|
Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight. Perhaps I could now turn to the other strand in our debate—the need to strengthen the planning profession more generally. As part of our planning reform agenda, of which the Bill is an integral part, we have made it clear that we need to change the profile of planning, and change its culture, so that it is better suited to our objectives. We have agreed that we want a proactive, transparent and open system.
10.45 am
A key issue for culture change is mainstreaming planning, by which I mean putting planning at the heart of local policy making, in the broadest sense, and of local governance. The Bill, and the new planning policy statement 1, ''Planning Policy and Principles'' will together set out a new vision. The Bill will do that through the links that it will establish between planning and community strategies and sustainable development generally, among other things. We will consult shortly on a draft of the new PPS1.
We are working with key partners in local government—leaders, chief executives, members and officers—to build a consensus around some of the key issues. The issues that we have been talking about are skills, vision and raising the profile. I have already mentioned member training. Sir John Egan is looking at skills more generally and the Royal Town Planning Institute has published its education commission's report. Those things, and a host of other initiatives, are aimed at pulling the profession in the right direction, and into the right shape.
Column Number: 326
On Tuesday I told the Committee about a little meeting that took place on Monday, when I met representatives of three authorities—Middlesbrough, Wychavon and North Wiltshire—which had all hugely improved their planning performance. If I may say so, that meeting was in its own modest way a little accolade for planners' success. It also sent a message to planners about how important the Government consider them to be, and our wish to reward them with repute and resources.
That brings me to the subject of resources. Another way in which the Government have been playing their part is through the adequate resourcing of the service. By reducing the stresses in the system, and building extra capacity in it to achieve our objectives, we hope to build a stronger profession; we want to attract new and dynamic people into it in the first place, and to bring them back in if they have drifted to work in other related subject areas such as regeneration—or, indeed, to working for big developers, such as those that the hon. Member for Cotswold was with yesterday evening. I was with the Town and Country Planning Association myself—I do not know what that says about our different approaches.
Our main contribution to dealing with this matter has been the planning delivery grant, but I want the Committee to note that we are also looking at charges and fees under the amended provisions introduced by clause 47. The new grant is worth £350 million between 2003 and 2006. Fifty million pounds was allocated to authorities this year on the basis of their development control performance, and we have consulted on the broad terms under which we will release £130 million in 2004–05.
The terms for next year will include the policy-making function as well as the handling of planning applications. In that context I should mention the costs of appeal; we of course accept the need for proper resources. In the light of the £350 million in the planning delivery grant, and the fees review, appeals are by no means the threat that the hon. Member for Cotswold has suggested.
It is early days in the life of the planning delivery grant, but we are already doing some research into its impact. Most of what we have heard informally is encouraging. Although the grant is not ring-fenced for the planning service, we believe that a very high proportion of it is being spent on planning. Authorities think that the grant will improve their performance and assist them in building capacity to deliver quality services in a timely way.
We hear that some educational institutions have found their planning courses heavily subscribed, as planning authorities use their grant to give their staff better skills to do the job. That is seriously good news. Although that is encouraging, our research will have to touch on the key principles on which the grant is founded. We have designed it to produce an incentive for better performance by making it clear that we will only give more grant to authorities if their performance continues to improve.
We do not accept the need for the new clause; there are adequate safeguards for individual planning
Column Number: 327
officers who may feel that their professional advice is being ignored. We have put in place a wide-ranging culture change initiative supported by extra resources for planning authorities to build a strong profession capable of delivering to the high standards that we expect. In the light of those observations, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the new clause.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: This has been an important and useful debate; we have covered a lot of interesting areas. I would have liked the opportunity to probe the Minister further on the planning grant, and whether it is going to the regions or the local authorities, but this is not the place for that. There are a lot of things in the new clause to which we need to return; we shall find ways of returning to them, but now is not the time. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause 52
Planning: Retrospective Applications
No. NC52, to move the following Clause:—
'In section 73A (Planning permission for development already carried out) of the principal Act after subsection (2) there is inserted—
''(2A) An application for planning permission made to a local planning authority under subsection (1) shall be assigned as a retrospective application.
(2B) In considering a retrospective application the local planning authority shall—
(a) consider the application as if work on it had not begun;
(b) have no regard to any financial loss involved to the developers or others should the application not be approved.
(2C) If planning permission is not granted the local planning authority may require that the site be restored so far as practicable to the state that it was in before development commenced.
(2D) In determining any appeal from a refusal to grant planning permission in respect of a retrospective application, the Secretary of State shall be bound by subsections (2A) and (2B) above.''.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There are few issues that more irritate and concern local residents than the belief that if one builds something, one will get permission afterwards. That view is not shared by people who build something and apply for permission afterwards, but it is a widespread perception that planning authorities seldom or never refuse retrospective planning permission.
I am sorry that I cannot give the Minister more detailed information about my constituency now; I am sure that it would encourage him to walk blindfold—or not blindfold, even—round the Isle of Wight. In my constituency we suffer a regular flow of retrospective applications. So much so, that I have come under some pressure—I would not be surprised if other hon. Members have, too—to make development without permission against the law. Some people wish us to use the Bill as an opportunity to make it illegal to develop land without planning permission. I do not know whether the Minister has come under such pressure,
Column Number: 328
but I receive a regular flow of letters from constituents asking why that is legal.
We have to adjust the balance of perception in the public mind, without going so far as to make it illegal to develop without permission. I have therefore drafted a proposal that would strengthen the power of the local authority, and planning officers, and enable them to say, ''The law says that we do not have to worry about the cost to the developer of remedying or demolishing a development that has taken place without permission.''
Some developers overstep the mark. During an earlier sitting I gave the example of Persimmon Homes' development at Carisbrooke Park. That development has been through at least 26 different applications, which have changed the layout, the size of the buildings, the heights of the buildings, and in some cases the datum ground level. It has been made almost impossible for members of the public to keep track of the applications, or find out whether the developer is developing in line with the permissions given. Furthermore, many of those applications have been retrospective.
If a major developer such as Persimmon Homes is incapable of developing without putting in retrospective applications, I wonder what defences planning authorities and members of the public have. I suspect that developers do that on purpose. They use computers to find the layout that would achieve the maximum possible density—that is in line with Government policy, and I do not blame them for doing it—but then the people who are laying the foundations, or putting bricks and mortar on top of the foundations, gently shift an inch or two, or a foot or two, always towards the end where the development started, so there will be a slightly bigger space at the end of the development, in which a few more houses or units can be accommodated.
For example, a constituent of mine who lives in a bungalow in West Mill road in Carisbrooke found out that a wall would be going up at the foot of his garden—a blank wall, so there was no question of overlooking. Having looked at the plans, he had thought that the wall would be behind the garage adjoining the next bungalow, but because the developer had shifted all the buildings on the site to the west, the blank wall also miraculously moved to the west and ended up at the foot of his garden. Members of the public are enormously irritated when the planning committee, or sometimes the planning officers, feel that they are marginal and have no power to reject amended applications. Although it may not be the law, as members of the public see the situation, the cost of demolishing the house that has been built may seem excessive in relation to both the benefit to the individual and the planning improvement of the area.
Another example is an application for motocross at Arreton Cross in my constituency, where the works were begun on agricultural land before the application was lodged. The planners advised that an application was necessary, yet the works continued after it was lodged and before the planning committee determined it. Again, the people in the village of Arreton feared
Column Number: 329
that the planners had given the nod to the application. They also feared that the works necessary for motocross to take place on agricultural land—bulldozing the land, creating ramps, bumps, dips and hollows, and in some cases significantly changing the morphology of the area—were impossible to reverse, so that the planners therefore had little choice.
The purpose of the new clause is, first, to describe what a retrospective application is, which is detailed in proposed new subsection (2A)—I do not know why I used the phrase, ''be assigned as'', instead of, ''be designated as'', which is what I meant. Secondly, proposed new subsection (2B) makes it clear that the planning committee would be obliged to
''consider the application as if work on it had not begun,''
and,
''have no regard to any financial loss involved''.
The Minister might regard proposed new subsection (2C) as slightly more controversial, because it would allow the planning authority to
''require that the site be restored''.
However, that is only a permissive power, not a duty, for the local authority. The provisions would also allow the Secretary of State to do the same if an appeal for permission were made to him.
That is a sufficiently clear introduction to the new clause. The problem is the perception of, and public confidence in, the planning system, rather than the need for a change in the law to establish a different procedure. It is important that the public have confidence in the planning system, and it is particularly important that members of planning committees can see the words that give them a power, and understand that they have that power when they perform their difficult functions.
|
