§ Dr. CableTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for planning appeals and, in particular, for third-party objectors to planning applications. [7506]
§ Ms KeebleWe assessed the implications of the Human Rights Act (HRA) for planning legislation and procedures before the Act came into force. We do not consider that there is any need on HRA grounds for changes to the appeals system generally or specifically in relation to third party objectors.
§ Mr. ClappisonTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers local authority planning officers have to require those proposing to convert existing buildings into flats to provide new shop fronts, pay for repairs to pavements and make a contribution towards local educational provision; and what powers local authority planning officers have to fix rents in respect of the new flats. [7675]
§ Ms KeebleUnder section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as substituted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, a planning obligation may be agreed between a Local Planning Authority and a developer. A planning obligation may require or restrict specified activities to be carried out and may require payments to be made to the authority either in a single sum or periodically. Such obligations could therefore cover provision of new shop fronts; payment for repairs to pavements; contributions towards local education provisions; and the fixing of rents, if this amounted to a restriction on the use of land. However, planning obligations should only be sought where they are necessary to make a proposal acceptable in land-use planning terms. In addition, they must be: relevant to planning; directly related to the proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and reasonable in all other respects.
§ Mr. HancockTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning applications is have been refused by local authorities and the planning inspectorate on the basis of human rights violations as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998, section 6(1) and in the Maastricht treaty, article 130r2; what action he will take against local authorities that refuse planning applications on such grounds; and if he will make a statement. [7990]
§ Ms KeebleThe information requested is not available. Planning applications and appeals are decided taking into account all of the relevant planning issues—one of which may in some cases be human rights. The introduction of the Human Rights Act means that all public authorities, including central Government and local authorities, must act compatibly with convention rights. It is ultimately for the courts to decide whether an individual's human rights have been unfairly interfered with in a particular case.
§ Mr. HobanTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning applications in Hampshire have been called in by him on grounds relating to the proposed housing densities in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000, indicating the specific reasons in each case. [6019]
875W
§ Ms KeebleNo planning applications were called in 1998 or 1999 in Hampshire on grounds relating to housing densities. In year 2000, two planning applications in Hampshire relating to the provision of housing were called in for the Secretary of State's decision. In both cases the Secretary of State indicated that he wished to be informed, among other things, about the relationship of the proposed development to Government policy in Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG3, in particular in respect of the proposed density of the development, the advice in the PPG on a sequential approach to brownfield/greenfield sites, car parking provision and the provision of affordable housing.
§ Mr. HobanTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what average time was taken by the Secretary of State to decide upon a planning appeal against a decision made by Fareham borough council once an inspector had submitted his report to him in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000; [6271]
(2) what average time was taken for an inspector to report to the Secretary of State on an appeal against a planning decision made by Fareham borough council in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [6268]
§ Ms KeebleIn 1998 two planning appeals arising in Fareham borough council area were recovered for decision by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The average time taken for the Inspector to report to the Secretary of State was 78 days. The average time taken by the Secretary of State to decide the appeals once the Inspector had submitted his report was 46 days.
No recovered planning appeals in Fareham were decided by the Secretary of State in 1999 or 2000.