Green Paper on Planning (Hansard, 24 April 2002)

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to have digested the replies to the Green Paper on planning and to be in a position to announce their decisions.

§ The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
My Lords, the consultation period for the planning Green Paper only closed on Monday 18th March. The department has received over 13,000 representations. Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, the Government intend to make a policy statement on the planning system before the Summer Recess.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has digested the lesson of the debate on the Green Paper, which showed the glossy paper, with a picture on page three of the heroic Mr Byers, to be a mixture of the good and the bad—the bad being cleverly sheltered by the good. How can we trust a department which, while affecting to dislike delays and to want to get rid of them, is itself responsible within its own domain for many unnecessary and painful delays? Secondly, how can we trust a department which affects to be concerned about the involvement of people on the periphery, but which never loses an opportunity to take power to the centre, leaving those at the outer rim neglected and out of touch?

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, the debate in this House was a very good and constructive debate, 238 and we shall listen to what was said. Many contributions were made on what is a complex issue; namely, how the planning system can be made to work better for everyone involved, including the community.
As to the department being guilty of delays itself when it seeks to make the system quicker, I entirely agree that, over the years, there have been considerable delays in relation to central government dealing with planning applications. That is why, on 2nd April, we set up a new system within central government to deal with those planning applications dealt with by central government, and to seek to do so in half the time that they currently take. It is an ambitious target, but we have to make the system quicker.
Thirdly, centralising is most certainly not the aim of the planning Green Paper—far from it. The intention is to make the system simpler, so that everyone can understand it and access it; and to engage with the community more. Although there is presently a great deal of consultation in the planning system, all too many in the community believe that it bypasses them.

§ Viscount Astor
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Members on all sides of the House trust him? It is his fellow Ministers in another place about whom we are somewhat more circumspect. Will the Minister explain why county councils—which are, after all, the upper level of democratic government—are to be excluded from producing structure plans? It seems that that role is to be given to unelected regional bodies.

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, the counties have made a very real contribution to strategic planning. We are keen to ensure that the expertise that they have developed is still involved in the planning system. Structure plans, however, represent one layer of planning which we believe is unnecessary. We believe that what is presently done by the structure plan can be done at regional and sub-regional level and that the counties have an important role to play. But one does not make progress in terms of making the system less complicated and more user friendly by keeping or adding to the number of layers already there.

§ Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, in telling the House last week that there would be a policy statement before the summer, the Minister refused to confirm that a White Paper would follow the Green Paper to which reference has been made. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that there will be a White Paper? If not, how does he propose to consult and take account of the many views on this controversial set of reforms—and of the view that much improvement could be made without the root and branch reform proposed in the Green Paper?

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, as regards consultation, one of the reasons we issued such a detailed series of papers was so that wholesale consultation could take place on the proposed reforms; and so that, if necessary, we could make 239 changes in relation to the proposals where appropriate. I did not refuse to answer the question. Noble Lords may recall that my noble friend Lord McIntosh prevented me from doing so on the basis that time was up. We have made it clear that a policy statement will be made. It will not be a White Paper, but that does not in any way inhibit consultation between now and then.

§ Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that last May the people of this country gave trust to this Government? The Opposition question whether they can trust the Government. It is not a question of whether the Opposition trust the Government—the people of this country have trust in this Government.

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Absolutely right, my Lords. The people of this country expected that we would deliver actual changes in the way that they live and that is what we are doing.

Lord Renton
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord and other members of the Government try to keep an open mind about extending the right of appeal, which is at present limited to applicants only? There is a great deal of public concern that development takes place that is contrary to local opinion and needs, but parish councils which have often appeared as objectors, are deprived of any right of appeal. Will the Government bear that in mind?

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, we think it is incredibly important that steps are taken to ensure that the community is properly engaged at the earliest possible stage. We think it is wrong to give third party rights of appeal, because that simply makes the process more legalistic and lawyer-driven. The noble Lord will recall my reference in the recent debate on planning to the experience of Queensland, which introduced a third party right of appeal and then had to produce another Act of the Queensland Parliament to free all the local authorities from the consequences of a precedent-driven system.