Clause 4 - Assistance from certain local authorities
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
10:15 am
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
This important group of amendments deals with the role of other authorities when the RPB draws up its functions.
We and many outside bodies consider clause 4 to be one of the Bill's weakest provisions. Subsection (1) says:
''Each RPB must consider whether in relation to its region (or any part of it) it would be desirable for an authority which falls within subsection (2) to assist it in carrying out any function it has.''
That can mean all things to all people. It can mean almost zero involvement by any of the higher-tier authorities, or considerable involvement. We believe again that, instead of it being left to the RPB's discretion, it should be written into the Bill. The other authorities listed in subsection (2) should have a statutory involvement. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 115. It seems to me that in drawing up the RSS, the RPB will have to consult those various authorities, so why not say so in the Bill?
The amendments are supported by the Local Government Association and others that have a strong weight of experience in such matters. The LGA tell us:
''It is important for all local authorities to have a statutory role in the RSS process, as it will impinge on strategic and local levels and will need their commitment. Given the lack of other formal
engagement in the new planning system, it will be particularly important for county councils to have a statutory role in helping to prepare the RSS.
The Bill proposes that the role of county councils will be to advise district authorities on the preparation of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) (if asked) and provide technical advice to the regional planning body and assist on the sub-regional aspects of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) (again, if asked). This role is not statutory.
Failure to establish a statutory planning duty for county councils will inevitably erode the strategic planning function. It will lead to a reduction in funding for strategic planning and the subsequent loss of strategic planning skills, which will be to the detriment of both the RSS and the LDF.
In many parts of the country, county councils have traditionally provided the bulk of the expertise and monitoring to underpin both regional planning guidance and local plans. Monitoring and policy capability does not currently exist at regional or local levels in most areas.
The government has indicated that from next year, money currently going to county councils will go direct to Regional Planning Bodies. It is not explained how county councils are expected to continue to provide input with less money and an intermittent, insecure and voluntary role, at the request of their partners, is not explained. At best, county councils resources in those areas will slowly wither away. Political commitment will inevitably decline for what will have become an ancillary activity and not a core function.
However, the government acknowledges the importance of county councils. Is this a case of desire to have legislative clarity, vis-à-vis outcomes on elected regional assemblies, outweighing a desire to enact legislation to actually deliver on the ground?''
We have reached a very important point. The Minister must explain the roles that county councils and other authorities will continue to have. If their funding is to be drained away and functions be eroded, the skill and expertise that currently exists in county councils may well be lost. There will be a considerable deficit to planning if the bulk of that skills base is lost. The Minister needs to address that critical point, and he should explain how the county councils will make a smooth transition to the RPB without losing that skills base.
Further amendments deal with other functions, notably those in subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7)—a tautologically drafted set of subsections. Subsection (1) says that it is desirable for relevant local authorities to be involved. Subsection (3) says that the RPB will consider whether that is desirable and must ''make arrangements''. However, subsection (5) says that subsection (1) does not apply to any function under clause 5(6). Subsection (6) says that subsection (3) does not apply when the RPB makes arrangements between local authorities as defined by section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. Our amendment would qualify subsection (3), and make that part of the Bill easier for practitioners to understand. Even if one reads subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) carefully, it is extremely difficult to understand what they mean. Even if our amendments are technically defective, I urge the Minister to see whether those subsections can be redrafted to incorporate something more sensible.
Amendments Nos. 210 and 215 are important, particularly the latter.
The list of authorities in subsection (2) does not include parish or town councils. We specifically mentioned parish councils in the amendment but could have mentioned town councils as well. From
my experience, parish and town councils fulfil several functions extremely effectively, but their main function is monitoring local planning. After all, they are closest to what is happening on the ground. In many cases, the people involved know every inch of their area, and it is right that the Bill should state that they must be involved when RPBs draw up RSSs. I hope that the Minister will address that lacuna.
The involvement of county, district and borough councils is critical, and we believe that they should be given stronger statutory powers. Four authorities are mentioned, but there is no mention of unitary authorities. Our amendments seek to correct what must surely be a drafting error. If it is an error, I ask the Minister to accept our amendment so that those authorities can be included. After all, it would be impossible for RPBs to function properly without considering the unitary authorities in their areas. Perhaps the Minister would explain why they are not included in the list.