Clause 70
Planning Bill
3:00 pm
Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)
I am somewhat torn between both arguments. On balance, however, the practical potential impact of having a single commissioner who is sick or who has to pull back from presiding overrides the argument that the Minister makes for what is a relatively small application. Evidence was cited to us about the north Yorkshire grid application and substations being held up for many years for all sorts of reasons. Even a small application for a substation would be affected.
We have also been given an example about roundabouts on the A1. It may be no surprise that I, too, am familiar with those roundabouts. I can imagine that any proposal to replace them with whatever might be the right solution at those junctions would be controversial. There is an interesting debate to be had on whether such projects are of national significance and whether it is more appropriate for the IPC or the Planning Inspectorate to deal with them. If such projects are to be classified as projects of national significance, and they are controversial, then however speedy the process could be under the system that we are trying to achieve with our amendments or under the Government’s system, we need more than one commissioner on even the smallest project.
The likely consequence is that although the number of applications might stay the same, the number of applications that the commission can deal with in a year will go down. That backs up the arguments that we have long made that the number of commissioners appointed and the deadlines that are implied will clog up the system and not speed up the decision-making process. I therefore support the objection of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to the clause and will join him in voting against it.