| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.14 pm
The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, which has given him an opportunity to make clear the strength of his concerns about the gipsy and travellers' site at Willowmead caravan park, near Weston-super-Mare. I have no doubt that those concerns are shared by a number of local residents, and have been since the site was first occupied as a temporary gipsy site in 1992.
My hon. Friend has demonstrated tonight that he and his constituents are aggrieved about the fact that, first, the Labour-run Avon county council and, latterly, the Liberal-controlled North Somerset council favour gipsy provision to which he and those he represents are strongly opposed.
Over the past four years, the Willowmead site has come to the attention of Secretaries of State for the Environment on a number of occasions--for instance, in May 1992, when Woodspring district council objected to its appropriation by Avon county council for the purposes of a gipsy site; in October 1995, when the county council sought to extend temporary planning permission for emergency travellers and the gipsy site by nine months, from 31 December 1995 to 30 September 1996; and in October 1996, when North Somerset council, the new unitary authority, sought to extend temporary planning permission by a further six months--from 30 September 1996 to 31 March 1997.
My hon. Friend will be aware that, on each occasion, the Secretaries of State, after careful consideration of all the available information, had to decide that, although the matter was highly controversial, it could not be said that the issues involved were of regional or national significance--which would have justified their intervention, whether under their then powers under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 or under their powers under the
28 Jan 1997 : Column 266
My hon. Friend will also be aware that the most recent planning application to which I have referred is still before North Somerset council. Propriety therefore forbids me to express any opinions on the planning merits of the circumstances that currently exist at Willowmead, or to pass any comment on the present application. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that to do so could prejudice the position of the Secretary of State for the Environment should the matter come before him formally in the future.
Nevertheless, I have listened closely to what my hon. Friend has said this evening, and will take it into account if the matter comes before the Secretary of State at any stage. Equally, I am sure that, if any new information comes to light, my hon. Friend will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In particular, if the council were to continue extensions of temporary planning permission indefinitely without making progress towards resolution of the issue, it would be perfectly proper for my hon. Friend to take up his concerns again with my right hon. Friend, who would examine the case on its merits.
Although I do not intend to comment on the circumstances at the Willowmead site, I am not unaware of the types of general policy issue that have been touched on by events at Willowmead over the past four years, such as policy on gipsy site provision and on local authorities' own development proposals. I trust that my hon. Friend will be interested if I briefly explain the Government's position on each of those matters--and I hope that he will appreciate that I am not attempting to suggest or imply how these general policies might relate to the specific circumstances at the Willowmead site. That must be the prerogative of North Somerset council, in its capacity as the local planning authority.
Our land use planning policy on gipsy sites is set out in Department of the Environment circular 1/94, entitled "Gypsy Sites and Planning". We encourage gipsies to provide their own accommodation, applying for planning permission when that is necessary, like everyone else. A critical element is to ensure that, when provision is made, amenities and the environment continue to be protected. To help to achieve that, the circular sets out factors that should be taken into account in decisions on planning applications for gipsy sites. Those factors also apply to proposals for local planning authorities' own sites.
Our guidance on gipsy sites fully reflects the plan-led nature of the planning system. The guidance makes it clear that authorities should assess the need for gipsy accommodation in their areas. They should include in their development plans suitable location or criteria-based policies for meeting that need, by provision of local authority or private sites, to provide the statutory framework for determining individual applications.
The inclusion of policies in development plans provides greater certainty in development control. If the development plan does not contain relevant policies, applications should be determined in the light of all material considerations, including the advice in circular 1/94.
28 Jan 1997 : Column 267
There is no longer a duty on local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies who reside in or resort to their region. That duty, which was contained in part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, was repealed in November 1994 by section 80 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
My Department's circular, which was issued when the 1994 Act came into force, does, however, stress the importance of local authorities keeping their existing gipsy caravan sites open and maintained. It also reiterates long-standing advice to local authorities that they should consider providing emergency stopping places for gipsies who visit their region regularly, and that they should consider the option of tolerating the presence of gipsies who camp on council land if--I stress this--they are not causing a nuisance.
It is for local authorities to decide how best to maintain their existing gipsy caravan sites and to consider whether it is appropriate to extend the planning permission for temporary sites where planning permission has expired. Local authorities will also wish to consider their statutory responsibilities towards children and homeless persons when taking decisions about the future of their authorised gipsy sites.
The procedures governing local authorities' own development proposals are contained in the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992. The general principle underlying the regulations is that local planning authorities must make planning applications in the same way as any other person applying for planning permission, and must follow the same procedures that would apply to applications that are made by others.
Local authorities may grant themselves planning permission for their own development on land in which they have an interest, but that is subject to several important safeguards: the proposals must be advertised and decided in public by a committee that is not responsible for land management; the public cannot be excluded from such a committee meeting; and, to avoid potential conflicts of interest, applications may not be determined by a committee or officer responsible for the management of the land or buildings concerned.
Another safeguard is that local authority development proposals must be notified to the relevant Government office for the region if they are not in accordance with the provisions of the development plan in force in that region. It is for the local planning authority to decide whether an application represents a departure from the development plan. When applications are notified in that way, careful consideration is given to all the issues raised by the proposal and to how they might relate to the Government's policy on call-in, as described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 26 January 1995.
Although a decision on whether to call in an application is normally based on the importance of the issues raised by the application, rather than on the procedures followed by the local planning authority, we do consider whether the handling of the application might raise issues sufficient to justify making an exception to the general
28 Jan 1997 : Column 268
Following amendments by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, section 54(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that planning applications, irrespective of whether they are made by a local authority, must be decided in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In general, the local planning authority's elected members represent the community's interests in planning matters, but, when determining planning applications, they must take into account any relevant views expressed by neighbouring occupiers, local residents and any other third parties, although only genuine land-use planning concerns are material. However, in some cases, there may be positive reasons in favour of development, which will outweigh local objections, however widespread or strongly felt they might be.
Local authorities must of course act within the law, and it is open to any third party who is aggrieved by a local authority's decision to grant itself planning permission to apply for judicial review if they believe that the decision was wrong in law. If they consider that they have suffered personal injustice as a result of maladministration by the council, they may also ask the local government ombudsman to investigate the matter.
Sometimes, local planning authorities will be required to consider whether to grant planning permission for development or change of use of land that has already taken place. I would expect local authorities rarely to find themselves in that position for their own development proposals or land, except in exceptional circumstances.
Where this does arise, however, retrospective planning applications submitted by the local authority, like those submitted by others, should be considered in the same way as other applications. The fact that the development has already taken place should not influence the final decision one way or the other. The same is true for applications that seek to renew or extend planning permission.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |