Clause 12
Local Democracy, Economic Developmentand Construction Bill [Lords]
6:00 pm
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
Casting your eye over these amendments, Mr. Amess, it should strike you that they cover, at least in part, the same issue. Although they are related, amendment 41 goes slightly further. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and I tabled these amendments to seek clarification from the Minister about the intention of the Bill, particularly in relation to petitions submitted concerning contentious planning or licensing issues.
Planning and licensing are covered by other legislation. I feel, and many of our constituents feel, that their views are not always taken thoroughly into consideration. The planning system needs reform further to recent Acts in order to reassure people that their views are being taken into account on issues that affect the development of their local area. The system needs some change to engage them with that process. As my hon. Friend said earlier, people are beginning to believe that what they say has no effect—planning is a prominent example of that. That is not to say that local authority members should not be free to make decisions based on the information available to them—information that might not be available to petitioners, who may bring forward other issues. Objectors feel that they do not have enough say when considering the possibility of a third-party right of appeal—an issue that I debated with the Minister’s colleagues during the passage of the Planning and Energy Act 2008. Such changes would reassure people that their views were being taken into account and that the planning system was more democratic than it currently is.
There are issues pertaining to planning and licensing that could necessitate a different approach. When we move on to discuss what local authorities should do when dealing with petitions, we ought to consider that certain issues, notably planning and licensing, are different from function and need to be handled differently.
Amendment 41 relates to how petitions on proposals that are already being considered by a principal local authority should be dealt with. Should they trigger the procedure that a principal local authority would have to follow under the Bill or could they simply be accepted and responded to as part of the existing consultation process? When such things are put on a statutory basis, I, like my hon. Friend, fear that they will become the main route for interaction with the local community. People on both sides of the process might try to slow the planning or licensing process by triggering lots of petitions that would all have to be considered in the same way.
My contention is that we ought to be cautious in imposing standardised ways of dealing with petitions because particular factors pertain to planning and licensing. It is possible that existing consultation processes will be cut across. Sadly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, consultation has become a devalued concept. However, it does go on. I would hope that local authorities take more account of consultations than central Government and there is evidence that they do. In places where that is happening properly, it would be a shame to do something that cuts across the good work.
The amendments prod the Minister to defend the use of a standardised petition for considering petitions right across the functions of a council, even what some would call the quasi-judicial functions such as planning and licensing.