---

Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill

I suppose I probably did, but not for the way in which it is operating. I have grave reservations about that. In fact, I sponsored a debate on its activities a while ago, referring particularly to the case against Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg for leaking documents that led to the exposure of the fix to settle with Lady Porter. I will say no more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I see you are about to tell me off for straying down the highways and byways of Westminster history yet again. My basic point is that the hon. Lady should be a little careful about the definition, although I support the basic thrust of clause 4. Clause 5 deals with repeat planning applications. My area has been bedevilled by them. One problem with which the law has yet to get to grips is the submission of applications that are a little like those that preceded them, but not sufficiently similar to be classed as repeat applications. We need to examine that aspect of planning law, and adopt a rather more broad-brush approach. If the site is the same and the application is more or less the same, it should be deemed to be a repeat application. We all know what developers do. They will try to buy up a row of family houses with options to winkle out people who do not want to sell. They will put in a planning application for 50 flats, which is turned down. They will then put in an application for 45 or 40 or 35 flats. Each application will be just different enough not to be caught by the regime, in order to wear down local opposition. That should not be allowed. We need a much tougher approach to such behaviour by developers. The hon. Lady suggests a three-year rather than a two-year threshold. She has not said why she feels that two, three or, for that matter, five years would not be equally appropriate. Perhaps she will tell us why she plumped for three years. I do not think that the two-year period has caused any particular problems. The real problem with the present rules relating to repeat applications is the one that I have just described—applications that are not really different from those that preceded them. Clause 6 concerns trees. Like everyone else, I like to hug a tree, although not an oak tree with a green top—when it is a logo, that is. I am quite happy to hug an oak tree for real. What worries me is that although the clause refers to"““trees in urban or suburban areas””," there is no reference to trees in general. Examples were given earlier of trees in rural areas that ought to be protected. What about those trees? Perhaps the hon. Lady should delete the reference to urban or suburban areas, and refer simply to the preservation of trees more generally. Development is taking place in the countryside. I know that that is, to a degree, a politically controversial issue between the parties. We all want as much development as possible on brownfield sites, but inevitably there will be some encroachment on green land, and in those circumstances we should ensure that mature, historic trees are protected as much as possible in that environment as well. Clause 7 refers to expenses. I challenged the hon. Lady on the subject earlier. I am concerned about the fact that we have no indication of the potential cost of the Bill. We might have a rough idea if we considered the clauses one by one in relation to our constituencies, because we all have a pretty good idea of what is happening on or own patches, but the notion that we could assess the likely cost nationwide is an impossible dream. At this point I should put on my Eric Forth hat. The late Eric Forth would have taken the hon. Lady to pieces, but I shall try to be a little more gentle. As she has presented the House with a Bill that is likely to cost taxpayers money, we need to know what the cost will be. For instance, will the cost of an appeal against a grant of planning consent be borne by the appellant, the developer or the central Government taxpayer, through the planning inspectorate? A plethora of appeals against grants could lead to a very expensive operation. We also need to know the potential cost of the referendums proposed by the hon. Lady. We can all probably work out what the cost would be in our constituencies, but how many referendums does she expect to be held in a year? Answering that question would require a breakdown of the number of planning applications and land disposals taking place in a year, which would be a major research project in its own right. Until we have a grip on the scale of the problem, it will be impossible to attach a price tag. The hon. Lady ought to do a bit of research to try to establish, perhaps by means of a survey of local authorities, how many such cases have arisen in the past five or 10 years. That would produce an average number of cases, from which it would be possible to calculate the likely number of referendums and, in turn, the cost involved. The hon. Lady said in her introduction that the cost of the referendums should fall on the central Government taxpayer, but the Bill gives no indication of that. There is no cross-reference between clause 1 and clause 7. As it stands, clause 7 would apply only to central Government costs, and as far as I can see the lion’s share would result from the planning appeals clause. It seems that the cost of a referendum will fall on the poor old local government taxpayer. That may not be a bad thing, but if there is to be a trigger mechanism, people ought to be aware of what a referendum will cost them in council tax. The importance of the issue could then be weighed against the cost of consultation. There is a lacuna in the Bill with which the hon. Lady must deal: what will it cost Joe Public in income or council tax? Regulations under clause 8 would be made under the negative resolution procedure. I have concerns about that, given that we are talking about significant property issues. Why has the hon. Lady chosen to implement the Bill through the negative procedure instead of the affirmative procedure to which such issues are much more suited? Particularly as regards some of the key planning issues, I should think that the House would want to have its say through the affirmative procedure instead of merely trying to annul proposals from the Department. I turn to the commencement provisions. Clause 10(2) says that the Bill would come into effect within two months of its passing through Parliament. That is a rather ambitious timetable. There could be several consequences if the Bill came into force so quickly. A blight could suddenly be put on a scheme that is halfway through because no one has had time to prepare for the Bill. Planning blight is already a problem. We could find that people are trying to trigger referendums all over the place without giving any thought to the bureaucracy involved for local authorities in implementing them. A mandatory two-month period would leave no wriggle room to make the Bill work.