---

Parish Councils (Planning)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When the Minister replies, he may well say that that is part of the Government’s thinking, but I am not convinced that it is working and believe that there are serious difficulties. We have touched on the code of conduct, which is an obstacle to common sense. Parish and district councillors may be unable to vote on planning issues. For example, people who wear different hats in the council may be barred from considering such issues. Of course, we need probity in local government, but common sense is required to enable the people who know the local community best to express an opinion on its behalf when they are elected to represent it, but sometimes there are difficulties in allowing them to do so. There is a serious shortage of planners. It has become difficult to recruit planners in many district council planning offices, which has had knock-on effects on decision making and the quality of decisions. I recently received a deputation of architects, who were concerned about being given different advice on different occasions. Their clients regard that as a reflection on their professional competence when, in fact, the planners gave them different advice on the same issue. Very often, grounds for refusal are tightly drawn. Parish councils are sometimes criticised for failing to understand what are, and what are not, valid grounds for refusal. If that is the case, better training should be provided for parish councils so that they do understand the difference, but we also need to be flexible about appropriate grounds. If a village has taken a great deal of trouble to determine what it wants for its future, and that has been agreed by all the residents, something that does not fit with its vision should be considered an important ground for refusal. Such considerations can are often ignored if they do not fall within narrow criteria. What can we do to improve the situation? We can improve the time scale for consultation and undertake genuine consultation with parish councils to reflect the fact that small rural parish councils are not local authorities that meet every week and employ staff to prepare their response to applications. We could do an awful lot more by developing IT links between parish councils and their local district councils so that they have a clear idea about the progress of a particular planning application and are given more opportunities to make observations on it during the process. I mentioned better training and it is appropriate to ensure that parish councillors have all the tools at their disposal to help them to make the right decisions. We need to address staffing issues in planning and, most of all, we must address the attitude of principal authorities, particularly district councils, so that they accept that parish councils have an important role to play as colleagues. Parish councils are partners in the planning process, not an irritation that gets in the way of quick decision making. It would be helpful if parish councils were treated as statutory consultees rather than as parties to be notified. There have been more extensive experiments. In Taunton Deane, for instance, there was a scheme of delegation to parish councils on minor planning decisions. Does the Minister have in mind something similar where there is an appropriate scheme of delegation? The responsibility remains with the principal authority, which is the certifying authority but, nevertheless, in the case of minor issues, which are often delegated to a junior officer, it would be better for a parish council, with its knowledge of what is right for the area, to play a role.