HC Deb 19 June 1991 vol 193 cc382-4

'(3) For section 74(1)(b) of the principal Act there is substituted— (b) for authorising the local planning authority to grant planning permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan subject to a requirement that:

  1. (i) notice of the local planning authority's intention to grant planning permission is published in a daily newspaper circulating in the area;
  2. (ii)) copies of the notice shall be given to the applicant and to any person who made representations to the authority; and
  3. (iii) any representation as regards the making of a decision to grant planning permission received by the local planning authority within twenty-one days after the first publication of the notice shall be duly considered by the authority;
or otherwise as prescribed by the Order or by the Secretary of State under it.".'.

Mr. Soley

The purpose of amendment No. 114 is to require a planning application, which the local planning authority considers would materially conflict with the development plan, or which the county council considers would conflict with a structure plan, to be notified to the Secretary of State so that he can consider calling it in.

The purpose of amendment No. 115 is to require local planning authorities intending to grant planning permission for a development which is in conflict with the structure or local plan to advertise that fact in a local newspaper, to inform those who have commented on the planning applications, and to consider any further representations within a period of 21 days.

That purpose links in with the major concession that we received from the Government at the beginning of the debate about Government new clause 20, which was tabled to replace my new clause 13. If a development is conceded which is in breach of the plan, we are arguing that the logic is that either the Secretary of State should have the power to call it in, which is more clearly defined in amendment No. 114, or there should be a power to inform the people who have commented on the planning application. Without those provisions, we might be faced with the situation that has developed on other occasions, when someone who has objected to an application sees the new local plan, which may be publicised, and feels that the objection must be carried because it is in line with the plan. However, that person may then discover that the local authority has itself decided to breach the plan.

The amendments simply go further down the road on which the Miniser embarked in new clause 20. I therefore commend them to the House.

Mr. David Bellotti (Eastbourne)

I wish to speak only to amendment No. 115. Development plans are arrived at only after considerable public consultation, advertisements and further consideration by the local authority and the Minister. The development plans from which we start are, therefore, very important. Departing from them should not be undertaken lightly in any circumstances, and certainly not without further consideration.

Amendment No. 115 provides that opportunity for further advertisement and for communication with those people who have made written representations. People often write in about departures from development plans without any further information being given to them which would enable them to comment further to the local authority. The 21-day period is sensible and is the minimum that would allow that process to be undertaken.

The amendment is worthy of support and I hope that the Minister will concede that. Although never enshrined in tablets of stone, development plans are nevertheless important and the local authority should not depart from them without a great deal of thought and further consideration.

Mr. Yeo

I recognise that amendment No. 114 does not include some of the features that I criticised when an amendment with similar objectives was tabled in Committee, but I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Solely) that I still do not think that the amendments are either necessary or desirable.

Two sets of circumstances are set out in which a planning application must be reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that he can consider calling it in. The first of these is where the local planning authority considers there to be a material departure from the development plan, or where implementation of its proposals would be prejudiced. This simply imports material selectively from the existing 1981 departures direction. I see no real advantage in setting these matters in the concrete of primary legislation.

The second set of circumstances is where, in the view of the structure plan authority, a planning application constitutes a departure from or conflict with the structure plan. In this case, too, the local planning authority would have to report the application to my right hon. Friend.

In the departures direction, it is the local planning authority which decides whether an application should be reported to my right hon. Friend. I believe that to be more logical for, in deciding so to report, the authority is exercising a development control function, not a plan-making function. I have neither heard nor seen any evidence that the present reporting arrangements do not work satisfactorily. In my view, the decision should continue to lie with the development control authority Sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) of amendment No. 115 echo, although not exactly, paragraph 3 of the 1981 departures direction, but sub-paragraph (ii) is new. I believe the amendment to be inappropriate and unnecessary. It is inappropriate because the level of procedural detail given here should continue to be set out in the development plans direction, not in main legislation. It is unnecessary because the new material in subparagraph (ii) would add to bureaucracy. Subordinate legislation under section 74 of the 1990 Act already provides for applicants to be notified of how their application has been dealt with. I do not believe that applicants need copies of the departure advertisement in addition. Nor do I see the point of sending copies to those who have made representations.

Mr. Bellotti

Are there procedures for notifying those who have made representations?

Mr. Yeo

Procedures for notifying those who have made representations about what?

Mr. Bellotti

For those who have made representations as opposed to those who are applicants.

Mr. Yeo

I do not believe that there are any procedures enshrined in primary legislation. Nor do I believe that any procedures necessarily should be enshrined in primary legislation. Sending copies of departure advertisements to those who have made representations would add to local authorities' costs. For the reasons that I have stated, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to