HC Deb 06 December 1995 vol 268 cc328-35 12.30 pm
Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam)

I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising a matter that has interested and concerned me for many years—public participation in planning.

Nearly 500,000 planning applications were lodged in England in 1993-94. Of those, only 99 were "called in" for decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment, or 0.02 per cent. of all planning applications submitted in England in that year. In the 1995 annual report from the Department of the Environment, entitled "This Common Inheritance", I was pleased to note that the United Kingdom's green belt has been increased in size.

The protection of the green belt is essential, particularly in densely populated areas. Sheffield used to be known as a dirty picture in a beautiful green frame, but that is no longer the case. Since the Clean Air Act 1956, the vision that people had of Sheffield belching out filthy black smoke is no longer accurate. Without the smoke, Sheffield still produces more steel each year.

Planning policy guidance 12 requires planning authorities to test all their policies against the statements in "This Common Inheritance". The Government confirmed that permission can be refused or restricted on grounds of demonstrable harm to the policy, even when the particular case does not cause such harm. "This Common Inheritance" adds that sustainable development means not sacrificing tomorrow's prospects for a largely illusory gain today.

In my constituency, trees have been chopped down that should not have been; sites have been developed that should not have been; and token consultation has taken place and then been ignored, which it should not have been.

Mature trees have been chopped down at Willow Croft in Fulwood. Sheffield city council acted only after the trees had been felled, and following a huge public protest. Thankfully, those trees were not chopped down in vain. The council has now decided to place tree preservation orders on sites it sells off, and has appointed members of the public as watchdogs to monitor such matters.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) was most helpful in responding to my questions at that time, and that helped to bring about the change in council policy. However, we were locking the door after the horse had already bolted, because the powers to prevent the loss of the trees already existed.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is only too aware of the problems with three sites in my constituency, because of the barrage of letters from and lobbying by residents and myself. The planning actions on those sites are the reason for the debate.

The secure unit at Limb lane, Dore, in Sheffield is a prime example. Sheffield city council owned the land and proposed to develop the site, funded by the Department of Health. The council acted as prosecution and defence, judge and jury, as it granted itself planning permission. However, as the site was in the green belt, the case had to be referred to the Department of the Environment. As the development did not conflict with national policy, the planning permission was not called in, even though it was advertised as a departure and accepted as such by my hon. Friend. He acts in a quasi-judicial role, and cannot be involved in lobbying on such planning matters. His ear was hardly burnt, let alone bent.

There was a six-month consultation period on the Limb lane site. However, one questions what notice the council took of the objections. The original publicity resulted in 334 letters objecting to the development. A petition objecting to the building of the unit contained more than 1,600 signatures, and a further petition contained nearly 1,800 signatures—all objecting on the grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant an exception to green belt policy being made.

I fully accept that planning permissions are generally called in only if they involve issues of greater than local significance, or give rise to substantial national or regional controversy. Despite all the objections, the council's planning committee granted itself planning permission.

The implication is that councils can nibble away at the green belt, while paying lip service to public consultation. That may result in large chunks of the green belt, which the Government are preserving, being eroded by stealth.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that, yesterday, a significant planning application was granted by the Cotswold district council for a supermarket on the highest point of the Cotswolds area of outstanding natural beauty. Gloucestershire county council has an interest in that application, because it is likely to receive £1 million from the sale of a residential care home.

The county council sent me an extraordinary letter yesterday. It has objected to every application for planning permission on that road on highway grounds, and I had asked why it was not going to object to this application for the same reasons. I shall paraphrase the council's letter. It said that it was aware that it had objected on previous occasions on highway grounds, but that it could find no written evidence to that effect. In other words, it has lost the records. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that application, as the circumstances seem to be similar to the example he has raised?

Sir Irvine Patnick

The circumstances are similar, and prove that the problem is not confined to Sheffield but is happening throughout the country, as I have always believed.

I shall highlight yet another example in Hallam. A piece of land on the former bus terminus site is bordered by Terminus road, Abbeydale road, Pingle road and Hartington avenue in Millhouses, Sheffield. Despite many letters expressing overwhelming opposition, planning permission has been granted by the city council. Many shops visible from Abbeydale road south for over 50 years will be hidden by the development on that site.

The application to develop land at Abbeydale Grange school playing field also met overwhelming opposition, and yet was granted planning permission by the city council, which owns the land. Two public meetings were attended by a total of 300 residents. A motion was passed stating:

we deplore the intensification of use of this school sports fields, and demand that a public inquiry be held before planning permission is granted. I shall spell out the problem: the council owns the land; the council applied for planning permission; the council granted planning permission; and the council considered and ignored the objection. According to a brochure entitled "Planning—Charter Standards", should one have any complaints about the way the council handled an application, one can complain—no prizes for guessing to whom—to the council.

In August, Sheffield city council proposed, under the Sheffield unitary development plan, which will be subject to public inquiry under an independent inspector, that many parts of Hallam constituency be removed from the green belt. The city council has received 10 petitions, representing just under 4,000 signatures, objecting to the 47 sites identified by the council, including an objection by the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside.

Val Malthouse, whose name will be indelibly engraved on the Minister's heart as a result of the Limb lane discussions, advised me by fax only yesterday:

one of the local farmers only found out about the possible sale of their farmland through Radio Sheffield and subsequent reports in the Sheffield Star. No intimation of this was received from the Council.". She continued:

in our dealings with the planning department we have not found them helpful, in fact when we asked for a supply of objection forms"— 1,000 forms to object to the UDP—

we were told we couldn't possibly have them under any circumstances, and that only two forms were available. In the local libraries where they were supposed to be available there were in fact none. Everything seemed to be rubber stamped and objectors not taken any notice of. We intend to complain of our treatment in the new year. There are no prizes for working out whom she will have to complain to—the council.

I can vouch for that condemnation of the planning system, as, when I originally wanted to object to the UDP, the forms were not yet printed, and when they were, obtaining one demanded skill, resolution and patience—as a former Whip, I would add, cunning. It was worse than a treasure hunt, without the clues.

All three of those examples do not fit the NIMBY—not in my back yard—criteria. People are concerned that their views are being dismissed out of hand, with no way of bringing them to anyone's attention. Accordingly, people say that it is the fault of the Member of Parliament, the Government—or, indeed, the Minister, who just does not care. That is not true, but it is a typical expression that people use. The planning system does not appear to have satisfied them that their views have been heard, considered and acted upon.

My understanding is that Sheffield city council has interpreted PPG2 incorrectly and that the cavalry—in the shape of the Government—may be on the horizon. The planning committee in Sheffield met only yesterday to recommend amendments to the further proposed changes to the UDP that will be presented in evidence to the unitary development plan public inquiry, and there may be a change in the council's position.

I wonder whether the fact that the inquiry is to take place in public and not behind the closed door of a planning committee meeting influenced the council's decision. How much was it affected by the fact that the Government Office in Yorkshire and Humberside fired a warning salvo? My hon. Friend the Minister may wish to comment on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) disproved the possibility that the problems that I have outlined do not arise in shire counties where the council owns the land and the county council has planning powers.

Let me make it abundantly clear that I am not advocating the return of the metropolitan counties or the GLC, but there should be a way to ensure that a city council owning the land and applying to itself for planning permission seeks public consultation and takes notice of it.

Although the majority of planning applications are not opposed, an independent system of scrutiny is required. It could be based on the public inquiry system without the cost, or by written submission to an independent inspector appointed to examine the proposals. That would enable the objectors' case to be examined by an external source.

I have given some examples of where a local authority owns a site and plans to develop it and grants itself planning permission, albeit by a planning committee with delegated powers. Despite overwhelming opposition to proposals, and because of the lack of skills, facilities and funds, many objectors feel that their views are totally and utterly ignored.

Although the Minister has been most helpful with the many planning matters that I have raised with him, I consider that the objectors' case requires raising at the highest possible level, which is why I raise it here.

Not all councils act in such a cavalier manner—nor does Sheffield, on every occasion—but the anguish they cause by holding public meetings and then apparently ignoring the wishes of the overwhelming majority of residents cannot be right, and it should not continue: a method of dealing with these matters must be evolved.

In one sentence, the debate seeks to ensure that objectors such as those to Limb lane, Terminus road and Abbeydale Grange have a right to be heard, during and after consultation, and have their views judged by an external examiner. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for assistance to ensure that is done soon.

12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), in his usual style, has emphatically raised matters that have concerned us both since our days in local government. He is correct to say that far and away the majority of local authorities are fair, clear and open, and, as he said, so is Sheffield in most cases. However, we are aware of the possible difficulties of which some local authorities may be justifiably accused along the lines that my hon. Friend has described. I shall consider the points that he has raised, and touch on some of the safeguards that are already in place.

My hon. Friend is aware that the planning system must provide a means of ensuring that development and growth are sustainable. A new development has to be provided for and should be accommodated sensibly. At the same time, we have to take proper regard of the need to conserve our natural and built environment.

The town and country planning legislation provides a comprehensive framework for the planning system so that the future use and development of land can be debated at an appropriate level—that is locally, regionally and nationally. There are opportunities for public debate and involvement in planning decision at all levels.

In contrast to other countries not too far away, Britain has a strong tradition of public participation in planning matters. That is extremely important and very welcome. It is important that people should have the opportunity to contribute to decisions that will influence the shape and appearance of their environment for many years to come. We have built on that tradition, and we seek to foster and encourage public participation in many different ways.

Many planning decisions require the consideration of opposing views about the best use of land. The planning system allows those differing views to be considered within a clear and structured framework. However, when there are contrasting opinions, one side of the argument may not agree with the ultimate decision.

In the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, we introduced the plan-led system of planning. Since September 1991, decisions on planning applications—the great majority of which are taken by local planning authorities—must accord with the development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The statutory procedures governing development plans make clear provision for the public to be involved in the plan preparation process. That is done through the pre-deposit consultation and the public local inquiry mechanism, which represents an important opportunity for my hon. Friend and many of his constituents. The local planning authority can take into account the differing views that have been expressed before adopting their plan proposals and, because of the significance of the development plan for the future use of land, it is important that all those with an interest in the planned proposals should participate actively in the formulation of local authority's plan for the area.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

My hon. Friend is aware that there are a number of major supermarket applications in my constituency. One was granted yesterday, and others are in the pipeline. The large residential supermarket companies are deliberately targeting the smaller market towns in my constituency and putting in applications prior to the local plan hearing by the planning inspectorate. Can my hon. Friend comment on the possibility of refusing those applications on the grounds of prematurity?

Sir Paul Beresford

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Such a decision is normally delayed on the grounds of it being too early in relation to the plan. That happens quite often, unless there are exceptional circumstances. It might be appropriate for an application to go ahead, particularly if it affects the likely outcome of the plan. In some circumstances development should not be delayed, but I am not necessarily applying that approach to the individual case that my hon. Friend has presented. He will recognise, of course, that I am not in a position to discuss that case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam mentioned that Sheffield city council proposed further changes to the unitary development plan, seeking to identify 47 "major developed sites" in the green belt. Annex C of my Department's planning policy guidance note 2—that is, PPG2—advises that, subject to certain criteria, redevelopment or limited infilling of sites so identified in an adopted development plan is not inappropriate development. I believe that my hon. Friend has raised objections to the identification in the plan of these sites, 11 of which—surprise, surprise—are in his constituency.

As my hon. Friend may know—indeed, he referred to this—the Government offices for the regions scrutinise closely all development plan policies and proposals, to ensure that they accord with the published national planning policy that is set out in PPGs and circulars. As my hon. Friend has said, the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside has formally objected to Sheffield's proposals to identify 47 "major developed sites" in the green belt, on the ground that they conflict with national green belt policy. My hon. Friend's interpretation is being followed as well.

It is for the city council, as the plan-preparing authority, to consider the objections that it receives in respect of its plan proposals. In the light of responses received to public consultation, including the formal objections of the Government office, the city council's planning and economic development programme committee yesterday resolved to withdraw all 47 sites, subject, as my hon. Friend said, to ratification by the full council this afternoon.

I am sure that the council will ratify the decision, especially given the pressure of my hon. Friend. It is obviously an important issue, which I am sure the council will consider carefully before taking steps towards adopting its plan.

The Government firmly believe that those likely to he affected by a proposed development should have every opportunity to express their views before decisions are taken on planning applications generally. Where these raise issues relevant to planning, the local planning authority has a duty to take them into account when determining the planning application.

In 1992, we introduced arrangements for compulsory publicity for all planning applications. As a minimum, councils now have to notify neighbours directly, or place a notice on or near a site. For major applications—including, for example, the erection of 10 or more dwellings—a local newspaper advertisement is additionally required, to canvass views more widely on the likely impact. All notices and advertisements should give a date by which comments should be submitted to the council.

As well as setting statutory minima, the publicity provisions are designed to allow planning authorities maximum discretion to use any additional methods of publicity which they consider necessary in the light of local circumstances. There might be a cynical sigh from those on the Benches behind me, but I hope that we can encourage authorities to use that discretion.

We are not content to set statutory provisions in place and leave it at that. We are keen that wider participation should take place, and that the public generally are able to make a positive contribution to the quality of new developments. Along these lines, the Department has issued a circular to planning authorities giving advice on best practice for publicising planning applications and involving interested parties.

As I have explained, development plans provide the keystone of our planning system. It is therefore only right that planning applications that depart from the plan should be brought to the attention of local residents. We have amended planning legislation so that all departures have to be advertised, giving the public a chance to comment on them. That procedure applied to the development proposed at Limb lane, Dore, to which my hon. Friend referred. It was effectively planning permission to develop a site that was historically already developed in the green belt.

My hon. Friend referred also to other applications which were decided by Sheffield city council. He will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on detail on the way in which the council has handled particular applications. As he has expressed concern about the general procedures governing local authority development, however, it might be helpful to examine more closely how the procedures work. They were revised as recently as 1992, and are now contained in the town and country planning general regulations of 1992.

The procedures which the regulations replaced—those set out in the 1976 regulations—had been criticised on the ground that local planning authorities could not act impartially when they were plaintiff and jury in their own cause. It was suggested that, because a local authority may gain financially when disposing of land with the benefit of planning permission, planning permission might be granted, which would be refused if the applicant were not the authority. The fifth report from the Select Committee on the Environment for 1985-86 concluded that the regulations had a built-in conflict of interest without balancing safeguards, and recommended that the Department should review the existing procedures.

As my hon. Friend will understand and expect, the Department took the recommendations to heart, and published a consultation paper proposing reforms in February 1990. The proposals, revised to take account of consultation responses, were implemented through section 316 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the 1992 regulations made under that section. The general principle underlying the 1992 regulations is that local planning authorities must make planning applications in the same way as any other person, and must apply for planning permission. Except in special circumstances, they must follow the same procedures as would apply to applications made by anyone else.

County and district councils may grant themselves planning permission for their own development on land in which they have an interest, but that ability is subject to several important safeguards. For example,the proposals must be advertised and decided in public by a committee that is not responsible for land management. The public cannot be excluded from committee meetings at which local authority development proposals are discussed—as my hon. Friend suggested, that could have had an influence on some recent decisions.

To avoid a conflict of interest, applications may not be determined by a committee or officer responsible for the management of the land concerned. Local authority development proposals or development on its land must also be notified to the Secretary of State if it is not in accordance with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area, so that he can consider whether to call in the application for his own determination. It is worth stressing the importance, as the UDP is being developed or revised, that local residents, including astute local Members such as my hon. Friend, keep a close eye on proceedings, especially if they have suspicions about the local authority. Unitary authorities can grant planning permission for their own development on land in which they have an interest, or for development by others on their land, but they are subject to the same safeguards of accountability and publicity.

I have no doubt that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, local authorities are scrupulous in following the procedures to which I have referred. In a decision of the sort that we are discussing, where there are two sides, not everyone will be entirely satisfied. Local authority development proposals, like those of other persons applying for planning permission, must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Sheffield city council is no different from any other local planning authority in that respect. Nor, indeed, are its proposals any different from those submitted by other developers. They must all be judged against the same criteria. In reaching their decisions, local authorities must also take into account relevant objections by local residents.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will remind Sheffield city council of that if he feels that there is a need to do so. Only genuine land use planning concerns are material. In some instances, there may well be positive reasons in favour of development that may outweigh local objections. My hon. Friend will understand that, given his days in local government.

I can understand that some of my hon. Friend's constituents may be disappointed by decisions that are made on their behalf, as every planning decision has difficulties, but it is important that the 1992 regulations are followed. Coupled with the requirement to refer the departures to the Secretary of State, the regulations provide the right balance between the local planning authorities' need to carry out their statutory functions and the importance of safeguards on accountability and publicity.

It is worth reminding my hon. Friend that it is open to any third party who is aggrieved by a local authority's decision to grant planning permission to apply for a judicial review. Although that is a frightening course, my hon. Friend is very experienced and could guide them. In addition, the local government ombudsman can be called on to investigate if they consider that an injustice has been caused to them as a result of maladministration.

This has been an opportunity to raise concerns that a number of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have on planning matters. It is also an opportunity to remind local authorities that they cannot and should not ride roughshod. I believe that, in the main, they do not.