SIMPLIFIED PLANNING ZONES

HC Deb 19 April 2004 vol 420 cc111-4

Lords amendment:No. 42.

Keith Hill

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 130 and 139 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Keith Hill

Together, the amendments propose the removal of existing references to, and provision for, simplified planning zones both in the Bill and in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Amendment No. 42 proposes to delete clause 45 from the Bill. Amendment No. 130 proposes to amend schedule 6, which would result in the deletion of all sections of the 1990 Act pertaining to simplified planning zones and the deletion of the accompanying schedule 7 to that Act. Amendment No. 139 proposes to amend schedule 9, which would mean that section 83(1) of the 1990 Act pertaining to simplified planning zones would not be repealed as proposed.

The purpose of clause 45 is to amend the provisions for the creation of simplified planning zones so that SPZs cannot be made by a local planning authority unless the need for one has first been identified in the regional spatial strategy, or in the spatial development strategy in London, or by the National Assembly for Wales.

I am aware that concerns were expressed in the other place about the possible imposition of SPZs. Where the RSS has identified the need for an SPZ in a local planning authority area—not a specific site—the local planning authority must consider whether an SPZ is desirable. If so, it will be for the local planning authority to identify an appropriate location and prepare a draft scheme. The local planning authority will then consult on the scheme, and may hold an inquiry if necessary. Following an inquiry, the LPA will either propose modifications to the scheme and consult on those, or proceed to adoption.

Matthew Green

This is a clarification of something that already exists in planning terms. How many of these zones have been created already?

Keith Hill

I believe that eight such zones have been created and that a further six have been considered. Of those eight, four remain extant. I hope that that very precise response satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

9.30 pm

As I was saying before I was justifiably intervened on, following an inquiry the local planning authority will propose modifications to the scheme and consult on them, or proceed to adoption.

The Secretary of State is provided with powers to direct a local planning authority to make a scheme, or to make it himself. but it is highly unlikely that this power will need to be used. Local planning authorities will have been consulted on the preparation of the regional spatial strategy, and will have been able to express any concerns about RSS proposals. If a strategic need for an SPZ is confirmed in the RSS, the decision as to the exact location within the local authority area will be one for the local planning authority

The provision also enables the lifespan of an SPZ to be varied to suit local circumstances. It can be varied to last any period up to 10 years, rather than just the standard current 10-year period. This provision supports the development of high-tech business areas, which will be referred to as business planning zones—a concept that was first introduced in the planning Green Paper of December 2001. BPZs permit a flexible planning regime that is intended to encourage and support the rapid development of high quality, high-tech business. We envisage that they will be used to encourage investment for growth and regeneration, and to support the development of clusters. BPZs will be high quality and have low environmental impact. All BPZ schemes will be subject to public consultation and will be required to undergo an environmental impact assessment. Their locations will be chosen to meet identified strategic needs and will be identified in the regional spatial strategy; there will be perhaps one or two per region.

BPZs will be a useful strategic tool that will enable the pursuit and implementation of valuable development for business. That is why we want to retain the clause.

Mr. Syms

The Minister has given an interesting explanation, and it is clear from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the principle of simplified planning zones has hardly taken off. Even the Minister's expectation of one or two per region, which was also expressed in the other place, does not add up to a great deal. But our main concern is why the provision needs to be changed and why approval needs to be sought through the top-down approach of the regional spatial strategy. Why can we not leave the legislation alone and allow matters to continue as they are? I doubt whether the Government's ambition extends much beyond what has already been achieved under the 1990 Act.

I should also point out that the Law Society does not consider it necessary to introduce new provisions for simplified planning zones, as there are sufficient existing statutory powers for local planning authorities. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has also expressed concerns. In keeping with one or two recent studies, it has considered whether the planning process itself impacts on competitiveness.

This is not one of the most important or weighty issues that we have had to deal with this evening, but we are concerned that the Government are yet again trying to transfer more powers upwards. That the south-east of England—an area the size of Austria, with a population of 8 million—should be the main arbiter of where such zones should be located, rather than local authorities, is indicative of the Government's response. We shall not press this issue to a vote, but it has been interesting to hear what the Minister had to say.

Matthew Green

If the Minister were being completely frank, he would have begun by saying that this is not the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's favourite clause; rather, it is the Treasury's favourite. These measures were announced in the Budget of two years ago, and in reality this is Gordon's clause. I am not sure whether this constitutes planning with a lot of prudence attached, or planning leading to boom and bust. Either way, this is a Treasury add-on that the ODPM does not really care about.

Baroness Hanham said to Lord Rooker that she had heard more enthusiastic speeches from him, and it is easy to see why. Lord Rooker said: The business planning zones will provide a flexible planning regime to facilitate the rapid development of high-quality, high-tech business clusters and encourage investment for growth and regeneration. Then, however, he said: I do not have any facts and proof to back that up, but that is clearly the aspiration."—[Official Report, House of Lords,16 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 167.] The Minister used the first of those sentences today—clearly, he had the same set of briefing notes as Lord Rooker—but I wonder why he left out that second sentence, which was very revealing about the ODPM's attachment to the clause.

The zones are completely unnecessary. Only eight have been set up in 10 years, with only four still working. Businesses do not want them. High quality, high-tech businesses in particular want to operate in a structured planning environment. Perhaps we should not waste our time, as hardly anyone will use the clause and no one will really care, but that is not good law, and the Opposition should not let the Government do something simply because it will have no effect. It is probably not worth pressing this to a vote, on exactly those grounds, but the Minister would do well to square up to the Chancellor and say that the measure might have made a good speech at the time but does not really merit a place in the Bill.

Keith Hill

I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the clause, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's animadversions on my Department's level of enthusiasm for these measures. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked why we are making the change. The reason is that we consider this a matter for regional planning. I understand why the official Opposition oppose planning at the regional level, but regionalism was in many respects established under the last Conservative Administration, although this Government have carried it much further, with a genuine commitment to decentralisation. I cannot, however, understand why the Lib Dems would oppose such planning.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill

How can I resist the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Clifton-Brown

I would have thought that this was an area in which the argument was not about whether there should be regional planning, because the measure applies solely to such planning. We have heard that there have been only eight simplified planning zones in the past 10 years. Can the Minister predict how many there will be in the next 10?

Keith Hill

Of course I cannot, but let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that if this is a failure in policy, it is a failure of his own party's Government, as these measures were introduced under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Government remain committed to these proposals and I call on the House to reject the Lords amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.