HC Deb 16 November 1990 vol 180 cc252-4W
Mr. Hayward

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached in the light of his consultation on proposed changes to the procedures for designating simplified planning zones.

Mr. Michael Spicer

About 50 responses were received to the consultation paper published on 31 August. I shall arrange for copies of the responses to be made available in the library of the Department.

Our proposals for changes to the requirements for public consultation at the pre-deposit stage, and to adoption procedures, were generally welcomed. Suggestions as to the desirable scope of consultations on draft SPZ schemes will be taken into account when new guidance to planning authorities is prepared.

Some respondents expressed misgivings about the proposal that the holding of a public inquiry to consider objections to a draft SPZ scheme should be a matter for the planning authority's discretion. I have considered these responses carefully; but it has to be remembered that objectors to major planning applications which are not called in do not have a right to a public inquiry. SPZ schemes are in many respects analogous to such applications: it is appropriate that they should be treated in the same way. It will often be possible for planning authorities to do full justice to objections without the need for a public inquiry.

Some respondents suggested that it would be helpful for guidance to be issued on the circumstances in which we would expect a public inquiry to be held. I agree that there are circumstances in which it would normally be appropriate to consider objections at a public inquiry—for instance, where the SPZ scheme constitutes a substantial departure from the development plan or raises strategic planning issues; where the scheme is the subject of substantial local controversy; or where it involves a substantial area of land in the authority's ownership and there are objections to the authority's proposals. Advice on these lines will be issued to planning authorities when new guidance is prepared. It will make clear that in such cases my right hon. Friend will if necessary be prepared to direct that a public inquiry is held.

My conclusion is that we should press ahead with the streamlining of SPZ procedures which was proposed in the consultation paper. Appropriate amendments to the primary legislation have therefore been incorporated in the Planning and Compensation Bill, which is being published today.

Mr. Mans

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions have been made on the proposals in his Department's July 1989 consultation paper, "Efficient Planning".

Mr. Michael Spicer

Nearly 500 responses were received to the consultation paper "Efficient Planning". The Government have considered them carefully. My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Wales have decided to proceed with the following proposals, which are included in the Planning and Compensation Bill published today.

  1. (a) a power for local authorities to turn away repetitive planning applications. This is a tactic used by a minority of developers. Outlawing it will be welcomed by people whose homes and neighbourhoods are blighted by the prolonged uncertainties which such applications can cause;
  2. (b) a power for the Secretary of State to dismiss a planning appeal where the appellant delays unreasonably. This will discourage use of the appeals system as a tactical device, and reduce the burden of unproductive work for the planning inspectorate and local authorities;
    3. 254
  3. (c) lifting the six-month time limit for prosecuting an applicant who makes a false declaration;
  4. (d) rationalising the secondary legislation governing development control;
  5. (e) simplifying the law on publicity for planning applications;
  6. (f) a power for local authorities to impose after-care conditions on landfill sites; and
  7. (g) extending to minerals waste tips the provisions for the review of minerals sites, abatement of compensation and after-care conditions.

I announced on 25 July that we intend to take forward the proposal to increase planning application fees progressively until they cover 100 per cent. of local authorities' development control costs.

I announced on 31 August that we propose to simplify the procedures for designating simplified planning zones. SPZs can be used to extend permitted development rights in a defined area, and we have concluded that a further power for local authorities to do this (the proposed local development orders) is unnecessary.

In the light of the responses to the consultation paper the Government have decided not to proceed with the following proposals:

  1. (i) to allow the Secretary of State to determine the procedure to be used to decide a planning appeal. This would have removed the main appeal parties' long-standing right "to be heard". However, we do intend to introduce provisions which would enable appeal costs to be awarded against a main appeal party who insists "unreasonably" on being heard at a public local inquiry or a hearing in preference to the written representations procedure;
  2. (ii) to give special permission for development by householders if the local planning authority takes no decision on a planning application within eight weeks;
  3. (iii) dual jurisdiction for the local authority and the Secretary of State following an appeal against non-determination, and re-defining the point at which development is said to commence. We shall be considering further the technical aspects of these proposals;
  4. (iv) charging for planning appeals. This was proposed as part of our policy to improve the efficiency of the appeal system. But we have decided to concentrate initially on the essential first step of making the planning inspectorate a next steps agency. This will improve the management of the process, to the benefit of all users—appellants, objectors and local authorities alike.