NOTICE ETC. OF APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION (Hansard, 19 June 1991)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 140, in page 24, line 39, at end insert— '(2B) A development order shall require a local planning authority to notify a parish council of all planning applications involving their parish, and to send a parish council a fully detailed and complete set of plans and drawings relating to each planning application.'. No. 141, in page 24, line 39, at end insert— '(2A) A development order shall require each applicant for planning permission to provide five copies of the application, including copies of all plans and drawings.'. No. 113, in page 24, line 42, at end insert— '(3A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) a development order shall require a local planning authority to publicise all applications for planning permission made in its area in a manner prescribed by the development order or otherwise as the authority thinks fit.'. Government amendments Nos. 167 and 168.

§ Mr. Steen
I beg to move amendments Nos. 140 and 141.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman can speak to the amendments, but he does not have to move them.

§ Mr. Steen
I am glad that you refreshed my memory, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We might have an opportunity to divide the House later but, subject to the help that I hope the Minister will be able to give us, it might not be necessary.
I am sure that the whole House will be interested in the amendment because it deals with parish councils. I do riot know whether hon. Members have a similar problem to mine. In my area, highly intelligent people are involved in parish council business. They are concerned and want to participate in the planning process. The problem is that they have absolutely no power and, although they are often somewhat reluctant to admit it, most of them believe that the planning process could be improved if they did have some power.
The amendment deals not with power, but solely with information. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the fact—I was not until I examined it more closely—that parish councils do not receive any details of planning applications made to the town, borough or district councils; they receive only outline information. Therefore, when a parish council is asked by the district or town council to consider a planning application, it receives only a notification of the outline of that application.
I took the liberty of inviting my town council in Salcombe in Devon to let me know what its problem was. The clerk of the council—Mrs. Woodhatch—wrote: As you are probably aware"— I was not, at that stage— the Planning Act and the general development order require the planning authority as soon as possible to inform a parish council in writing of a planning application, indicating the nature of the development and identifying the land. It does not require the planning authority to send any plans of the proposals or to explain the reason for the application even if they know that themselves, which in many cases is doubtful. We are also required to advise the planning authority within 14 days of the town council's representation. The council has no information—or very little—but is required to give its views within 14 days. Mrs. Woodhatch's letter continued: You will see from this that the procedure is most unsatisfactory and has been so since 1974. Even if we do make recommendations they are often ignored. The letter continues, but the point is that the council receives outline information only but no details on which to base its view. That is why so many parish councils make the most extraordinary recommendations to district and town councils.

§ Mr. Win Griffiths
One of the quirks of the 1974 local government reform was to describe parish councils in Wales as "community councils". We support the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) because in my constituency, for example, the town council of Porthcawl, which is a substantial community, has for many years been lobbying Ogwr borough council for full planning permission. This year, for the first time, Porthcawl became a Labour-controlled authority, which is proof of the Tory's present difficulties.

§ Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)
A Tory stronghold.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I could not resist that comment, especially in view of the sotto voce comment by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). However, we support the hon. Member for South Hams.

§ Mr. Steen
It may be reassuring for the Opposition to support me, but it makes me think that I must be on the wrong track.
I mentioned Salcombe town council, but I also wish to mention the illustrious district council of South Hams. It has a first-rate planning department and a fine planning officer. I asked him in confidence to give me an idea of some of his problems. He declined to tell me exactly what they were, but he kindly wrote to me about my proposals.
I am not asking for parish councils to be given powers to intervene in planning matters. That would be another debate, although many people believe that parish councils should be more involved. I am concerned only to ensure that they have detailed plans so that when an applicant makes an application, instead of lodging four sets of plans, he lodges five sets. It is not too outrageous to suggest that when an applicant makes an application he should bear the cost of giving exact information about what he is doing or wishes to do to the local parish council. What is the purpose of a parish council if it is not to consider detailed planning applications?
The director of planning and housing for South Hams district council, Mr. Carpenter, said: I can confirm that I am still supplying the parish and town councils with plans where I have spare copies available. It has been council practice for many years to supply a full copy of the plan where a copy is available. However, although I ask applicants to supply six copies I am only able by statute to request four copies. Where six are received the parish and town councils receive a copy with their notification. It is not surprising by the time a copy is retained in the office for public inspection and the various statutory consultees like the water authority and the National Rivers Authority have requested copies of an application that four is an inadequate number of copies for the proper consideration of an application.

§ Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton)
My hon. Friend will know of my knowledge of and love for South Hams. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that what my hon. Friend advocates as being good for South Hams is probably good for Taunton and Dean and the rest of England. The Labour party is showing interest in this matter, although many Labour Members would not know what a parish was if they saw one. However, no one from the Liberal Democrats is present and I thought that that party was a campaigner for parish councils.

§ Mr. Steen
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has good eyesight. My attention has been drawn to the fact that no Liberal Member—if that is what they are called now—is present.

§ Mr. Robert B. Jones (Hertfordshire, West)
The eyesight of my hon. Friends the Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) is obviously good. However, they could not have noticed that during the Committee stage of the Bill—12 sessions—the Liberal Democrat representative attended only once. That is an appalling attendance record. He was even absent for a vital debate on coastal protection, which one would have thought would have been of interest to Eastbourne.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I should like to hear something about the amendment.

§ Mr. Steen
It is a simple amendment and I hope that the House will support it. I am simply asking applicants to submit five copies of their application instead of four. That should be a statutory requirement.

§ Mr. Barry Porter
Why cannot the good Mrs. Woodhatch merely step round to the planning office and examine the plans? That is not much to ask her to do.

§ Mr. Steen
It is always useful to have a Merseyside intervention. The problem with Merseyside Members is that they do not understand that the constituency of South Hams is 88 miles from one end to the other. Mrs. Woodhatch would have to travel 65 miles to and from the office every week to look at the planning applications. Mrs. Woodhatch could ask the planning authority for a copy of the plans. However, I understand from the director of housing and planning that it would take his staff six to eight hours to photostat all the planning applications that arrive each week. That is why it is not a serious consideration.

§ Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay)
I support entirely what my hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that there is tremendous development pressure in South Hams and Torbay? Part of the Torbay borough is in the South Hams constituency. It has the fifth highest number of planning applications in the United Kingdom. The pressure on the planning authority is enormous. The more that the plans can be circulated by statute, the better.

§ Mr. Steen
This is such a simple request that I cannot believe that the Government will not accept it. We all have good parish councils within our constituencies and they consist of informed, involved and concerned constituents. We may need to review the powers of parish councils in due course, but that is not the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when local people with an interest in the local environment consider planning applications, they should have a copy of the plan.

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
We are devolving powers to schools and local hospitals. The people who sit on parish councils know the locality and are not taking decisions from a distance. They should have full information.

§ Mr. Steen
If we do not give parish councils the necessary information, how can they make informed judgments? Parish councils often make unusual observations and district councils therefore cannot always believe what they receive. That is not surprising. Parish councils have only an outline plan of the application to which they have to respond within 14 days. If the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) were to be accepted, the good Mrs. Woodhatch and her town councillors would have to travel to the district council offices, perhaps in a charabanc, thereby causing congestion on the roads and more problems for the infrastructure. All that is required is one extra set of plans to be deposited statutorily by the applicant. Instead of putting just an outline application into the envelope, the district council could put in the detailed plan. That is not a difficult thing to do.

§ Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)
I am following my hon. Friend's argument carefully and I agree with much of what he has said. Is it not the case that the authority of a parish council if often undermined because gossip and rumours spread through a village like wildfire when a development is about to take place? The parish council does not have sufficient information and is often wrong-footed and put at a great disadvantage.

§ Mr. Steen
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) has experience north of Watford and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has experienced north-west of Watford. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate's point is important. Parish councils are undermined by not being given the information. They do not have any authority or power but they have a great deal of local experience. I am simply asking the Government to ensure that an extra set of plans is made available statutorily.
I have made my point and I do not think that I need to repeat it. We should simply change the number of plans from four to five. I do not believe that there is any problem in that.

§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale)
I have great sympathy for the views held by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). During my 27 years as a Member of Parliament I have spent a great deal of time pursuing the same course of action as he has sought to pursue tonight.
I hesitate to talk about private Members' Bills because, over the years, I have been a party to killing as many such Bills as anyone in the House. I remember the first time that I was lucky enough to win a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills. At that time, in cahoots with the parish councils, I decided to promote a Bill to strengthen their powers. The clerk of the parish council in South Hams may recall that, as a result of my Bill, the powers of parish councils were extended.
I have always kept a careful silence about the title of my Bill. It was called the Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It had a low place in the ballot and was due to come up late one Friday afternoon when nearly every Bill in sight was being killed by the Government Whip of the day. The Leader of the House at that time was an old friend of many of us, the late, much loved and lamented Lord Peart. I said to him, "I hope that you are not going to kill my Bill." He slid along to the Government Whip and then returned to me with a long face and said, "Yes, Michael, I am afraid that we are going to kill it." At that moment the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett)—we are old friends—came along and I said, "Ted, you cannot allow them to kill this Bill." The hon. Member for Wallsend told Fred Pearl that he should tell the Government Whip to let my Bill go through, and it did. That is when I learned that Whips have hearts. We extended the powers of burial authorities.
I remember also that at that time, although a parish council was allowed to put up a bus shelter, for some reason it was not allowed to put up a notice outside saying, "Bus stop". We dealt with that little problem, among many others—but I digress.
There is much merit in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. I have always felt that it is right to involve local people in planning details. The amendments do not extend the planning process. I hope 376 that they will not cause delay, because there is too much delay already. I would not support the amendments if I thought that they would delay the planning process. The amendments give a say to people at grass-roots level—

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
An important say.

§ Mr. Jopling
They give an important say, as my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says, and I have always supported that.
I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams and others who intervened in this short debate. I hope that the Government will do what they can to help, and I shall listen carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)
This is a matter of principle —either parish councils give their views on planning or they do not. If they give their views, surely they have the right to have the full plans and not just outlines. Some people say that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) are absurd, but I do not believe that they are. They make much sense. Some limitations may be needed—it may mean that not every bus shelter plan must be duplicated and sent to the parish council in full. Parish councils consider major planning decisions, and we should ensure that they have all the available plans.
Either we want parish councils to consider planning matters, and they should be fully informed, or we do not. The law is that they should consider planning applications, which is the way I should like it to stay. Unless the Government have reasons which we have not yet heard for opposing the amendments, I hope that they will take some major steps—

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
This is a minor step.

§ Sir Peter Emery
I hope that the Government will take some major steps to meet the minor request made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams in his sensible amendments.

§ Mr. Soley
It is always a pleasure to support the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), not least because he frequently nailed his colours to the mast in Committee and supported us—at such great length that his Front-Bench colleagues nearly nailed him to the mast a couple of times. I see that the hon. Gentleman is wearing his colours of green and red. There has always been some uncertainty about whether he is a supporter of the Ecology party or the Labour party. We are working on him, and hope to have him on our side before long.
The hon. Gentleman is basically right. The group of amendments is about giving better information to the public. We wish to open up the planning system to more public scrutiny. That should be one of our aims. The Government took some steps towards that during the Bill's passage, which we very much welcome. Our amendment to line 42 on page 24 states: a development order shall require a local planning authority to publicise all applications for planning permission". It is a small but important measure, and we have left open how things should be done. Members of Parliament and many more councillors know that people come along after 377 the event and say, "We didn't know." Often, the system for letting people know is nowhere near as good as it could or should be.
It is appropriate that we are debating the amendment today, the day on which the Community Development Foundation launched its report entitled "Action for Better Communities!" in the House of Commons with cross-party support. Present at the launch this morning were two Conservative Members, both of whom spoke in favour of the report—one chaired the group—a Member of the Liberal Democrats and two Labour Members, including me.
There is growing support for the public to be more aware of what affects the quality of their lives. Planning permission generally is one of the most important aspects. Whether we are talking about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Hams, which deal with parish councils, or about our amendment, which opens up the issue of publicity, I strongly recommend that the Government give more thought to this matter. Even if they are not prepared to act now, I hope that they will do so when the Bill is considered in the other place.

§ Mr. Yeo
This has been an unexpectedly productive debate, with more speeches than some of us had expected. I shall begin with amendment No. 113 before turning to amendments Nos. 140 and 141, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) spoke. Amendment No. 113 helps me to put into context the circumstances in which parish councils will have greater access to information about planning applications, as will everyone else.
During the passage of the Bill, the Government have accepted the principle that all planning applications in England and Wales and any alterations to those applications that are accepted by a planning authority should be given publicity. That was an important change of policy and a significant change from the previous position, when we did not feel that it was necessary to require every planning application to be given publicity. We made that clear in Committee, and announced to the House on 10 May that we would give effect to that commitment by amending the Town and Country Planning and General Development Order 1988. We will take this forward when we have considered the outcome of a public consultation exercise about how that objective can best be achieved.
As part of our consideration of the options open to us for achieving that aim, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), to invite their views on the experience that they have gained of how the public can be notified about planning applications in Scotland, where it is applicants' responsibility to publicise planning applications, and in Northern Ireland.
At this stage, before we have completed our consultations on this point, we would not wish to rule out the introduction of an arrangement in England and Wales similar to that which already exists in Scotland. When we publish the consultation paper in the next few weeks, with the aim of amending the general development order later 378 in the year, I envisage that the paper will invite views on a range of options, including the Scottish one. The danger of accepting amendment No. 113 is that it would limit our consideration of the issue—we would be shackled—and it would appear to rule out the possibility of making it the responsibility of the planning applicant to undertake the necessary publicity exercise.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams spoke forcefully in support of the amendments Nos. 140 and 141, citing his experience in his constituency, as he did several times during the Bill's passage. He was eloquently supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). They made a powerful case for giving parish councils, as of right, full information about the details of every planning application received by the planning authority.
I shall try briefly to explain why I do not believe that it is right to accept the amendments. I stress that I am an admirer of the work of many parish councils. In my constituency, their views on a wide range of issues are often extremely helpful.

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
My hon. Friend said that the observations of parish councils were helpful. Surely they would be much more helpful if parish councils were properly informed, as the amendment seeks to achieve.

§ Mr. Yeo
If my hon. Friend will give me a moment or two, I will try to explain why I believe that parish councils are adequately informed.
The view of the parish council can often be a barometer of local opinion, and it can help to inform the reaction of a planning authority to a particular application. It is because we recognise that that we have included in paragraph 48 of schedule 6 provisions designed to ensure that parish and community councils are better informed about development proposals in their areas. That must be seen against the background of our acceptance of the principle of some publicity for all planning applications.
The provisions in paragraph 48 of schedule 6 consolidate and extend requirements in paragraph 8 of schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They include a new requirement for local planning authorities to notify parish and community councils of alterations to planning applications. That is very important. That requirement supplements the existing duty on planning authorities to notify parish councils of applications.
Those requirements are triggered by the parish council requesting the planning authority to notify it. There is a point of contact at that stage between the parish council —if it is interested—and the planning authority. That request can indicate that the parish council wishes to be informed about all planning applications in the area, or it can specify the types of planning applications about which it wishes to be informed.

§ Sir Peter Emery
If the parish council requests that trivia, is the planning authority obliged to supply the information within the necessary time, or can it ignore the request? That is of considerable importance.

§ Mr. Yeo
It is obliged to provide information about planning applications to the parish council, and we have 379 extended that principle not just to deal with applications but to apply if there are subsequent alterations to the application received by the planning authority.

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
I understand the point about schedule 6 to which the Minister drew my attention. However, the planning authority is not obliged to give the parish council the relevant information. It can simply give a formal notification. It does not have to provide the detailed information upon which the parish council can make an informed and intelligent decision.

§ Mr. Yeo
If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will try to develop my point and explain why we believe that it would be onerous to place the requirement on planning authorities as suggested in amendments Nos. 140 arid 141.
There is absolutely nothing to stop the local planning authority making an arrangemnent with the parish council having ascertained the nature of the parish council's interest and agreeing to supply all the details as a matter of course if that appears to be the best way to deal with the matter. There is every opportunity for that to happen. There is nothing in our policy or in legislation to prevent the planning authority from dealing with parish councils in that way if it wishes.

§ Mr. Robert B. Jones
Dacorum borough council in my constituency does exactly that, and that benefits the borough council and the parish council.

§ Mr. Yeo
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. No doubt many planning authorities adopt that policy, which works satisfactorily.

§ Mr. Steen
A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Minister said that there would be a burden on the planning authority. We are not asking the planning authority to do anything extra: we are simply asking it to shove an extra set of detailed plans provided by the applicant into the envelope which it already sends to the parish council to inform the parish council that the planning application exists. There is not much extra effort.

§ Mr. Yeo
Although, until November last year, I did not see many planning applications and was not familiar with the bulk of the accompanying documents—as part of my daily working life now, I see planning decisions routinely several times a day—I am now aware that even what appears to be quite a simple planning application, which, I appreciate, by the time it reaches me has become a planning appeal—and I can see how it started—can comprise a significant bulk of documents. Therefore, the obligation is not quite as trivial as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams seems to imply.
Dacorum council has the great advantage of an excellent Member of Parliament and it is clearly an extremely well run authority. It has decided to make arrangements with the parish councils within the borough and those arrangements suit both sides. However, there are more than 500,000 planning applications every year. Forty per cent. of those relate to applications by householders for very simple matters.
8.45 pm
Against that background of more than 500,000 planning applications, there is merit in allowing parish councils and local planning authorities a measure of discretion about the arrangements that they make between themselves instead of imposing the blanket requirement 380 that with every application, whatever its nature and however trivial or important, all the details must be sent routinely to the parish council. The element of discretion that we are allowing is the best way forward and is entirely in line with our approach on a wide range of matters.
If we were to accept amendment No. 140, we would run the risk of creating planning junk mail. The clerk to the parish council would dread the arrival, almost every week, of another huge bulky envelope. He would wonder if there was any way of cutting off that supply of paper work.

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
This is really most unfair. The Minister does not appear to have read page 133 of the Bill, which uses the words "if requested." There would not be junk mail. The parish council will have requested the details. The Minister referred to good local authorities, but there are some bad ones. The parish councils would like the right to those details.

§ Mr. Yeo
I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend's earlier interventions. I thought that she was urging on me an arrangement whereby all the details of all applications would be sent routinely to parish councils. If I misunderstood that, I apologise to my hon. Friend.
It is perfectly possible for common sense to prevail in the relationship between the planning authority and the parish council. Already, a number of authorities will arrange for the documents to be lent to the parish council at a time that coincides with its meetings.
I am concerned that amendment No. 141 would place an additional demand on applicants for planning permission. Frequently, those applicants are not organisations of great substance. They may be individuals with small household applications or they may be small businesses. The requirement in amendment No. 141 for additional copies of all the documents, including plans and drawings submitted with the planning application, to be sent as a matter of course to the planning authority would be a not insignificant burden for some applicants. If we were to follow that route, why should the line be drawn at parish councils? Many other bodies might like information about applications in which they may believe they have an interest.
I do not believe that it makes sense to impose those requirements universally.

§ Mr. Jopling
My hon. Friend the Minister has been very illuminating as he has explained the Government's view about the amendments. He has explained a number of progressions contained in the Bill that will clearly give parish councils more understanding of planning applications under the new system once the Bill becomes law. That is a move forward. My instinct is that we should see how the system works. Will my hon. Friend bear the whole issue with regard to parish councils in mind? If we find that the new arrangements are still unsatisfactory, will the Government be prepared in future to consider the possibility of dealing with the matter more in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)?

§ Mr. Yeo
I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that undertaking. As he acknowledges, we have made some significant changes to our procedures during the Bill's passage through the House. I emphasise that the principle of ensuring that in future all planning applications will 381 receive some publicity is an important change in our policy and goes in the direction in which he and other hon. Members would like us to move.
Despite several interventions to the contrary in this short debate, I also believe that the system under which parish councils can receive detailed information is satisfactory. To some extent, my hon. Friends will judge the level of concern about a particular issue by the volume of correspondence that they receive about it. From my experience as both a constituency Member of Parliament and a Minister with responsibility for planning matters, I have not found that the inability of parish councils to obtain sufficient information about the nature and details of planning applications that they receive has featured prominently in my postbag, either in Suffolk or in the Department. However, I gladly give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks—that if we find that the system is not working as well as I have indicated that I believe it is, we will, of course, look at it again and make the changes that he and my other hon. Friends have requested.

§ Mr. Robert Banks
I am grateful to my hon. Friend both for giving way and for what he has just said. However, will he undertake to consult the Association of Parish Councils and to take advice from it about whatever action he may be considering in the future?

§ Mr. Yeo
Yes, I will undertake to do that, but I shall also undertake to consult the Association of District Councils, which, from a different viewpoint, will have a different angle on the issue.
In those circumstances, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) not to move his amendment.

§ Mr. Steen
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken once and will need the leave of the House to speak a second time.

§ Mr. Steen
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his handsome undertaking, which is most gratefully received. I should like to pay tribute to all the Ministers who, throughout the Bill's passage, have been prepared to acknowledge that some good ideas emanate from the Back Benches. I pay tribute to them for their willingness to take good ideas on board and to make progress.

§ Mr. Soley
I beg to move, amendment No. 114, in page 24, line 51, at end insert—