My Lords, I also declare interests as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Newcastle City Council. During my service on that local authority, I was leader of the council for some 17 years and was heavily involved in major development decisions. Subsequently, I was chair of the development committee and, after that, I served as a member of the development control sub-committee. Therefore, I have some working knowledge of the role of the local authority in planning.
I join my noble friend Lord McKenzie in broadly supporting this group of amendments as a way of ameliorating what seems to me a very badly drafted Bill. It would be preferable if the Government would abandon this whole proposal. I say that because there are many questions around the reasoning behind the Bill.
In the impact assessment there is reference to the financing costs to the development industry of the present planning system, which one Professor Ball estimates at £1 billion a year in respect of delays in planning permission and another £1 billion for, as he puts it, holding assets for which at the moment development does not seem to be possible. That seems to ignore completely the outstanding permissions—as I recall, some 400,000—which have not been activated
by that industry. Therefore, it seems that the professor has a somewhat skewed view. Even if he were right, would the Minister be able to indicate what the impact of these proposals would be on the figures that the professor has produced, on which the Government seek to rely in the impact assessment? What would be the reduction from the £1 billion figure, or indeed the £2 billion figure, if one takes into account land which developers do not seem able to bring forward?
3.45 pm
There has been a besetting myth in British politics for some time—especially nurtured in the Treasury—that somehow the planning regime is responsible for the lack of economic growth and development. It seems to me that the evidence for that is, to put it mildly, minimal. I see one former Secretary of State nodding his agreement with me, which is something I shall remember because it has not always happened.
The impact assessment also refers to some of the benefits to be gained from the proposals contained in this clause. It states that they would, for example, promote fast and better-quality decisions. The two things are not necessarily synonymous: the quickest decision is not always the best decision. In any case, perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on what is meant by “better quality”, because in another part of the assessment, it is stated that applicants could choose to take the route of going to the planning inspector once an authority has been designated,
“if they expect … a quicker or more positive decision”.
It seems to me, therefore, that a “better-quality” decision means an approval. That may, in some cases, be right, but it should not be deemed axiomatic that a better decision is one that implies the grant of consent. In any event, where is the guarantee that decisions taken by the Planning Inspectorate—which, of course, is under great pressure—are necessarily better than those taken by local authority members, informed as they are by the views of local residents?
I cite a particular case in the ward I represent in the west end of Newcastle, which is an area containing a large regeneration scheme. The local authority, under two different administrations politically, went forward with the scheme; eventually an application was made for a compulsory purchase order and that went to an appeal. Most of the area was confirmed, but one particular property stood out like a sore thumb for many years. It was a large house occupied by a former doctor in the ward; the owners of the house and the land around it claimed that they had plans themselves and objected to the order. The planning inspector upheld the objection, so that house and land were taken out of the order. Several years on, the house stands; it is in a ruinous condition—a blight on the neighbourhood—and there is no sign of any proposal by the owners to develop that land.
I am reminded of the famous lines of Shelley’s “Ozymandias”:
“… Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away”.
In this case it is mud and not sand, but the wreck is still there thanks to the decision of the planning inspector. Of course, that is only one example, but
I venture to suggest that it is not necessarily the case that the Planning Inspectorate will always produce—or more often than not produce—decisions better than those made by local authorities. What support can the Minister adduce to encourage the House to support the clause as it stands?
We also need some indication of exactly how many cases are likely to be brought into the scope of this provision; otherwise, we could be passing a completely nugatory clause. The Minister, Nick Boles, has said more than once that the numbers would be “vanishingly small”; in which case, one reverts to Professor Ball’s analysis and asks where the financial benefit to be gained for the development industry is? The impact assessment itself refers to perhaps 90 applications being potentially subject to appeal, but says that only 45 would have to go through that process. How many planning authorities does the noble Baroness speculate would be the host of the apparently minuscule number of applications for which legislation is being sought?
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to support that might be given to authorities that are not performing very well—I endorse his approach on that. Would it be better to look at the outcome of the planning development grant, which was available for several years and assisted a number of authorities in improving the quality of their performance and, to a degree, the timeliness of their decision-making? Would it not be better to look at that kind of approach rather than deploy the sledgehammer of the noble Lord, Lord Tope—or was it the sledgehammer of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—to crack the nut? The reference was made but it is not his concept, of course. That would be a more constructive approach than to go overboard with legislation that cuts across the whole localism agenda and which might be thought to conflict with elements in the Localism Act, which, from a different perspective, would potentially reduce the role of local authorities with local planning referendums and matters of that kind.
If the House is to approve the clause as it stands, the noble Baroness must produce a good deal more evidence in support than we have seen so far. Failing that, I hope that noble Lords will support the amendments tabled to this part of the Bill to avoid legislation that will have little effect except to lay the groundwork for widening the breach once made in the role of local authorities. It is a real concern that, although this might be seen originally to apply to few cases, that in itself might generate demands for more action from the Government and a further erosion of the role of local authorities, which should not commend itself to the Committee.