---

Planning Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2006

I am a bit reluctant to go into that final point because we are going through a consultation process on PPS 14 at present. It is a genuine consultation for 12 weeks. For a start, it is not a blanket ban. As I have said repeatedly, if only we could get back to the level that prevailed for the past 20 years, which is roughly 3,000 dwellings a year in rural areas, rather than that number having—as it has done—doubled and trebled in the past four years. The consultation will take account of rural dwellers and former farmers. People had a knee-jerk reaction to some aspects of it, but I am reluctant to say any more about it because a genuine consultation is going on. I will briefly try to answer the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the definition of development in the 1991 order, which this order amends. Article 11 is entitled, ““Meaning of ‘development’””. I will be happy to give the noble Lord this copy. It states:"““In this Order, subject to paragraphs (2) to (4), ‘development’ means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land””." It goes on to define building operations and what is not development, such as maintenance. There is a range of issues, which are clearly delineated in Article 11. I hope that that will give clarity to the noble Lord. I am grateful for the comments that have been made about the work of the planning service, which has been under enormous pressure in recent years. Certainly, the changes in this order, and the changes that we proposed and instituted last October on trying to cut down on site meetings that were not solely related to planning matters, will make a dramatic difference. The difference is seen in the output of the decisions that are being made at present. We will have to see a bit further on that. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, asked about third party appeals. My standard answer to that is that which I gave during the passage of legislation that I guided through the House in 2004. As a constituency Member of Parliament in the other place, I was in favour of third party rights of appeal until I became the Minister responsible for planning in England. I have put that on the record before. There was a consultation on this. This order generally replicates for Northern Ireland the 2004 legislation for Great Britain, which did not include third party rights of appeal. The department has not taken a position for or against, but has decided not to include that debate in this order: we were trying to mirror and to bring to Northern Ireland the benefits of the 2004 order. I am not saying that this is not a matter that in due course a devolved Assembly could not look at. There are good arguments for and against, but the arguments were such that in 2004 the Government did not take a view on it. We brought other changes in that would give the public a greater role in planning. The Planning Appeals Commission will remain even when development control goes to local authorities. It will be the appeal body; not necessarily Ministers. However, for big projects, there will be a central unit in the heart of government. As regards the concerns of the built heritage lobby on the appropriateness of decisions being delegated to individual commissioners, it is considered that a single commissioner delegation would facilitate more effective use of the Planning Appeals Commission’s resources and would reduce the time taken. Estimates suggest that single commissioner delegations would equate to an increase of three to four full-time commissioners, which would allow the Planning Appeals Commission to give more priority to development plan inquiries. There is a resource implication here. I have had it in the neck ever since I have been in Northern Ireland about the delay on the development plan inquiries. Regarding reducing the number of commissioners deciding an appeal raising issues of propriety, the commission proposes a number of measures to maintain the quality of decision-making. First, the criteria for delegation decision-making will be published. They will take account of the nature of the proposed development, novelty and complexity. All commissioners undergo extensive training on appointment and close supervision for at least a year, and they would not have delegated decision-making power during that period. All commissioners participate in a programme of training and personal development. The chief commissioner will be able to recall any case prior to decision at any point if it becomes apparent that the appeal does not fall within the criteria for delegation, or if recovery is merited by the circumstances of the case. Any of the parties involved may ask the chief commissioner to recover the case during the processing of the appeal. There are sufficient safeguards on particular circumstances. On Question, Motion agreed to.