Wirral Borough Council

Debate between Robert Neill and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

The thrust of our localism agenda is that accountability should no longer be regarded as being from the council to Whitehall but the council to its local community. The elected members of the local authority are there as representatives. Under our current system of leader in cabinet, an administration is formed. The ultimate political responsibility for the operation of any local authority must rest with the political leaders, of whatever complexion they may be. In the same way, Ministers must ultimately be responsible for the actions of Government, regardless of political directions. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in that regard.

[Mr Frank Field]

It might help the Minister in making these judgments to know about the political composition of Wirral borough council. It is shared among three parties. Going back to the Cheshire Lines building contract, which cost the council £11 million and was authorised without the political say-so of the councillors, the then leader of the council—the Labour leader who currently leads the council—brought in the Audit Commission, which gave the most damning report. The other two political parties—the Tories and the Liberals—voted to take no action. It is very difficult to reprehend or take more serious action against senior officers when the political parties themselves will not put the interests of Wirral first but seek party advantage.

[Robert Neill]

I was going to say that one course that is an appropriate safeguard where necessary is to make a reference to the district auditor. I note that the leader of the Labour administration called in the Audit Commission, which I am sure was the correct thing to do. It is not for me to judge. Equally, I note that it was a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition that commissioned the Klonowski report, which is the subject of debate. I am glad for any member of any political complexion leading a council to stand up and take responsibility for actions. That is the key test. It is not for me to judge what decision Wirral borough council comes to about its future administration.

Communities and Local Government

Debate between Robert Neill and Lord Field of Birkenhead

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.