|
New clause 26
Pre-application consultation
'(1) Before an application can be made for planning permission and—
(a) the planning application falls within the definition of ''major applications'', as defined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose;
(b) the planning application will be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment;
Column Number: 178
(c) the planning application falls within other categories as set out by the Secretary of State in regulations, the applicant must consult on the proposed application.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions for the extent and methods of consultation to be followed by the applicant.
(3) Any costs of carrying out the application will be met by the applicant'.—[Matthew Green.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause might, at first, appear not to achieve what I am about to say that I hope to achieve—namely, to speed up the planning system. It might seem so because it appears to add another phase to the planning system for large applications, those requiring environmental impact assessments or any other categories that the Secretary of State would like to add.
I believe that the new clause would speed up the planning system because what slows it down more than anything else is the rejection of applications and the consequent appeals and public inquiries. Nothing is better guaranteed to ensure that a development will grind to a halt than its hitting that process. I understand that in many large-scale developments astute developers ensure that they undertake considerable pre-application consultation—not with the planners only, but with nearby residents and more widely—so that many objections that might be raised can be dealt with before they even submit a plan.
There is therefore a greater likelihood that the planning committee will accept the plan and, as the number of objections has been reduced, the planning committee is far more likely to be minded to accept the application and the officers' advice for it. The applicants in such cases are less likely to find themselves in a position in which they have to appeal to the Secretary of State.
The proposal would also help by reducing both the number of objectors and, perhaps if the development is not in the local plan, the possible grounds of appeal to the Secretary of State, which might give him the reasons for saying that he does not want it called in. It could also reduce the number of chances for a third party to seek judicial review. Although that is not as common, it can still be a problem.
This is not a complex new clause, although it is probably technically imperfect. I wrote it myself without any advice, so I can almost guarantee that. I have never written a new clause without advice. I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee whether the Government are considering the provision as a means of speeding up the process and whether that is a suitable route to go down. I would be only too happy to co-operate with staff at a later stage in the Bill's progress if the new clause is not correctly drafted.
I believe that no study has been done on speeding up the planning process, so I speak largely from anecdotal evidence. I freely admit that. The problem is happening more and more and I believe that it would be in the interests of everyone, particularly the developers, if the new clause were agreed.
Column Number: 179
Sir Sydney Chapman: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Ludlow. I want instinctively to be helpful and sympathetic to his point of view. I would like to put a proposition to him, and if I have got the wrong idea I invite him to disabuse me of it. First, I do not know exactly what is his definition of a major application.
Matthew Green: It is the Government's definition.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Where there is a significant application—if I may use that term—rather than a major application, the Secretary of State would, perhaps, although not as a matter of course, be likely to call it in so that he could determine it or have a public inquiry as necessary, rather than let it go through the normal, conventional process. I accept that an application can go through that process and the Secretary of State can call it in at any time. However, what the hon. Gentleman wants is brought about in practice by the Secretary of State's ability to call in the application. The hon. Gentleman nods in assent. He will be able to put me right.
Secondly—I accept that this point is germane only to the Greater London area—under the Act of Parliament that set up the office of Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and the Greater London Assembly, certain significant applications have to be referred to the Mayor, although there are smaller applications relating to housing estates or the green belt. The Mayor has the power to authorise the local planning authority not to accept or prove the application—to say that the local planning authority should reject it. I have always thought that unnecessary, because if that course prevailed on an application and the Mayor required the local planning authority to reject it, the applicant would still have the right to go to the Secretary of State. That duplicates the planning system. We are here to speed it up within the bounds of fairness.
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and where he wants to get to, but is his new clause absolutely necessary? I would have thought that the existing town and country planning laws and regulations cover the matter by allowing the Secretary of State to call in an application.
5 pm
Matthew Green: If I may, I shall clarify my comments. Development control and planning committees are swayed by the scale and number of objections. When the Secretary of State decides to call in an application, that does not affect his decision but may carry some weight. Anecdotal evidence is that when extensive pre-consultation takes place, the scale and number of objections when the application is made are dramatically reduced because many of the difficulties and misunderstandings have been ironed out and in some cases the developer is able to make amendments to the application which satisfy many of the objections.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his position better than I did when I intervened. I have made my point and he has made his eloquently. I shall listen to what the Minister has to say.
Column Number: 180
Mr. Clifton-Brown: In my experience, larger applications almost always have an environmental impact assessment. In fact, any planning officer worth his salt would be well advised to require such an assessment and they almost always do as a matter of course. If they are to make a recommendation to their planning committee, they must have something on which to justify that recommendation and an environmental impact assessment makes that easier. That is particularly so because larger applications are likely to be more controversial and to be decided by a committee rather than under delegated powers to planning officers.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman may misunderstand my new clause, or perhaps I have not drafted it correctly. The environmental impact assessment requirement is just another way of defining the types of scheme that ought to come within the new clause: those that might require an environmental impact assessment are defined as major or come under any other definition of the Secretary of State. Those are the schemes that should be required to have a pre-consultation phase. I am not saying that they require an environmental impact assessment. It is the other way round. Those that require an environmental impact assessment should have a pre-consultation phase.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening and he has clarified the matter a little.
One of the plus points about the Bill is the introduction of pre-application discussions. Planning practitioners to whom I have spoken wholly welcome that. They are a little worried about the delay and the cost, but in terms of getting the planning system to work, a pre-application discussion is thoroughly good. Again, any developer of larger schemes, which are likely to be controversial, would be foolish just to bang in an application without any pre-application discussion. When I was practising in planning matters, even with smaller applications I would almost always ring up the planning officer and say, ''What do you think?'' and would get an instant reaction.
Matthew Green: I want to make it clear that I am suggesting discussions not with the planners, which is being introduced in other ways, but with the immediate neighbours and the wider public. With larger schemes, hundreds and sometimes thousands of objections can be significantly reduced. The new clause would introduce consultation with the wider public.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking not about an environmental impact assessment, but about a statement of community involvement, which is different. The statement of environmental impact—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may put his head in his hands, but that is how the new clause is drafted. The environmental impact assessment is about the effect that a large-scale development will have on the environment of an area. I am looking at new clause 26, which I will read out clearly so that the Committee is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has actually written:
Column Number: 181
''Before an application can be made for planning permission and—
(a) the planning application falls within the definition of 'major applications', as defined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose;
(b) the planning application will be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment''
That seems to me pretty clear, and I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly what an environmental impact assessment is.
| 
