Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 232, in

clause 18, page 10, line 29, after 'to', insert 'all material considerations including'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 288, in

clause 18, page 10, line 29, at end insert—

'( ) the economic development plan which has been adopted by the authority and the Regional Economic Strategy for the region in which the area of the authority is situated.'.

No. 203, in

clause 18, page 10, line 43, after first 'the', insert 'local and national'.

No. 293, in

clause 18, page 10, line 44, at end insert—

'(ia) the waste and minerals strategy prepared by any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;

(ib) the community strategy prepared by the authority;

(ic) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;

(id) any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority;

(ie) the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the document;'.

No. 125, in

clause 18, page 10, line 45, at end insert—

'(k) minerals and waste development documents adopted by any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority.

(l) other relevant documents adopted by any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority.'.

No. 216, in

clause 18, page 10, line 45, at end insert—

'(k) a strategy relating to flooding'.

No. 291, in

clause 18, page 10, line 45, at end insert—

'( ) the minerals and waste development scheme for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority.'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Ludlow is absent, but I am sure that he would not mind my moving his amendment No. 232.

Clause 18 contains a long but incomplete list of what must be considered in drawing up local development documents. I have some sympathy with the amendment, because the Bill requires the local planning authority to have regard to paragraphs (a) to (j), which implies—although I am sure that this is not the explicit power—that that is all that they need consider. Many other things must be considered, some of which are incorporated in our large group of amendments, others of which are not—and amendment No. 232 alludes to the fact that many other matters will need to be taken into consideration.

I turn to my party's amendments—those from amendment No 288 onwards. They were suggested to us by the Confederation of British Industry and other organisations. Their purpose is to ensure that local authorities have proper regard to economic considerations when preparing a local development document. The CBI told us that they accept that hard decisions about economic, social and environmental priorities for land use will often have to be made in the interests of sustainable development. The planning system has the role of balancing those often competing demands. However, clause 18 lacks a meaningful economic dimension, even though the link between planning and economic development is crucial—we touched on that in our discussion of the previous clause.

The promotion and improvement of the economic well being of their area should be an important—I would say vital—focus for local communities. As has been said, the generation of wealth by businesses in a local area keeps the vibrancy and general sustainability of that area; otherwise it will start to run downhill. For that reason, a better understanding of the local and regional economic contexts and priorities will underpin an improved guidance system and will help

to ensure that there is not a growing bias in the system against development. We also seek an assurance on other key strategies, such as those regarding local and regional transport. We have not discussed transport strategies, but it is important, in the context of the clause and the Bill in general, to understand how local transport plans will link with the other plans and documents. In particular, we should understand how those would be integrated to inform the planning process effectively.

I move on to deal with some specific matters, especially amendment No. 203, which deals with paragraph (i). Were it amended, paragraph (i) would read:

''the local and national resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the document''.

I had a long discussion yesterday with the Quarry Products Association, which has some reservations about the Bill. Much of the minerals planning in this country is currently dealt with by county councils and the association feels that there is much inconsistency between authorities. For example, when planning applications for minerals are granted in Essex, a section 106 agreement often contains about 20 specific reservations, whereas in Leicestershire such an agreement contains up to 60 reservations. However, the two authorities are basically doing exactly the same thing. Clearly, some authorities can do minerals planning in a much more direct and simple way than others. We should be doing minerals and waste planning on a larger basis, rather than leaving it to individual local authorities. On drawing up local plans, the Minister must tell the Committee how he would consult the individual county councils and individual unitary authorities that would still be responsible for drawing up minerals and waste strategies and how that could be done more consistently at national level.

Amendments Nos. 293 and 125 deal with minerals and waste. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors suggested the wording of the amendments and it has said that they are intended to ensure that local development documents are prepared with explicit regard to the relevant mineral and waste strategy. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands that says how the minerals and waste strategy should be considered by a local authority in drawing up its development documents. The RICS has said that such strategies are of both strategic and practical importance in respect of local planning issues and that they should be clearly and unambiguously set out in the list of matters for consideration in the clause.

The RICS told us:

''In order to maintain coherence between county-prepared waste and mineral plans and locally-prepared development documents, authorities should have regard to each other's plans when preparing such documents.''

I would have thought that that was a matter of common sense. I would, however, like the Minister to say, for the record, whether that will be the case; otherwise, it could result in a lack of effective co-ordination and create a potential conflict. For example, the situation may arise in which a minerals

plan may contain land allocated for aggregates, while the local authority may, in a local development document, allocate the same land to housing. In order to avoid such confusion, it would be helpful to clarify the position. Since the waste and minerals functions would remain with the counties, it is important to integrate those properly with the broader proposals in the Bill.

On amendment No. 125, and on a point regarding the minerals strategy brought to us by the CPRE, how will the minimisation of the use of aggregates be considered in the plan? It is an important point. A large amount of ex-building material could be refurbished and reused instead of the enormous amount of aggregates that we currently mine and use. Materials such as road planings can be used in place of aggregates. Local authorities have a duty to consider this when drawing up their strategies, and they have a duty to ensure that when applicants submit their detailed drawings the specification is not over-specified, because it is far easier to use raw new aggregate than recycled aggregate, but in many cases recycled aggregate can do just as good a job as raw aggregate from the ground—and, in many cases, the sea bed.

The Local Government Association also had an input into amendment No. 125. It tells us:

''The proposals to integrate land use plans and community strategies envisage land use plans becoming spatial development strategies for their areas. These spatial development strategies will be the key to the implementation of community strategies, environmental strategies and the policies, programmes and investment of all organisations in an area. These will include transport, education, housing, health, employment and major investment strategies.

Minerals and waste development document are going to be statutory documents prepared by county councils. Local planning authorities need to have regard to them in the preparation of LDDs''.

Amendment No. 216 concerns flooding. We have discussed flooding on previous clauses, but it is particularly pertinent at this time of year. Houses in my constituency have been flooded not only with water but with raw sewage. Having visited a house flooded with raw sewage, I can say that it is a nasty experience. To continue to build houses within the flood plain where there are inadequate arrangements to deal with foul effluent is absolute folly. It must be a critical part of drawing up the plan to identify the location of the flood plains and the effect on existing developments of building on flood plains. We all know that the footings of a large number of houses containing concrete can force water out of one area into another. If an existing housing estate lower than the new housing estate is standing on the other area, it is likely to be flooded as a result of the new development.

That does not make sense, but it happens far too often in this country. Too many houses are flooded each year. We will have to pay more and more attention to that when drawing up such plans. The Environment Agency plans are a one-in-a-100-year event. With climate change we will have to look at planning for shorter periods. In other words, we may have to over-specify in dealing with developments in

and around flood plains to ensure that new developments do not cause additional problems.

I am sure that other members of the Committee will have examples from their constituencies of planning problems. I am sorry to get earthy, Mr. Pike, but I must discuss the sewerage infrastructure in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne mentioned Lechlade, whose surrounding area is at the source of the Thames. It is a low-lying area. When the Thames comes up in the winter, the sewer in the low-lying areas—of which there are several—is simply unable to discharge and backs up. It has backed up as far as Cirencester. I am glad to say that Thames Water has taken measures to alleviate the problem, although it has not yet entirely cracked it for Cirencester and the villages in that low-lying area.

Clearly, in drawing up its local plan, Cotswold district council would have to pay very careful attention to any new development in such areas. Indeed, I have gently asked it to resist any new development in those villages until the sewerage problem has been solved. It seems absolute folly to approve new developments if existing problems have not been solved.

I have dealt with some of the items that could be included on what would be a huge list, and I am sure that my colleagues will add others. The plan is all-encompassing. It tells local authorities how they are to consider not only the spatial and land use environment but the economic and social environment. Several items must be contained in the local plans. It is a difficult process—that is why it takes so long—and the more we put on the list, the longer it will take. However, if items such as flooding need to be on the list, they should be there. It will be very interesting to hear from the Minister what he expects local authorities to consider in drawing up their plans.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend, who clearly is an expert on the problems of sewerage and the Severn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Thames.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

The Thames, then. He has shown us today that there are brains in the drains.

The Minister will recall that earlier today we had a little spat on amendment No. 88. I tried to point out that there were precedents in the Bill for putting additional requirements on the local planning authority, the Secretary of State or whoever it may be. That has come up on some of the amendments that we have already discussed and will come up on others still to come. I do not wish to rehearse the argument on clause 15, apart from saying that we wanted to add to subsection (1) paragraphs that would pinpoint four considerations that should be included in the scheme for minerals and waste development.

We are now debating clause 18(2):

''In preparing a local development document the local planning authority must have regard to''—

and the Bill lists 10 specific items. I shall leave it at that—it rather proves my point—and go on to speak

very briefly about the Conservative amendments. Our amendments are linked to amendment No. 232, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I comment with some hesitation on his purpose, because for very understandable reasons he cannot intervene or comment. However, it is unnecessary to add to subsection (2) that the local authority must have regard to ''all material considerations''. I made the point before that we must cut down the verbiage in the Bill as much as we reasonably can. Therefore, I would not accept amendment No. 232.

The Bill lists 10 specific items. The Minister may say, with some effect, that we are trying to create a Christmas tree Bill by proposing in amendments Nos. 293, 125, 216 and 291 to add nine other specific categories. I hope that I have made the point—the amendments are important. I also very much support amendment No. 288. It is right to mention specifically the need for an economic development plan. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about the importance of including amendment No. 216. The issue is not only topical but important. My constituency is blessed with many things, if not its Member of Parliament, but it is generally on a hill. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend and the Committee that flood problems can arise on hills. He mentioned the backing up of sewerage systems or rainwater gully systems, which can come right down the hill. I have terrible flooding problems in certain areas of Chipping Barnet caused by water coming down the hills, not inadequate drainage or flash floods. In recognising the importance of flooding and the need for a strategy to deal with it, the Committee should accept that it does not affect only the flood plains near rivers or in some coastal areas.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am sure that my hon. Friend with his specific knowledge is aware that the Ordnance Survey is drawing up plans to try to identify better boundaries of flood plains. Would he join me in urging the Minister to speed up the production of those plans so that they are available when local authorities are considering precisely that point?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

Yes, certainly. I always like to walk through a door that is opened in front of me. In return, I would ask my hon. Friend to support my contention that these matters affect not only the flood plain but other areas of the country. I hope that the Minister will give a fair wind to our amendments.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

Because of the hour, I will confine myself to comments on two of the amendments. The Minister may be tempted to think that amendment No. 203 is somewhat pedantic and that the matter is self-evident, but it is important at least to have the opportunity to press him on whether the Government have given any thought to making long-term statements about how they propose to fund the regions, whether artificial or not. It is all very well to ask the artificial region in the south-east to produce a strategic plan to make suggestions to draw up schemes for doing this, that and the other, but as he will know only too well, the Government are hell-bent on removing money from the south-east.

Year on year, it gets worse and worse. We have no idea from one year to the next how much money will be available and what resources there will be in the south-east. We do not even know whether the Government have any intention of addressing the appalling situation in the south-east where, because of national pay scales, people can earn exactly the same for doing the same sort of job in Yorkshire or in the south-east, yet houses in Yorkshire cost less than half as much as houses in the south-east. There is no point in going through the exercise of drawing up plans if the Government will not make a long-term commitment about the national resources that will be made available and what they intend to do to address some of those difficulties.

On amendment No. 216, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made some pertinent points about new developments. It is important to make it clear that we want a strategy on flooding, not an ad hoc approach to problems. Maidenhead, Eton and Windsor had problems. Something was done about that. All the water that would have flooded Maidenhead in the past few weeks was neatly taken round the outside through the Jubilee river project. There is a well-held suspicion, which may be proved correct, that the water moved on from Maidenhead has simply been dumped in my constituency and those of my neighbouring colleagues. That is not a strategy. It is solving problems on an ad hoc basis and causing other problems. I have already rehearsed the argument about how flooding strategies often need to go beyond the artificial regions. I mentioned Lechlade and made the point that any strategy for the Thames must go well beyond the south-east. We have debated that, so I will just plead that the justification for providing for a flooding strategy needs to be exactly that. A flooding strategy involves more than solving a problem without thinking about what will be created further along the river.

Strategies must be multi-agency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, it is all very well to solve the flooding problem. Along the Thames, the response has been to say, ''There's a lot of river water, what are we going to do about it?'', and I have made the case for a strategy that deals with the flooding, but we also have to consider what happens if we move that flood water around and dump it somewhere else that may not be on a suitable flood plain. In my constituency, for example, the result of having flooding in new places is that extra pressure is put on the sewerage pumps and sewage then backs up. Whole estates in my constituency have been awash with awful raw sewage, and there is now the problem of clearing it out of people's gardens and houses. That is because there was not a multi-agency approach to planning for potential flooding. The Environment Agency, bless it, has done a great deal, and I am grateful to it, but it does not seem to have liaised with Thames Water about what would happen to the sewage after the river flooding was solved.

I could pursue those points, and more issues need ventilating, but I am conscious of the time. I have indicated to the Minister the general area of my argument and what we are seeking to achieve. I have

pointed out why I believe that it is important to include a flooding strategy, why that strategy must be comprehensive rather than an ad hoc set of solutions, and how it must be multi-agency so that solving one problem does not create a different one. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

All the matters that have been raised are serious and need to be dealt with, although many of them should perhaps not be deal with in a Bill that looks to the future planning system of this country.

If the hon. Member for Ludlow were here, I would say in the nicest way possible that amendment No. 232 is just plain daft. It is clear in the current planning system and any subsequent planning system or legal framework what ''material consideration'' means, which is anything deemed material to a specific planning application or document. It is deliberately set out to be a sweep-up phrase under law, and to put that into the context of the preparation of local development documents would be plainly daft and—I will try to put this gently—the proposal is either a representation of a misinterpretation of what ''material consideration'' means in the lexicon of planning or an attempt to make the clause entirely unworkable. Given the hon. Gentleman's erudition, intellectual capacity and generous and overwhelmingly constructive spirit when he is with us, I am sure that the amendment is daft rather than malign or destructive. I will say that when he is present as well, but his amendment does not bear any discussion beyond that. It is not well thought out.

I fully accept that the other amendments touch on serious points that matter to all our constituencies, but I assure Opposition Members that they are covered in the 10 items listed in clause 18. The notion of economic development and the RSS is more than covered, with regard needing to be given to the RSS and successive documents. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cotswold was not present this morning, as he would have heard an interesting and lengthy debate about minerals and waste. They, too, will have to be taken account of in the context of the local development document. There is no need to add other matters.

I am a little perplexed by amendment No. 293, which would repeat many of the elements already included, or perhaps it merely seeks to renumber them. I agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about a flooding strategy and flash flooding. The good fortune for the hon. Gentleman is that when the Environment Agency finishes its work in the Silk stream to prevent flooding in Hendon—the constituency between his and mine—that part of Harrow and Barnet might be drier and less susceptible to flooding. It is not appropriate to suggest that it is all about building houses in the wrong place. The Silk stream and the River Pinn, further to the west in Harrow, have had flooding problems that go back well beyond the last century and the century before that.

The Environment Agency is not only doing a good job in carrying out flood alleviation works but it actually listens to local people and if they do not like what is going to be built it does not go ahead.

However, a Bill that will renew the planning system is not the appropriate place for a detailed operational review of flooding strategy: the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency are the appropriate agencies in that respect. The Bill is relevant within the context of precautionary guidance on subsequent new developments under planning and development control law. As I said, those precautions are set out in PPG 25, which needs to be taken fully into account in the preparation of local development documents.

Yes, flooding is important and it must be taken into account in precautionary planning, especially in the context of new developments. I broadly accept that there will be significant housing growth in London and the south-east, which will need to be carefully planned, not least because there have been floods in places where there ain't been floods for a considerable time. In Northampton and places such as Shropshire, where they are used to it, the floods came with a vengeance and were far worse than before. DEFRA and the Environment Agency are responsible for dealing with the existing problems, and we are taking a precautionary approach, with guidance to prevent further problems in the future.

I do not have time to rehearse the issue of minerals and waste, but the hon. Member for Cotswold, who missed the debate on that subject, can read the report in Hansard when it is available—I agree with him on that matter, too.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Quickly, will the Minister say how the local transport plan will interact with the local plan?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman had just about rejoined us when we dealt with the first amendment in the sitting. First, the local transport plan does not relate to all authorities, so it would not be appropriate in that respect; secondly, it is essentially a bidding document; and thirdly, the LDD has to take cognisance of the RSS, and wider local and regional transport issues have to be taken into account at both

levels. The local transport plan is not an appropriate document in this respect, as it is essentially a bidding document for a range of authorities, not all of which will be local planning authorities.

For those reasons, I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister's reply was partly helpful. The catch-all paragraph (j)—

''such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes''—

will doubtless help him out of holes and muddles—

It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [9 January 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Question put, That clauses 18 to 36 stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

May I inform the Committee that because of an error in column 18 of the Hansard for our Tuesday morning sitting, the report is being withdrawn and reprinted? The original instead of the revised timetable motion was printed in error.

Adjourned at two minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 21 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.