Previous Section Index Home Page


Planning Applications

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under what conditions he will call in planning applications in an area of outstanding natural beauty. [39247]

Ms Keeble: The Secretary of State's general approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas. Local planning authorities are normally best placed to make decisions relating to their areas and it is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.

There will be occasions, however, when the Secretary of State may consider it necessary to call in a planning application to determine himself instead of leaving it to the local planning authority. His policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. He will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved and if those issues need to be decided by the Secretary of State rather than at local level. Each case is, however, considered on its own facts.

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the conditions for granting industrial planning permission in an area designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. [39248]

Ms Keeble: Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 7 sets out national planning guidance for the Countryside including areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs). It states that planning policies and development control decisions affecting AONBs should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape, and that the environmental effects of new proposals will be a major consideration, though it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the area. PPG7 also states that major projects should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed.

Road Accidents

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many (a) fatalities and (b) injuries have occurred involving buses and (i) other buses, (ii) other road vehicles and (iii) pedestrians in each year since 1997. [38840]

Mr. Jamieson: The information requested is shown in the tables which follow. Figures for 2001 are not yet available. The figures shown relate to accidents on public roads in Great Britain.

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1521W

(i) Occupant casualties in two-vehicle accidents involving a bus or coach with another bus or coach

FatalitiesInjuries
19970339
19980347
19990321
20000424

(ii) Occupant casualties in two-vehicle accidents involving a bus or coach and another type of vehicle1

FatalitiesInjuries
1997466,733
1998407,384
1999417,409
2000487,322

1 Includes casualties in both vehicles involved but excludes pedestrian casualties.


(iii) Pedestrian casualties hit by a bus or coach: Great Britain

FatalitiesInjuries
1997551,706
1998621,723
1999691,906
20006081,963

In addition to those casualties shown in tables (i), (ii) and (iii) there were some bus or coach occupants casualties in single-vehicle accidents and additional vehicle occupant casualties in accidents which involved a bus or coach and more than one other vehicle. All of those have been included in the following table which shows all casualties in accidents which involved at least one bus or coach.


All casualties1 in accidents involving at least one bus or coach

FatalitiesInjuries
199712915,485
199815216,081
199914516,567
200014916,412

1 Includes pedestrians, bus and coach occupants and the occupants of other vehicles.


Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate revenues from council tax and business rates (a) for the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) for each constituent nation of the UK in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [39327]

Dr Whitehead: The table gives the estimated net yield from business rates for 2001–02 and 2002–03 for England. In addition the estimated council tax net yield in England for 2001–02 is shown. This information is based on returns provided by English local authorities to the Department. No estimate of the council tax yield for 2002–03 is yet available.

2001–02 billion2002–03 billion
Business Rates (a)14.22314.857
Council Tax (b)15.245n/a

(a) Net of reliefs but including allowances for losses in collection and cost of collection.

(b) Including council tax funded by benefit.

Figures are not available for the United Kingdom as a whole. Information on business rates and council tax in Wales and Scotland are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive respectively. Information on rates in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.


28 Feb 2002 : Column 1522W

Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority

Peter Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what directions have been given to Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority regarding security measures since 11 September 2001; by whom; and why such directions were given. [38673]

Mr. Jamieson: Officials from the Transport Security Division are responsible for interfacing with the railways industry on security requirements. These requirements are contained in the National Railways Security Programme. Further guidance is issued to the industry, including Strathclyde Passenger Transport, on a regular basis. This system establishes appropriate security standards for industry.

Further advice is issued in the format of Railway Security Circulars which provide a mechanism to update the National Railways Security Programme. These are sent to a nominated security contact within each railway-affiliated company, and are then disseminated internally to relevant parties.

Railway Security Circulars are usually issued on a monthly basis. However, since the attacks on the United States of America on 11 September, my officials have issued eight such Circulars to the industry. The content of the Circulars is restricted for obvious reasons but has included advice on issues as divergent as Driver Cab Security and Station Searches. The Circulars have been issued to advise the railways industry on the measures required to safeguard members of the travelling public, staff and the UK's rail infrastructure itself, from terrorist attack.

Local Strategic Partnerships

Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the outcome is of the accreditation of local strategic partnerships in the areas due to receive neighbourhood renewal funds for 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [40165]

Ms Keeble: I am pleased to announce that 87 out of 88 Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) in England's most deprived areas will today be accredited. LSPs bring together local authorities, public sector agencies, local people, the voluntary sector and business, to identify local priorities and implement strategies to meet them. They lead efforts to close the gap in living standards and opportunities between the most deprived neighbourhoods and other areas, and are key to delivery of the Government's National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal.

Accreditation follows a process of self-assessment by LSPs and close working with Government Offices. It is only the first stage on the way to better local delivery and a number of partnerships have further work to do to ensure they are fully effective, inclusive and able to

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1523W

deliver better services on the ground. Government Offices will be writing to those LSPs setting out the areas of concern. They will continue to work with all LSPs to secure ongoing improvement, and we will monitor progress closely.

Walsall LSP has not yet made sufficient progress against the criteria and is therefore not recommended for accreditation at this stage. This will be subject to review on 28 March. Where accreditation has been deferred, Neighbourhood Renewal Funds (NRF) will be maintained at 67 per cent. of the 2002–03 NRF rate (the same level as funding for 2001–02). As soon as the LSP has undergone a successful review with the relevant Government Office the remaining amounts will be released. Details of NRF allocations for every LSP for 2002/03 are attached.1


Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Allocations2

Local Authority Name NRF Allocation 2001–02 (m) NRF Allocation 2002–03 (m) NRF Allocation 2003–04 (m) NRF Total Over 3 years (m)
Allerdale0.4280.6420.8551.925
Ashfield0.4820.7230.9642.168
Barking and Dagenham 0.8161.2251.6333.673
Barnsley2.7224.0835.44412.249
Barrow-in- Furness 0.921.3791.8384.137
Birmingham11.02216.53322.04349.598
Blackburn with Darwen 2.1683.2514.3359.754
Blackpool1.5042.2563.0086.768
Bolsover0.7341.1021.4693.305
Bolton2.7124.0695.42612.207
Bradford4.9067.3599.81222.077
Brent1.141.7092.2795.128
Brighton & Hove 0.6841.0271.3693.08
Bristol1.7822.6743.5658.022
Burnley0.6360.9551.2732.865
Camden2.113.1644.2199.492
Coventry2.6443.9675.29011.901
Croydon0.290.4360.5811.307
Derby1.6262.4383.2507.314
Derwentside0.7421.1121.4823.336
Doncaster4.3946.5928.79019.777
Dudley0.761.1401.5213.421
Ealing0.4580.6880.9172.063
Easington2.2163.3254.4339.975
Enfield0.931.3951.8604.184
Gateshead2.3223.4824.64310.447
Great Yarmouth 0.9941.4901.9874.471
Greenwich1.942.9113.8818.733
Hackney5.8828.82411.76526.472
Halton1.9642.9463.9288.839
Hammersmith and Fulham0.5160.7751.0332.325
Haringey2.6684.0015.33512.004
Hartlepool1.5682.3533.1387.059
Hastings0.6881.0311.3753.094
Hyndburn0.6460.9701.2942.91
Islington3.1364.7036.27014.108
Kensington and Chelsea 0.540.8111.0812.431
Kerrier0.8061.2081.6103.624
Kingston upon Hull 3.7545.6307.50716.892
Kirklees1.4962.2442.9926.732
Knowsley3.6965.5437.39116.63
Lambeth1.211.8162.4225.448
Leeds4.1986.2978.39618.89
Leicester4.1886.2838.37718.848
Lewisham1.2261.8392.4535.518
Lincoln0.20.3000.4000.9
Liverpool10.06615.10020.13345.298
Luton0.7541.1321.5103.397
Manchester10.29815.44620.59546.339
Mansfield1.151.7242.2995.172
Middlesbrough2.6243.9375.24911.811
Newcastle upon Tyne 3.4225.1326.84315.397
Newham6.6669.99913.33229.997
North Tyneside 1.5362.3053.0746.915
Nottingham4.6226.9349.24620.803
Oldham2.3363.5054.67410.516
Pendle0.981.4711.9614.412
Penwith0.4140.6220.8291.865
Plymouth1.0581.5862.1144.757
Portsmouth0.4780.7170.9572.152
Preston1.261.8902.5205.671
Redcar and Cleveland 1.7362.6043.4727.812
Rochdale2.4383.6584.87810.975
Rotherham1.8342.7513.6698.254
Salford2.724.0815.44112.242
Sandwell4.0266.0388.05118.114
Sedgefield0.570.8541.1392.563
Sefton2.8164.2235.63112.671
Sheffield4.797.1869.5812.557
South Tyneside 2.6924.0375.38212.11
Southampton0.430.6460.8621.939
Southwark3.9565.9347.91217.803
St Helens1.9362.9053.8738.714
Stockton-on- Tees 1.9262.8893.8528.667
Stoke-on- Trent 2.0163.0254.0349.075
Sunderland3.5825.3737.16416.119
Tameside0.671.0051.3403.015
Tower Hamlets 5.3127.96810.62423.903
Wakefield2.223.3294.4399.989
Walsall3.565.3417.12216.024
Waltham Forest 1.2761.9152.5535.745
Wandsworth0.20.3000.4000.9
Wansbeck0.691.0341.3793.104
Wear Valley0.8541.2801.7063.839
Westminster0.7481.1231.4973.369
Wigan1.3622.0442.7256.131
Wirral2.5383.8065.07511.419
Wolverhampton2.9644.4465.92813.339
Totals200.000300.000400.000900.000

2 Subject to the approval of the House of Commons.

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1524W

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what were the administrative costs of the South West Regional Development Agency in the past three years. [37293]

Alan Johnson: I have been asked to reply.

The administrative costs for the SW RDA for the past two years were as follows. The figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

YearAnnual Review 000 (accruals outturn)
1999–20008,326
2000–018,523


28 Feb 2002 : Column 1525W


Next Section Index Home Page