| Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
|
|
Sir Sydney Chapman: I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne did not push his two amendments, because they were unnecessary. He wanted to insert ''proposed'' before ''development'', but as the words
appear after ''development'', it would have been superfluous. I therefore welcome what he has done. I say that deliberately because I want the Minister to understand that our amendments are tabled in good faith and are not as trivial as he thinks. The Minister was right to take me to task for not doing my research. I merely point out that the parliamentary time between Second Reading and the Standing Committee stage was very short. I confess that I did not spend Christmas day or new year's day studying the Bill. I thought that I owed Christmas day to someone else, and on new year's day, I was in no fit condition to read the Bill. In all sincerity, it is monstrous to have to deal with the complexities of the Bill in 12 sittings. Just down the Corridor is the Standing Committee considering the Hunting Bill, for which I understand 20 sittings have been allocated. I am not an expert on what is going on in the other Committee, but I should have thought that the issue was quite simple and did not necessarily need 20 sittings. The Government have got things the wrong way round: the Hunting Bill Committee should have had 12 sittings, and we should have had 20 or more. I say that just in passing. I have another apology for the Minister. His eagle eye may well have spotted that on Second Reading I said that I welcomed the intention to abolish what has become known as twin-tracking—that is, putting in identical, or almost identical, applications to the local authority. I am a reasonable person. Just as I have been persuaded by what I loosely describe as environmental organisations to table amendments that we think would improve and strengthen the Bill, so it is necessary to have a balance between the interests of the environment and the interests of Column Number: 373 applicants, developers, promoters, house builders or whoever. I have been persuaded that there are merits in twin-tracking. I now oppose getting rid of twin-tracking summarily in legislation because I believe that it helps to speed up the planning process and getting rid of it could slow things down.
10 amMr. Clifton-Brown: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. He has had enormous experience of the planning system, and he will confirm that we have not discussed the matter. I also said on Second Reading that I was in favour of abolishing twin-tracking. However, having had the representations from these worthy and important outside bodies, I am convinced of the usefulness of twin-tracking, exactly in line with what my hon. Friend has said. Sir Sydney Chapman: The Housebuilders Federation, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Retail Consortium, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the British Property Federation have all made representations, many of which are very persuasive. If local planning authorities could, persistently and consistently, determine applications within a statutory period of eight weeks there would be no need for twin-tracking. It has come into being because of the slowness of the planning system. I enter the caveat that some planning applications are so significant that it would be unreasonable for the local planning authority to determine them within eight weeks. Generally speaking those applications would be called in by the Secretary of State for a public inquiry. It is reasonable to say that twin-tracking has come about and should be maintained, regrettable though that may be, at least until local planning authorities are able to expedite their procedures. The minor planning applications should of course be determined well within the eight weeks. Secondly, I welcome the additional resources that the Government intend to plough into the local planning authority system to give those authorities extra resources to improve their service to applicants. As with most of the extra resources that are going from the taxpayer through the Government to various public institutions, it seems that the better one does, the more resources one gets. That echoes the old argument about whether we should devote extra resources to try to improve the performance of a poorer hospital or give them to the hospitals that are doing rather well. I do not want to get into that debate, and I would be out of order if I did. It is essential that the extra resources should come up front so that authorities can improve their performance and give speedier, but well-considered decisions. I do not know whether it is the same in Harrow, but Barnet is overwhelmed with applications of one sort or another. My researches—not on Christmas day or new year's day—show that it has inadequate resources to deal with the volume of applications. Finally, let us take the development of housing. It is vital. We must find the right land on which to build, but there is a great need for much more new housing, Column Number: 374 particularly social housing. Twin-tracking applications are sometimes essential for house builders. The market conditions may change, and builders may submit an application and suddenly realise that the details have to be changed to reflect new market opportunities. I want some assurance that that point will be taken into consideration. I may be knocking at an open door, but the point must be put on behalf of house builders that even if an application is accepted and they start on the development, a revised application may need to be submitted to make the necessary changes. That is an important and serious point, and at the very least, I hope that twin-tracking—if that is how it would be described—should be allowed in both situations.I admit that I have changed my mind. Having examined the evidence and weighed it against that of other organisations, I feel that the developers, promoters of development and house builders have a strong case for saying, at least for the present, that twin-tracking and repeat or similar applications should still be allowed. Mr. Wilshire: I listened with care to my hon. Friends, and I apologise to others for having to pop out for a moment or two. I agreed with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said except when he advocated 20 sittings. It is a personal matter, but from a political point of view, it should be more than that. The Proceeds of Crime Bill Standing Committee, on which I served had 39 sittings, and after a while, I began to receive comments about my ties—though, as it happens, I received another this morning. I was criticised for wearing the same tie twice, and with 39 sittings, I had to buy a lot of ties. It was expensive, so for that particular reason, I do not want to get round the Tie Rack cost-cycle again. Sir Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend is being a little disingenuous. He knows perfectly well that a competition is taking place in Parliament this week to raise awareness of cancer. Mr. Ben McIntyre has been asked to find the person with the gaudiest, most horrible-looking or most colourful tie, and money will go to charity for the winner. Mr. Wilshire: I am conscious of that, but I have to disappoint my hon. Friend because the competition is next week. I am wearing my modest ties this week, so you will be glad that the Committee is not sitting all of next week, Mr. Amess. The clause concerns me because of the harm that it will do to my local authority and county. It will make it impossible to get as much money out of applicants as it was before. I understand that as a dedicated socialist, the Minister will not care much for capitalism, but as far as I am concerned, extra applications equal extra fees. I am in favour of that for one simple reason, which is that the Government are clobbering the south-east by taking money away from properly run areas and giving it to the spendthrifts of the north, which support the Government. For example, my local police authority faces a 46 per cent. increase in its precept, my county faces a 15 to 20 per cent. increase and my borough the same— Column Number: 375 The Chairman: Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the clause 42 stand part debate? Mr. Wilshire: Of course you may, Mr. Amess, because my comments were a relevant warm-up to my first point that if by insisting on the clause, the Government reduce the income of my local planners, the 15 to 20 per cent. increase that the Government are forcing on my constituents will become even larger. That is a good reason for voting against the clause standing part of the Bill, but it is not the only reason, because the clause also represents something of a Swampy's charter. It will be perfectly possible for the dinosaurs who want to stop everything happening in this world to keep whipping in applications to prevent the proper applicant—the landowner or developer, for example—from doing anything for two years. That is wrong, and we should not make it easy for the wreckers to wreck, which is what I believe that the Minister is setting out to do. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold mentioned, twin-tracking is important. I know from my own experience— David Wright (Telford): Will the hon. Gentleman define ''a proper applicant''? Mr. Wilshire: A proper applicant is someone genuinely seeking to develop land rather than someone who puts in an application with the intention of preventing someone else from doing something. I suggest that the provision is a wrecker's charter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands my point. David Wright: In that case, I look forward to the Opposition tabling an amendment on Report to define the term. Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me. I am already thinking of enough amendments to require two days on Report, and it seems that the hon. Gentleman wants three. Perhaps I shall give way again for even more suggestions to save me staying up on Christmas and new year's day. No, it seems that he has given up. He has probably been told to shut up in case he helps me. On twin-tracking, I know from my experience as a member and subsequently chairman of a planning committee how it focuses the mind of local planning officers. They do not like the process because it shows them up if they cannot work quickly enough. Anything that helps speed up the planning process should appeal to the Minister. He said that that was one of the main purposes of the process, but he is about to slow it down. This is a rotten clause in a rotten Bill and I hope that we shall not pursue it.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 23 January 2003 |
