HC Deb 11 December 1997 vol 302 cc632-3W
Miss Kirkbride

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the planning application for the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames was(a) first considered by the Inspector and (b) approved by the Inspector; and if he will give the dates on which Ministers were notified of the Inspector's preliminary and final decisions; [19924]

(2) if he will list the dates on which the Inspector considering the planning application for the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames contacted his Department; giving the reasons for the contacts and advice given. [19925]

Mr. Caborn

I have asked the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

Miss Kirkbride

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those public relations companies who were involved in presentations to(a) Ministers, (b) officials and (c) Inspectors in connection with the planning application for the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames. [19922]

Mr. Caborn

No representations were made either to Ministers or to officials, as the decision on the appeal was made by a planning inspector. I have asked the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member about the representations made to the inspector.

Miss Kirkbride

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) architects and (b) planning consultants involved in presentations to (i) Ministers, (ii) officials and (iii) Inspectors in connection with the planning application for the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames. [19923]

Mr. Caborn

No presentations were made either to Ministers or to officials. I have asked the Planning Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member about the representations made to the Inspector who was appointed to decide the appeal.

Letter from Chris Shepley to Miss Julie Kirkbride, dated 11 December 1997: The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the planning appeal decisions concerning the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames. I enclose a copy of the Inspector's decision letter at the back of which you will find a list of all those who gave evidence during the inquiry. In addition, the Inspector also received written representations objecting to the proposal from Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners, on behalf of Chelverton Properties, and Roger Tym and Partners, on behalf of Somerfield Stores. As you will see from the decision letter, the Inspector started hearing the case in November 1996 but it overran the allotted time. The inquiry therefore had to be adjourned until March 1997. The Inspector issued his decision on 4 July 1997. Occasionally an Inspector may issue what is known as an Advanced Notice of Decision (AND) but these are usually limited to relatively simple cases. No AND was issued in this case and the decision letter of 4 July represents the Inspector's one and only decision on the appeal. Inspectors issue thousands of decisions every year and Ministers are not routinely informed about the outcome of them all. Ministers were not notified about the outcome of this case. To the best of my knowledge, the Inspector contacted us 3 times about the appeal: in December 1996 to confirm the dates for the re-opening of the inquiry; in April this year he asked us to circulate to the appellant and the local planning authority some late objections to the proposal; and in June, he asked us to write to the parties apologising for the delay in issuing his decision because he was still involved in a local plan inquiry.

Miss Kirkbride

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representation he has received from hon. Members in connection with the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames. [19921]

Mr. Caborn

Ministers received no representations prior to the issue of the Inspector's decision letter.