Development Control (Dobry Report) (Hansard, 3 December 1975)

§ 12. Mr. Hurd
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he held with the architects' profession before making his statement of 12th November about the report of Mr. George Dobry, QC, on the development control system.

§ Mr. John Silkin
My right hon. Friend took account of the views of five organisations representing architects.

§ Mr. Hurd
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that more and more architects and individual citizens are fed up with the negative and niggling way in which our planning control system so often works? Will he re-examine the problem and reconsider the decision of his Department—taken without proper discussion in this House—to smother the main recommendation of Mr. Dobry's report?

§ Mr. Silkin
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has it right. On the contrary, we gave considerable thought to much of Mr. Dobry's recommendations, and we have given him full credit for what was a remarkable piece of work. We have fully considered all his recommendations. We have differed from him much more on the administrative way in which we carry this out.
As for the views of architects, I am as prepared as the hon. Gentleman to listen to their professional judgment on 1673 many matters, though, surprisingly enough, on some matters such as design control, they are deeply divided. In terms of administration, however, we need to look closely at what the consequences may be.

§ Mr. Raison
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the one body whose views have never been sought on this matter is the House of Commons? Will he accept that there is a great deal of resentment about the way in which he has handled this report, and will he take my hon. Friend's views very seriously?

§ Mr. Silkin
I cannot accept any of those points. As a matter of fact, at various times we have had quite interesting discussions on Mr. Dobry's views. In saying that, I am looking straight at the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), my distinguished predecessor. He will recall many hours during the Committee stage of the Community Land Bill, in that happy environment of Standing Committee G, when Mr. Dobry's views were considered. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) cares to refer to Hansard he will see that during the past year the subject has come up again and again. As for the question whether there is time for further debates, I have no doubt that occasions will arise, even from the Opposition point of view, if the hon. Gentleman feels that there should be further debate.

§ Mr. Graham Page
As the right hon. Gentleman has discarded the main recommendations of the Dobry Report without debate in this House, will he review planning schemes between districts and counties to see whether there is any overlap of functions? Will he consider again the single planning staff which might avoid some of the duplication about which the Prime Minister has complained?

§ Mr. Silkin
On the latter point, I hope that, without any party difference, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, immediately, under the Community Land Act—though I agree that it is an uncovenanted benefit—we have given an opportunity for counties and districts to work together in land acquisition management schemes to see whether something like a unified staff can arise. I know that it was dear to the right hon. Gentleman's heart, as it was to mine.
1674 Coming back to the point about discussions in the House, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it better that, as was the case, there should have been a reasoned reply from the Secretary of State to the Dobry proposals before any major discussion took place in this House?

§ Mr. Raison
No.