Housing and Planning Bill

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

That would be a very interesting decision. When recommendations are made to councillors, very often reasons are given as part of the officer’s report. If councillors follow those reasons, they would expect them to have a defensible case if an appeal were lodged. If the advice to councillors was wrong, however, it may be the council that incurs costs. Who is liable for those costs? I am not sure that that is spelled out either.

As I understand it, there is a requirement to share information between an alternative provider and the council. Presumably, the council is taking no fee—all the fee goes to the alternative provider—so who provides the council’s costs? We have already heard that planning departments have had just about the largest cuts of any section of local government in the past five years. This is a service that has had major cuts. It will now have to continue to do some of the work on these schemes with no benefit at all from the fee, which means less resources for the planning department.

This matter ought to have been given a great deal more consideration. It has come in on Report with very little time to consider it. I have just raised some concerns about who, ultimately, will be responsible for extra costs, recommendations to the committee, writing reports and getting involved in delegated decisions. None of that appears to be covered by the clauses before us. I hope the Minister can give us some answers, because this is a worrying proposal that could undermine the accountability of the planning process to local communities.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I rise to support new clause 58, which is a brilliant amendment designed to fulfil our ambition to be the greenest Government ever. It would apply to only 345,191 grade II listed buildings in England, which would be freed to add insulation and solar panels and make other environmentally important improvements without needing to go through the listed building consent process currently required for any alteration to a listed building or within the curtilage of that building. It would free up hard-working conservation officers and reduce costs and red tape, while ensuring that all the historical features protected by the listing remain protected and under the current restrictions.

The new clause would also remove the curtilage catch-all and deter homeowners who can afford to turn up the heating but must not. Instead, they could do better things to help fight climate change and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. It is only a tiny amendment, so, not surprisingly, it is opposed by Historic England, which fears that the odd feature it has forgotten to list might be, what—insulated? It knows that things have to change and that we need to follow the success of the climate talks in Paris with practical changes. If the Government have a better way of delivering the curtilage removal, I will gladly withdraw the amendment and thank them on behalf of all our children and grandchildren.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I rise to support my amendment 74. One of the many reasons I oppose the Bill is that it takes power away from local communities and places it in the hands of private sector developers and central Government. It is a profoundly undemocratic Bill, and nowhere is that clearer than in the plans for planning authorities.

Essentially, the Bill will mean that local people have no say over developments in their neighbourhoods. The introduction of permission in principle will allow automatic planning permission on sites allocated for development without any scrutiny of the fine detail. Neither local authorities nor the public could object to development on these sites. It is the very opposite of the kind of democratically accountable local planning essential for sustainable development and the delivery of economic, environmental and social benefits. If I hear the Government say again that they are champions of localism, I will scream, because I cannot see how that is remotely consistent with a Bill that is all about taking power away from local planning authorities, local people and local scrutiny and placing it in private hands and the hands of Ministers. For that reason, my amendment would delete clause 111 altogether, getting rid of permission in principle.

I believe that local communities are best placed to understand the particular needs and detailed characteristics of their local area, but if such oversight is sidelined, we risk significantly compromising community resilience. I support the position set out by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who spoke eloquently on this issue, pointing out the poor timing of this debate: we are discussing removing local knowledge from the planning system at a time when we are all deeply concerned about flooding and when the past month alone has shown us the importance of flood-risk appraisals when granting permission for development. It would be particularly foolish to remove those now.

Moreover, nothing in the Bill will limit permission in principle to brownfield sites alone or prevent it from being applied to any development on any land allocated in a so-called qualifying document. The consequences are far reaching. As the Town and Country Planning Association has pointed out, fracking could easily be given permission in principle as part of a minerals plan, which would be completely unacceptable. I am glad that Labour Members share my concern about permission in principle and the extent to which it undermines local democracy. I support their proposed measures to mitigate the associated damage, but I hope they will go further and support my amendment, which would delete the clause completely. I am pleased to see the amendments that are designed to create a right of appeal for locally interested parties and neighbourhood planning bodies against decisions to grant planning permission.