but surely they will also want the opportunity to quiz developers more closely about their proposals. How do you envisage that that will work in an inquisitorial rather than adversarial system?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
You refer to the developer putting forward detailed proposals. There is a requirement that they should consult local bodies before those proposals even come through. Can you outline what scale of consultation you think a developer should undertake before putting in a planning application?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
But I am afraid that when we go into Committee, we will be looking at the process, so I shall take you back and ask you again what level of consultation a developer should undertake. Are you just saying that they should publicise their proposals, or should they go further and meet the various local authorities or any other body that wants to meet them or negotiate before the application is made?
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
I should like to pursue two issues with you. The first is that, while generally supporting most of the Bill, you have come out strongly against local member review bodies, which have generally been welcomed as part of devolving responsibilities. Maybe it would do one or two of your members out of a job to reduce the amount of work going to the planning inspectorate, but nevertheless, why are members at the local level not capable of making a final decision on the very smallest of planning applications where a dispute arises about the initial decision made by an officer?
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
I might characterise that statement as saying that taking a bit of democracy away and giving decisions to officers is a good thing, while putting a bit of democracy back in and giving more responsibility to members is a bad thing, but that would perhaps be unfair. However, let us say that the local member review body comprised councillors from neighbouring authorities, not the authority for which the officers who took the original decision worked. Would that not get around the objection that you have made?
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
If you take decisions at local level, you avoid involvement by the national planning inspectorate, do you not?
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
The implication that we might draw out of that is almost that local councillors are not competent and not be trusted.
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
May I raise one other issue, Sir John?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Later. I have been quite indulgent.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Mr. Upton, if the planning inspectorate is perceived as highly competent and is very much trusted by the general public as you say—I do not disagree with you for one moment— why are its inspectors not the best people to decide on the location-specific element of any proposal?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Yes. Why do you need the separate IPC to do that? Why not have Parliament take the decision on the national policy and then let the trusted and competent planning inspectorate decide whether the application is appropriate for a particular site? Why can we not do that?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
I understand that point. I suppose that that not only achieves those objectives, as you rightly say, but prevents re-runs of the terminal 5 situation, in which national policy considerations are mixed up with the individual site inquiry. That is why I was interested in your final two points. You say that the national policy statement must be credible in terms of the evidence base, but it also must be as location specific as possible. If it is to be location specific, how will you have robust and credible testing of the evidence base without allowing the parties interested in the identified site the right to appear before and be heard by the body that decides the national policy statement? Shall we grasp that nettle?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
At whatever level, you envisage the need for robust testing of the evidence base?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
By cross-examination if necessary?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Perhaps I shall return to that if I get the chance.
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
There is provision in the Bill for existing policy statements to be designated as national policy statements. Have you any views on that?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
Do you think that the criteria for designating what is a nationally important decision are correct?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
Yes.
Jeff Ennis (Labour, Barnsley East and Mexborough)
Mr. Upton, in your opening remarks you mentioned that you thought that the IPC ought to report annually to Parliament, which is a reasonable suggestion to make. Have you any thoughts as to what mechanism ought to be pursued to achieve that? Would it be the appropriate Select Committee or some other mechanism?
Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)
I am very interested in the comments that you made about the importance of and the emphasis that you as a planning body place on consultation and engagement in advance. Planning officials within the Government have traditionally taken the view that an application should be considered without regard to who is the applicant. You referred a moment ago to wind farms. It seems to many of us that there is a case for engagement and even ownership of the application by the local community—wind farm developments are a classic example of this—being a relevant consideration to be included in the balance. For instance, if the local community has identified where in East Anglia there would be community benefit resulting from a location, that should be a relevant consideration. Would you agree?
Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)
The point is that there has traditionally been an approach within Government whereby the consideration of an application should be neutral as to whom the applicant is, whereas the whole point of consultation and engagement in advance and even community ownership of an application—which has happened in some locations with wind energy—is that it changes the view of the application. Do you see that as a relevant consideration in the planning process, given the emphasis that you put earlier on advance consultation and engagement?
Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)
I can illustrate the point with two situations. I can think of an example at the top ends of two valleys where, in the one case, the local community is the applicant and wants that to go ahead. There is a community benefit—there is an economic benefit to the area. At the top end of the other valley, something is being done to the community by an external applicant. Should that not make a difference?
Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)
It is a consideration to weigh in the balance. I accept that. It cannot be a totally black-and-white situation.
Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)
Then at the subsequent consideration of individual applications, it would be a relevant consideration?
Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)
You spoke earlier about local development frameworks in the context of the community infrastructure levy. As the renewal and introduction of new local development frameworks is a constant process, and as local authorities are at different stages in that, do you think that they ought to be revisited in light of the changes being made by this Bill, because some communities where the LDF is finalised after the Bill becomes law may be at an advantage in terms of negotiations afterwards?
Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)
Can I tempt you back to the community infrastructure levy and perhaps take a different approach from my parliamentary colleague, David Curry, being a listening member of the Committee? I am sure my ministerial colleagues are also listening. The opportunity now to feed into the debate about how the community infrastructure levy should be calculated, and so on, is one of the options that needs to be taken forward. I would be interested to know whether you have taken a view as to what might go into that process, and I was particularly interested in what you said in your response about whether it was going to be kept entirely local, or how far it would go regionally and sub-regionally. I am interested in your views on this.
Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)
Let me just follow that through. Can you see an instance, for example, where a sub-regional contribution would be relevant, or would be taken forward? For example, if there were a policy, in a sub-regional major redevelopment area, of environmental enhancement—in the sense of green area or green grid—could that mean something as part of a contribution?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
May I pursue that issue for a minute, Mr. Upton? In my neck of the woods, we have the Leeds city region concept of Leeds. Craven, one of the district councils in my constituency, has affiliated itself to that city region. The top-left hand corner of Craven is on the Cumbrian border and must be about 70 miles from Leeds city centre. Would you think that a development in Bentham or Ingleton should be levied for a project taking place around Leeds railway station?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
If I may say so, Mr. Upton, you should not be allowed to get away with that as an answer. The local development frameworks for Leeds and Ingleton are separated by some 60 or 70 miles. Let us move closer to Leeds, then, to the edge of Skipton, which is on the boundary of the Bradford metropolitan area and the Leeds met. Would it be legitimate to say that a development in Skipton should be eligible to make some contribution, or vice versa?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
I shall not hazard a guess as to which of those two options they might decide. I return to the operations of the commission. I hope I have quoted you correctly as saying that the IPC should be required to hear everybody and anybody who has an interest. What do you mean by “to hear” in this context?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
Right; I ask this with very serious intent. In my constituency, there are none of the big projects that we are talking about—it is quite difficult to put them in the middle of the Yorkshire dales. If I wanted to stop something happening, I would do my best to try to generate at least 10,000 people who wanted to give evidence to the commission, yet we are told that they have got to decide it all within a timetable for the procedures, with the whole lot encapsulated within about nine months, which is an interesting length of time. The Minister reiterated, in her statement, that everybody should be heard. I am not clear how one reconciles the pledge that everybody can be heard with the accelerated timetable, which is, after all, the reason why the Bill exists in the first place. I know that you are not responsible for the Bill, and I do not want to give the impression that I have interrogated you about something of which you are not the author, but do you share my perplexity on this?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
It is a difficult issue, is not it? The deputy director-general of the CBI told us this morning that he hoped that the procedure would command a consensus, and that people had ownership of it—to use the jargon—and would feel that it had been fairly arrived at and that all the usual aggro that we associate with these sorts of planning decisions might not happen.
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
If I may, Sir John, I would like to ask just one more question?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Just one.
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
When I asked you about site-specific section 106 agreements, you said that you thought that they would be very site specific. Could you tell me what you think is the role for what might be called the classic section 106 agreement, and is there a danger that certain babies might go out with the bathwater?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
I think that it is now time for Mr. Betts to have a few more bites of the cherry.
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
I go back to an issue that David Curry raised, but perhaps with a slightly different bias in my question. Is it not the fact that, at present, there can be major, significantly sized developments just outside the boundaries of our large cities that nevertheless put a considerable demand on their infrastructure, and there is no way for those developments to make a contribution under the current arrangements? Is it not therefore reasonable that, in looking at the community infrastructure levy, we might find a way of allowing that to happen through that mechanism?
Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)
I shall come on to an issue that I raised this morning with the representatives of the CBI, who commented on it. Essentially, the skills that your planning officers have relate to looking at the types, nature and appropriateness of development and the nature of the charge that we are perhaps getting towards, and the community infrastructure levy would look at those sorts of issues in determining the charge for particular schemes. One aspect, however, that is in the Bill and can be considered when determining the nature or size of the levy is the uplift in valuation that arises when value on the site is increased. Would you have concerns about that criterion being used to calculate the levy and would that cause concerns for planners as it is not a skill they normally have in their locker?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
I am interested in your point about how you deal with the evidence being gathered and that you feel that it should be dealt with through an inquisitorial process. In the High Court, great savings have been made, particularly in the commercial division, by judges being much more proactive in the management of hearings by insisting that the issues be defined in advance and intervening much more to pull up counsel. Is there perhaps something that we should learn from that about how to manage inquiries, not just by the IPC, but perhaps by planning inspectors generally, and might not much more robust judicial management—for want of a better term—of the process save a lot of time and prevent duplication?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
I am interested in your views as the representative of a professional, expert body.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
I understand that. Given that that is what we want to achieve, my final question is how do you satisfy interested parties that there is clarity and transparency if they are left with a sense that “I was not able to ask the questions I wanted to in my own way”?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
Can I assume that the RTPI has membership throughout all parts of the United Kingdom?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
Right. As some parts of the Bill cover the whole of the United Kingdom, some England and Wales and some just England, can I then ask whether your members in devolved parts of the UK have expressed any views on how effective this Bill will be in delivering national policy statement aspirations?
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
Thank you very much. That is useful, but I am fascinated by your saying that there is a greater disjunction between the UK and Scotland. To me, that means there is a greater difference. Therefore I would have thought that your members would have been just as perturbed about the proposals to deal with the Scottish aspects of energy in this particular case as they are in Wales. Let us not give one region any greater importance than the other.
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
But is there going to be a battle between Scotland and the UK? In Scotland we are expecting a national policy statement which will cover energy throughout the UK and the Scottish Administration have already ruled out the provision of nuclear.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
We do not have time for another question. Thank you, Mr. Upton, and your colleague, Mr. Smith, for giving evidence to us. We are very grateful.
We now welcome Sir Simon Milton to the Committee. It is very good of you to come to see us on behalf of the Local Government Association. Could you introduce your colleague?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Thank you very much. Is there a brief opening statement that you would like to make for the record before answering questions?
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
Thank you.
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
Sir Simon, the infrastructure levy is going to be quite a complicated business. Do local authorities have the administrative capacity to deliver this? What measures do you envisage your organisation taking to try to establish some sort of common approach across local authorities, or would you be happy if we had a competition between local authorities in the levy they charged so that planning became part of a competitive agenda and there was competition between local authorities to get developments, for example?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
Would you envisage that across the country developments broadly similar in character might attract levies of significantly different values?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
In point 5.2 of your submission, you say that
“the Bill should be amended to provide councils with ... the power to define local infrastructure requirements”.
You have just alluded to that. They should also have
“discretion over how and when CIL funds are used”
and
“the ability to drive decisions about funding for sub-regional projects”.
What do you mean by that?
David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)
That presupposes a more formal structure of decision taking within city regions, for example.
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
Can I move on to the national policy statements and the IPC? One of the things that concerns me greatly is the degree of consultation that is needed with the national policy statements and the IPC. I wonder whether the Local Government Association has a view on how consultation should be carried out on the development of the national policy statement. A slightly different issue—I am running the two together—is how the planning commission should hear the views of local people.
Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)
Should the Government accept such an amendment, would you see the hearings by the commission as being on an inquisitorial or an adversarial basis?
Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)
Briefly, just to pick up on the point about the community infrastructure levy, I was interested in what you said about issues, such as skills or transport, and so on, that require a wider view, perhaps, than that of the immediate local planning authority. I have seen that need in my neck of the woods. You say that the Bill should be amended to provide councils with that ability to drive decisions. How far should the Bill go in laying that out? How detailed should it be?
Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)
Thank you for that. On another tack, you are very supportive of the mechanism in terms of local member review bodies in the Bill. I do not know whether you heard Mr. Upton, secretary-general of the Royal Town Planning Institute, who is clearly against such a mechanism, saying that it is an issue of principle that there should be a separation between decision taking and the appeal process. May I ask you to explain your reasons for supporting that mechanism and particularly for your supporting joint authority local member review bodies?
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
The LGA’s support for the Bill seems to be conditional on there being, from the words on your brief, “a very small number” of nationally significant infrastructure projects. I shall not be ridiculous and try to pin you down and ask for an exact number, but could you indicate what the range might be?
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
So the Bill as it stands does not have the support of the LGA, because far too many projects would be captured under the Bill.
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
And it would need to be reduced to single figures. Has the LGA a view on particular definitions?
James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
It is possible, even if we think that we have got the definition right and it fits the criterion of single figures, that actually the numbers can start to creep up. Would the LGA like to see a specific amendment to limit the number going through each year, so that, effectively, there has to be a prioritisation process?
Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)
You referred to enforcement in your submission. Would you like to say a little more about the sort of things that you are worried about there?
Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)
To return to the issue of local member review bodies, do you foresee the need for second opinion advice to be available to members? Usually, when things go to committee, the device is there for officers, perhaps to reject, but at least to consider, so do you see the need for advice from other sources for members when considering such matters?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
There is a provision in the Bill that states that existing policy statements could be designated as national policy statements. Do you have concerns about that?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
On the role of the commissioners, are you uncomfortable with the concept of experts deciding things instead of elected people?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
Could you say a little more about that? Are you saying that they should be among the commissioners?
Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)
Would you like that to be specified?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
You called in your memorandum for a clear definition of major infrastructure projects. I happen to believe that you are right in calling for that. Do you share my concern that, looking at clause 13(1)(a) to (m), the vast majority of those examples are potential bad neighbours in terms of planning?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
I will read a few:
“extension of a generating station...electric line above ground...underground storage of gas...airport...reservoir...waste water treatment...hazardous waste facility.”
They are a concern.
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
Bearing that in mind, should not the process leading up to such a development be more sympathetic to potential neighbours rather than less, and not be truncated in the way in which the Bill appears to suggest.
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
You made the point earlier in your evidence about the need for councils to be enabled to undertake full assessments of the impacts of these developments. It is crucial, is it not, that they should be properly financed for that work?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Sir Simon, you made the point about the legitimate desire to avoid costs. It is perhaps not appropriate for people in my position to say that if you want to avoid the costs of a Queen’s counsel you instruct an experienced junior—that might be taken in the wrong way. Your Mr. Jones might be able to help, but is it your experience that one of the real problems, and the reason that the legal fees become expensive, is that some inquiries of this large kind drag on because all too often they get sidetracked into the issues that are intended to be part of the national policy statement—the desirability or otherwise of more air travel, nuclear power or whatever.
One of the important things that one would want to see to cut things down—silks or no silks—is the removal of that element from the discussion as to whether the particular application is appropriate in that particular site.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
The interesting point, Mr. Jones, is that although you speak about an inquisitorial process, and you say in your submission that local councils should have a special status for the reasons that you have advanced, you then say at paragraph 4.11 that effective councils must have an opportunity to conduct a cross-examination of evidence from other parties or to require the commission to take that into account in its own cross-examination. It is the specific use of “cross-examination” that interests me. In some cases, that is the best and most robust means of testing the evidence, provided that it is kept within bounds in the way that we have discussed, and limited to the issues that are really germane.