Clause 42 - Power to decline to determine applications
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
9:30 am
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
The clause is at least laid out clearly in four parts. Part 1 covers the power to decline to determine subsequent applications, and part 2 covers the power to decline to determine overlapping—so-called twin-tracking—applications. Parts 3 and 4—proposed new sections 81A and 81B of the principal Act—do the same for listed buildings and conservation areas. I will confine my remarks to parts 1 and 2, because what I say will apply equally to parts 3 and 4.
The first part of the clause covers the power to decline to determine a subsequent application, if it is materially the same, within a period of two years. I accept that under proposed new section 70A(1), a local planning authority ''may'' decline, as I am sure the Minister will be the first to point out. That means that it still has the power to consider an application within two years, but I would have thought that in normal circumstances, its inclination would be not to consider an application within the two-year period.
If an authority declines to determine an application within the two-year period, will the applicant still be able to appeal that second application? I wonder about
the sense of proposed new section 70A(1), as two years is quite a long time. A great deal can happen: the plan or the regional spatial strategy may be revised, or a landmark court case may alter the way in which a local planning authority has to consider certain sorts of applications. I am not sure what the proposed new subsection is designed to achieve.
I believe that the Government hope that the provision will speed up the process, but we have had numerous representations—from the CBI, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the British Retail Consortium and the British Property Federation, for example, all of which are consumers, or users, of the planning system. They all tell us that far from speeding up the planning system, this is likely to have the reverse effect, especially for large and complex applications. Making the system more stratified and rigid means that there is less flexibility for developers. There is less flexibility, for example, to lodge a first application, concentrate the minds of the planning authority, the local community and everyone else, and then have meaningful discussions with the local authority to see whether a modified and superior application can be devised.
If we are not careful, the two provisions will be a charter for the local planning authority to keep delaying. The system needs flexibility; we want the local authority and the developers to come up with projects that best suit the area and the community. They should benefit the area economically, be sustainable, have the best spatial plan and suit the environment—all the factors that we have discussed. If we make things more difficult by making the system more rigid, I am not sure what we will achieve.
Much of what I say applies to the power to determine overlapping applications in the so-called twin-tracking process in proposed new section 70B. In many ways, it is even more important. The outside bodies always include the twin-tracking proposal in the half a dozen bad things about the Bill. The Law Society states:
''We are not convinced of the need to abolish ''twin-tracking'', that is the submission of two identical planning applications at the same time to enable a developer to appeal to the Secretary of State on the failure of the local planning authority to determine one within eight weeks, whilst negotiating with the authority on the other application.''
As I said, twin-tracking is a useful mechanism; it often takes place in complex applications where the local authority is not able to determine the application within eight weeks. One application goes to appeal and a similar application is submitted to the local planning authority to enable negotiations to continue. Provided that the negotiations proceed in a positive way and planning permission is eventually granted by the local authority, the second application, which has gone for determination by the independent inspector, is then withdrawn, saving time and cost.
My great fear about the power to decline overlapping applications is that many more will go to appeal. Appeals are expensive and long-winded; often, at the end of the day, all parties, including the local authority because it is not making the
determination, feel dissatisfied with the outcome. Bearing in mind the Green Paper and given, as I said at the start of our proceedings, that 90 per cent. of all planning applications are eventually passed, it would be much better if 100 per cent. of valid applications submitted were passed, because that would mean that everyone was doing their job. Applications would either be withdrawn or passed and that is a much more sensible way to proceed. My worry is that rather than 90 per cent. of applications being passed, the figure will keep dropping and more applications will go to appeal.
We will be doing the country's planning system a disservice if the two clauses are accepted without amendment. I have no doubt that the Committee will accept the clause as drafted but my words will come back to haunt this country in a few years.