Planning Policy

: I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. He makes an interesting point, and I shall refer further to such issues a little later. We believe that the best way to protect important sites of the kind that we are discussing is to end interference from Whitehall and the Secretary of State in the process of drawing up local development plans. Frankly, we want to get central Government off the backs of local people. My party has also proposed the concept of the community plan, under which a community would set out what it sought to achieve from the council's local development plan, and in some circumstances could propose that some land should be zoned for particular purposes. The community plan would then form a subsection of the local development plan. Under our system, the planning system would become much more community-focused, and be bottom-up rather than top-down. That need not mean building fewer homes than are currently proposed. Communities can respond to their needs if they are given the freedom to do so; the end result will often be better and more acceptable than a plan handed down from Whitehall via regional offices demanding, say, that 100,000 homes should be built in a particular region. In addition to the community plan, we have also proposed much wider use of pre-application consultation so that developers, and the community in which they wish to build, can reach agreement on applications. We believe that that is a route through which communities can influence section 106 agreements. If land is suitable for development, community involvement in drawing up the remit for the site will be a key approach for ensuring that the needs of the community are met. Such a community-led approach is impossible under the present centralised planning system. Ultimately, the greatest action we could take would be to reform the planning system, so that local and regional authorities can make more decisions for themselves about what developments are allowed. By involving the community—the people who know and appreciate their areas more than any civil servant in Whitehall ever could—we can promote development to meet our needs and protect our constituencies at the same time. Before I finish, I should like to ask whether, given his obvious commitment to preserving the character of his area, the hon. Member for Lichfield was as surprised as I to hear his party proposing that there should be building on the green belt. Surely that policy, announced only recently by the shadow Chancellor, will do precisely the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is calling for this afternoon. Concreting over our precious green space is hardly the best way to preserve the unique heritage of our market towns, historic towns and cathedral cities.