I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on obtaining the opportunity to raise this issue. I am grateful to him for giving me advance notice of the subject.

I listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about amusement arcades. I know that he examines closely the impact of planning decisions and of planning legislation on his Constituency. I also know that there is considerable local Opposition to the opening of the proposed amusement premises. Therefore, I am glad to have the opportunity to reassure him about the care taken by the planning inspectorate in deciding planning appeals and to try to explain the position of amusement arcades in relation to town and country planning legislation.

At the outset, I must explain that I have to confine my remarks to the general issues raised by these cases. I cannot discuss a particular decision taken by a particular planning authority or any decision taken on appeal. That restriction is especially relevant to the appeal decision involving No. 60 Willesden High road. Under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there is a period of six weeks following an appeal decision during which it is open to any party to challenge that decision in the High Court. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that six-week period has not yet elapsed. Therefore, I must be careful to avoid any possibility of prejudicing my right hon. Friend's position. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon.

Gentleman will agree that the right to challenge appeal decisions and thus to subject them to the scrutiny of the courts demonstrates that all such decisions must be taken only after very careful consideration of their planning merits.

The purpose of allowing a disappointed applicant to appeal against the refusal of planning permission is to enable a developer to have a second chance for the planning merits of his proposal to be considered by an independent and impartial person. At one point, I thought that the hon. Gentleman implied that, because appeal decisions might turn out to be different from those originally taken by the local planning authority, no right of appeal should exist. When planning control was introduced after the war, it effectively removed the right of individuals to develop or, indeed, to use land or property that they either owned or rented in the way that they wanted unless they had obtained permission from the local planning authority. Under those circumstances, it seems reasonable that a right of appeal should exist.

Appeal decisions are made only after a very careful evaluation of the planning merits of the cases involved. The inspectors' points of reference—in terms of legislation, Government planning guidance and any relevant provisions of a development plan—are identical to those which would have been considered in the first instance by the local planning authority. The position is the same for appeals against the failure of a planning authority to determine a planning application within the required period. There can be no sense in which appeal decisions are more lenient on the developer than local planning authorities' decisions; the issues to be taken into account are the same, and the record shows that a very substantial proportion of appeal decisions uphold the original decision taken by the local planning authority.

However, I know that there is a particular problem with cases involving amusement arcades in terms of the way they are perceived by third parties and sometimes by local planning authorities. Much opposition to amusement arcades centres on the expectation that they will attract noisy and unruly adolescents and, in some cases, act as a meeting place for young people, encouraging anti-social or even criminal activity, as the hon. Member for Brent, East suggested. Those who oppose amusement arcades from that point of view find it difficult to accept a decision to grant planning permission that seems to have taken little note of their concerns about the likely clientele of the arcade. The difficulty of accepting a decision to grant permission may be greater where that decision is made by an inspector following an earlier decision, taken at a local level, to turn down the application. I shall refer to the expectation that an amusement arcade will attract disreputable and disruptive clients as a "moral" concern.

I have to make it clear that such a moral concern, whether or not it is well founded, is not a land use planning consideration, and, as such, should not be taken into account in the decision whether to grant planning permission. All planning decisions should reflect the judgment of the courts that planning controls should not be used to prevent lawful forms of development on the ground that they are felt to be socially or morally undesirable. That point is reflected in my Department's development control policy note 11 "Service uses in shopping areas". Planning inspectors, therefore, cannot uphold local authorities' decisions that they believe to have been based on local opposition rooted in prejudice against an amusement arcade per se.

A local planning authority determining a planning application for an amusement arcade should consider what aspects of the proposal need to be subject to planning control. Development control policy note 11 identifies several typical planning considerations. They include the creation of unacceptable noise and disturbance. An arcade should not be allowed in a residential area or near schools or hospitals if it can be shown that the noise that it would create would be obtrusive. That deals with the hon. Gentleman's question about objections that an individual —for example, the hon. Gentleman, a planning inspector or me—might have to an amusement arcade near his home. Our objections might be well founded if it was proposed to site the arcade in a residential area where it would create an obtrusive degree of noise. Appearance is another relevant issue, especially in conservation areas. The kind of amusement proposed can also be relevant: if it is of a sessional nature, traffic and parking issues can be involved.

All those points may be "material considerations" to be taken into account in any planning decision about an amusement arcade. However, every planning decision must have regard to the provisions of the local development plan. Relevant policies in an up-to-date development plan carry considerable weight in development control decisions, and the Government have repeatedly made it clear over the past few months, during the passage of the Planning and Compensation Bill through the House, that we wish to move to a more plan-led system, which will give greater coherence and predictability to planning decisions.

We have emphasised the importance of development plans in the whole decision-making process. We have stated that, where there are clear, up-to-date policies in development plans, which are consistent with national and regional policies and relevant to the proposals under consideration, they will carry considerable weight with the Secretary of State and his inspectors in dealing with planning appeals. In effect, the development plan will be the starting point for deciding planning applications and will provide the framework for local decision making in a greater proportion of cases in the future. In the longer term, we hope that comprehensive coverage of the country by up-to-date local plans will help to reduce the number of appeals. The overall effect will be to enhance the role of the local planning authority.

At present, the London borough of Brent has no specific local plan policy on amusement arcades. I have had the opportunity of discussing with the hon. Gentleman—on another occasion and in a slightly different context—the role that will be played in future by unitary development plans, and I believe that he shares my hope that the borough's emerging unitary development plan will contain clear and soundly based policies that address issues of local concern, which may include the intensity of the large number of amusement arcades in Brent.

None of what I have said about the scope of planning control over amusement arcades should be construed as diminishing the importance of what I have identified as the "moral" concerns about amusement arcades. This is not the context in which to consider the effects of such arcades on young people. However, I stress that it is because of concern about the possible "moral" or social implications of amusement arcades that the granting of planning permission is not in itself enough to allow an amusement arcade to become established. Under the Gaming Acts, amusement arcades that offer prizes require permits. Local authorities concerned at the spread of such premises in their areas therefore have a means of control, even when planning permission has already been granted. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary keeps a very careful watch on the effectiveness of this legislation and on the whole question of the social consequences of amusement arcades.

Under the Gaming Act 1968, premises with amusement-with-prizes machines require a permit and considerations that may be irrelevant to a planning application or planning appeal may nevertheless be valid factors for a local authority to take into account when deciding an application for a permit. Although there is not a great deal of case law, I am advised that among the grounds that can be used for the refusal of permits either alone or in combination with other grounds are demand —which may already be met by other existing premises in the area; fire safety; the possibility of under-age people entering; and trouble in the locality as a result of the congregation of young people which would encourage truancy and delinquency. Another ground is the possibility that undesirable people might be attracted to the arcade. Social problems may be worse and there may be difficulties for the police. Another consideration may be the suitability or otherwise of the proposed manager.

All those grounds suggest that the power to refuse a permit can be useful for local authorities concerned about the growth of amusement centres in their areas, irrespective of whether planning permission has been granted. Local authorities may make byelaws under section 75 of the Public Health Act 1961 covering such matters as safety, fire precautions, public order and avoidance of nuisance. Byelaws can regulate opening hours and require the manager not knowingly to permit the premises to be the habitual resort or place of meeting of reputed prostitutes. They can also require the manager not knowingly to permit the entry of any person who is drunk or disorderly. The Home Office published and circulated model byelaws to local authorities in October 1989.

I said at the outset that I could not comment on the specific case referred to by the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that my general remarks have shed some light on the principles involved in relation to the particular problem that has arisen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.