Clause 37
Planning Bill
6:30 pm
Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)
I am sorry. That was a procedural mistake and I thank you for your guidance, Sir John. I will, indeed, speak to amendment No. 11, which sets the tone for all the amendments in the group. They are all to do with trying to get the pre-inquiry consultation, and the people who need to be consulted, correct.
There is concern, across a broad front, that the lists in the clause are tight. They mention various organisations and people. I assume that, where the Bill mentions “persons”, it means that people are able to represent the organisations. However crucial the contribution made by organisations to the development of the national policy statement, if they have a particular interest in an area, they will probably tie the IPC in knots by demanding the right to represent their views on a particular application because of their detailed interest in it.
We see the practice emerging of developers realising the importance of good consultation before putting in an application. Frankly, they recognise that sorting out the problems before putting in an application has the benefit that it will go through much more speedily. We strongly support pre-inquiry consultation because it is a key element in speeding up planning inquiries, whether it goes through the IPC or through our preferred route of an improved Planning Inspectorate. It is therefore crucial that the right people are consulted, and that includes all who feel that they have a legitimate point to make.
In amendment No. 11, we suggest adding to clause 37 the words
“residents affected by the proposed application”.
However, as I understand it, clause 39 confines those who must be consulted to the owners, lessees, tenants or occupiers of the land, or persons who are “interested” in the land or who have the power to sell, convey or release it. My reading of a person who is interested in the land, coupled with the phrase “has power...to sell”, implies that it is someone with a direct interest in the land, and not necessarily a person who is concerned about the development of the land and its impact on their community.
If my interpretation is right—I hope that the Minister will assure me that I am wrong—it could, for instance, mean that someone whose property was not necessarily contiguous with the property being developed but who happened to live in the village and who had a problem with sight lines, or one of the many other of the complaints frequently made under the planning system, could be ruled out from making a complaint or from applying to be represented.
Because pre-inquiry consultation is improving, I want to be assured that organisations that represent people with a direct interest can continue to insist on being consulted. I have in mind evidence from the Wildlife Trust, which I am sure other hon. Members have received, particularly about electricity cables in Kent. Because the trust was consulted by the developer before the inquiry, it was able to resolve many of the issues, some to do with the habitats directive and especially the habitat of the marsh harrier, and a number of other clear and direct matters that were of benefit to the environment. That was done under the auspices of a formal group. In the spirit of getting the pre-inquiry consultation right, I would not want such organisations to be unable to represent local residents and local interests merely because they were not regarded as having a direct interest. With that, you will be relieved to hear, Sir John, I have covered all the ground that I need to on the amendments.