Clause 49
Planning Bill
1:45 pm
Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 204, in clause 49, page 25, leave out lines 10 to 14.
No. 205, in clause 49, page 25, line 17, leave out ‘and 43’ and insert ‘, 43 and 44’.
Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
The three amendments all hang together. They build on what the Government and almost all the witnesses recognised as the important issue of ensuring that there is a robust consultation procedure, which we seek to strengthen. The clause requires certain tests to be met for the application to be accepted, because requiring the applicant to demonstrate the robustness of the consultation is important. From what the Minister has said, I think that the Government accept that principle.
We think that it would be right and proper to apply the same requirements that currently exist for local authorities to the community generally. Although there will frequently be an overlap, one can think of many cases in which representations from members of the community will be of a different kind to those made by the local authority. That requirement would not add to the time scale, but it has the useful purpose of requiring the applicant to apply their mind to the issues raised by community objections. It is also important that they are seen to apply their mind to such things, which is a useful discipline that could result in time being saved later. We also think it right and proper, and much more consistent with good practice under domestic and European law, that reasons should be given for the views that applicants take.
Amendments Nos. 203 and 204 would extend the requirement to members of the community. Amendment No. 205 would require the applicant, as well as taking account of the objections, briefly to set out their responses, which would demonstrate that the applicant has applied their mind to what all the consultees have said. They can set out their stance succinctly, and it need not be an onerous task. That would help with the crystallisation of issues for the next stage of the process, and it would help the process to be seen to be fair and transparent.
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman and I share a concern to see good, thorough consultation as part of this stage of the process of dealing with applications. If I clarify how the clause works, perhaps he might be reassured.
The reference to a “local authority consultee” in subsection (4) would not prevent other parties from submitting representations about how adequate the consultation had been or mean that the commission could ignore them. Indeed, if someone were to write to the commission raising concerns about how adequate the consultation had been, it would be obliged by the basic principles of administrative law to take that into account in coming to a decision.
The wording in clause 49 simply means that representations from the relevant local authorities about how well the promoter has consulted the local community should be given particular attention by the IPC for two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe pointed out, local authorities have a unique knowledge about their area, a democratic mandate and experience of how best to ensure that local people are involved and that their views are taken into account. We want to ensure that that special experience and knowledge is captured and made available to the IPC.
Secondly, the Bill therefore puts a specific duty on promoters to consult the relevant local authorities when they are working out how to consult the local community that may be affected by their proposals. Local authorities will have been involved in the promoter’s planning of the pre-application consultation from an early stage. They will know what the promoter committed to doing during that process and will be in a strong position to pass judgment and comment on how effective the consultation has been.
For those reasons, it is appropriate that the IPC has regard to the local authority’s views, as proposed in the clause as drafted.
Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
I do not disagree with anything that was said about local authorities. I spent 16 years on a local authority and I am a pro-local authority person. However, I do not entirely see why it should not be practical to look beyond the local authority at other people, too. The Minister did not respond to the fact that in some cases, but not in others, the views of the local authority and of the residents will coincide. I would not want the—perhaps unintended—consequence of advantaging one set of consultees at the expense of another, which would be unfair.
I will not press the amendment to a Division, but I hope that before Report the Minister will reflect on how we can take account of the valued input of local authorities and also ensure fairness to individuals, residents associations or other representative groups. If only a small part of a local authority’s area is directly affected, there may be different perspectives that should be given equal weight. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.