HC Deb 15 December 2003 vol 415 cc117-8WS
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)

Someone wishing to see whether development is acceptable in principle may apply for outline planning permission. This has the advantage that detailed drawings are not needed. A local planning authority can grant permission subject to approval of the details (known as reserved matters) within a set timescale. Development may not commence until reserved matters have been approved.

We believe that outline planning permission has significant faults. At its worst it allows redlining on a map of an area or site for development for a particular use or uses of land with no detail shown. This is not an acceptable state of affairs. Local communities should have early opportunities to engage in discussion of proposed developments.

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill therefore seeks to introduce an alternative method whereby a developer can gain an indication as to whether a proposed development would be acceptable. A statement of development principles is a statement of whether or not a local planning authority agrees with the principle of all or part of a proposed development. It does not grant permission, but must be taken into account by an authority determining a subsequent application for planning permission.

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill also contains a clause to remove outline planning permission. We have been clear that we will not abolish outline planning permission until statements of development principles have been shown to be an effective alternative. Until then the two systems will work in parallel. We have said that we would review the take up and success of statements of development principles two years after they come into effect and at that time we would also consider what the consequences would be of removing outline planning permission.

I have received significant representations from organisations representing housebuilders and other major developers indicating their concerns about the potential removal of outline planning permission and its effect on proposed developments.

On the basis of these representations I am content to indicate that I will consider further the removal of the provision from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that abolishes outline planning permission.

However, if outline planning permission were to be retained this could only be on the basis that it provided the opportunity for greater community involvement and a level of information which will enable local authorities to assess all the significant environmental impacts. To achieve that, developers would need to provide more information than is often the case at present. I am prepared to consider proposals on the scope and extent of that further information and the form that it should take. I shall need to be satisfied that such proposals go far enough to meet our objectives and that they are likely to command a wide consensus among interested parties. At the very least this would need to cover the key design principles, density, the mix and distribution of uses, accessibility and the timescale for the development. I shall therefore be seeking the views of the development industry and local government before deciding whether to retain outline planning permission.

If we were to pursue this approach the new system of development control could include both statements of development principles and outline planning permission. Statements of development principles would provide developers and local planning authorities with an additional tool for building up an agreed development "prospectus" for a site. Outline planning permission could be used either after or instead of a statement of development principles. This would be for the applicant to decide. Full planning permission, requiring the submission of all details of the proposed development, would not change. It would therefore remain the case that development could not commence until reserved matters had been approved.