Communities and Local Government

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

It has been a wide-ranging debate, which perhaps reflects the remit of the Department. I shall try to address the issues raised by hon. Members in order.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made a characteristically graceful speech that argued a serious point. I have a lot of sympathy with the issue that he raised, and I was of course especially taken by the historical context and his reference to Disraeli. It may be of some comfort to him to learn that a portrait of Disraeli sits behind my desk—

[Mr Frank Field]

He’s watching you.

[Robert Neill]

He is indeed keeping an eye on me. I have long suspected that the right hon. Gentleman and I would both be comfortable within the tradition that Disraeli founded, but I shall not ask him to change his position too much in the Chamber just before Christmas.

The right hon. Gentleman made a serious point about repeat planning applications and gave some serious examples of what has happened in his constituency. I have had similar examples in my constituency and I suspect that many right hon. and hon. Members could say the same. Many of us have heard horror stories of communities—and, indeed, local authorities themselves—sometimes feeling worn down by repeated applications from the same developer on the same site. The right hon. Gentleman has seen that with particular types of development in his constituency, and I have certainly had to do battle on behalf of my constituents over repeat applications to develop back gardens, for example. That is a real threat in many suburban areas. It is important, therefore, that we take steps to prevent the system from being abused.

People of course have a right to make planning applications, but there are measures, to which I will come now, with which we can seek to control them. At the moment, a local planning authority can decline to determine a planning application, if it has refused permission for two “substantially similar” applications on the same site, or if one such application has been refused by the Secretary of State on appeal within the past two years. It is worth reminding local authorities, and members of planning committees and their officers, that they are entitled to use that safeguard, and not to be browbeaten, perhaps, in some circumstances. The relevant provisions are in sections 70A and 70B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.

The decision on whether an application is the same or substantially the same, and therefore on whether a determination can be refused, is for the local planning authority. Obviously, it has to take care, because it is justiciable, but provided that it acts within the context of public law in decision making, that safeguard is open to them. It is a discretionary power, however, and does not preclude an amended application from being made—once a developer has listened and addressed objections, as I hope would be the case—that does not fall foul of the provisions,.

I can confirm to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead that the Government intend to apply similar principles to neighbourhood plans drawn up under the Localism Bill. The Bill would allow local authorities to decline to consider a repeat proposal for a neighbourhood development order—the mechanism for, in effect, giving consent under the Bill. I hope that his point has been taken on board in that regard.

[Mr Field]

Under the Localism Bill, what new powers would the residents in Devonshire Park get to prevent the sorts of attacks they have faced over the past four years?

[Robert Neill]

The Localism Bill would create the concept of a neighbourhood plan, which could be incorporated in Birkenhead borough council’s statutory development document—its planning framework, as it is generally called. It would permit residents of Devonshire Park to apply to the local council to be recognised, as I am sure they would be in these circumstances, as a neighbourhood forum for the purposes of producing a neighbourhood plan. That would enable them to set out their vision for the area, which, subject to a referendum and getting support from their fellow residents, the local planning authority would incorporate into its plans, unless there were strategic reasons to the contrary.

That a significant safeguard would enable residents to put in place protection against particular types of development, if they thought they were not sustainable. It would, of course, have to be consistent with national policy that we will be setting out in the national planning policy framework, and with our support for sustainable development. However, it is exactly the sort of vehicle that the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents are seeking. I would be happy to talk to him as the Bill progresses to ensure that he and his constituents are in a position to take advantage of the provisions.

I also hope, of course, owing to the requirement in the Bill for pre-application discussions on any scheme of any significance, that developers themselves will recognise and take heed of the concerns and aspirations of local communities, and adjust their developments accordingly. We are trying to move to a much more collaborative and front-loaded approach to planning, rather than repeat applications and the threat of a decision by appeal at the end. I am happy to keep the right hon. Gentleman informed on progress on those matters.

Let me now go back further than the Disraeli period—to the Plantagenets, as I understand it—and address the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I am sure that he was not there at the time, but he has a degree of erudition that clearly indicates that he has gone that far back in researching borough status for Banbury. Those of us who watch “Lark Rise to Candleford” will be well aware of the status of Banbury within Oxfordshire, and not just as the home of Banbury cakes, but as a major town. I understand the sense of where my hon. Friend is coming from, because we as a Government recognise civic pride as a valuable part of the big society. That said, these things are not quite as easy as one might wish. My hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer, and he is quite right about the constraints on achieving the ambition that he set out.

At the current time it is not possible for any authority, other than a district council, to become a borough. There may be no confusion among the residents of his area about Cherwell district council and a borough of Banbury, but I would not like to guarantee that that would apply everywhere else. [Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member for Birkenhead smiling. One can just imagine the confusion about what was the historic borough of Birkenhead and the borough of Wirral, of which it is now a part. I can see the same thing happening in my constituency, with confusion about the former borough of Bromley and the current borough of Bromley, one of which is much larger than the other, which happens to lie within it. Things are not quite so simple, so we will have to be a careful. We will of course consider the position, but the route suggested is not to create a new type of borough, which could confuse people even more. Rather, if Banbury wishes, it can apply for city status under the jubilee provisions.

[Tony Baldry]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I will briefly, but I need to get on to other matters.

[Tony Baldry]

We do not want to be a city; we want to be a jubilee borough. It is not the same as wanting designation under the Local Government Act 1972; it is something completely different. If, as with cities, Ministers are not willing to pursue that under the royal prerogative, we will have to petition the Privy Council and see where we get. The proposal will not cost anything. I just hope that Ministers will show a little more imagination.

[Robert Neill]

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but he will understand that it is difficult to pluck out one case. Banbury can call itself a town council—it has a mayor, and civic regalia and plate, and it can use its coat of arms. I hope that he will reflect on the matter, if that is not a proportionate solution.

Let me turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the pathfinders. It is fair to say that Hull city council will receive more than £23 million this year to take forward projects in east and west Hull. Of course there have had to be reductions, but I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman made the only speech that sounded a vaguely partisan note—but responsibility for that ultimately lies with those who created the difficulty and the deficit that we now have to deal with. There are other options open in housing market renewal areas, and local authorities can continue to apply to the regional growth fund. There is also the new homes bonus and the new affordable rent programme, including new empty home funding, so there are other options available. Indeed, I note that Hull is working on a local enterprise partnership, which I believe will also open up real opportunities. We want that taken forward, but that cannot be done under the previous, unsustainable financial position. I understand the difficulties, but Hull is being imaginative, and the local enterprise partnerships will offer it real opportunities.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), I say that the Localism Bill is coming forward very soon. Localism will enable neighbourhood plans to have regard to issues such as wind farm development. Our reforms will apply equally to wind farms that are considered under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which of course have to be consistent with national policy, as I have said. We are also taking steps on changing planning structures, and if my hon. Friend keeps in touch with me on those matters, I hope that we will be able to discuss how to translate the existing, top-down structures into something more democratic. The Localism Bill’s proposal to abolish the regional spatial strategies will give much greater scope to local authorities such as hers to develop in the right place, and in a way that is appropriate to the context of local communities.

Having dealt with that, may I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a very happy Christmas. If anyone is short of a present—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will be glad to know this—the Department for Communities and Local Government still has some 5,000 branded Office of the Deputy Prime Minister promotional biros available.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.