Business and Planning Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, at this stage in the debate, much of what I might have said has already been said eloquently, but I will focus on the working-hours provisions for a moment. They provide an illustration of the tensions between the laudable objectives of the Bill and its consequences. Noble Lords are aware that the legislation gives an authority the power to approve, refuse or amend an application for variation of hours, but it cannot do any of these without investigation. Investigation will impose additional administrative burdens on planning authorities, many of which are ill-equipped to fulfil that responsibility. That will particularly be the case in areas of high activity and construction.

Noble Lords will know from experiences elsewhere that working hours are always controversial because of their impact on amenity. When the public realise that the proposed legislation carries with it the possibility of an extension to cover a whole day, perhaps that controversy will be even greater. In the circumstances, proper account must be taken of public objection to any application. Proper opportunity must be made to ensure that that objection can be put before the local authority. As pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, proper notice must be given so that the public are aware of precisely what is proposed. All of this is to be achieved within 14 days of the application for extension being received by the local authority. Is there not a risk that a planning authority, inundated with multiple applications, will give little weight to public amenity or, in the worst case, simply ignore it? It may even take refuge in the deemed grant provisions, all at the expense of public amenity.

When one is considering the impact of the issue of hours, is it not right to consider that the same local authority may be, in relation to planning permission extensions or outlying planning permissions extensions, already engaged in responding to the responsibilities that the legislation imposes? It might be 28 days, but that is still a colossal burden in many circumstances. Even the most well-intentioned local authorities may find themselves having to accept damage to amenity that they would not normally support, except that they find themselves compelled to do so because of the terms of this legislation. I believe we should make it clear to the public that, sometimes, in this particular balance, the amenity of the public will have to take second place.

Let me finish with this. I understand the need for the hybrid powers now being offered to the Planning Inspectorate. When I first read about this, I found a commentary which said that such powers would allow it to do its work quickly and efficiently. In an area where the public has an interest, the words “quickly and efficiently” should always raise a red flag. It will be important to ensure that public participation is not in any way prejudiced by the exercise of these hybrid powers.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has not joined the list so, after the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I will move on to the speaker after her.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 55 and 57, originally put down by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and to which I have added my name. The reason I do so is that, at Second Reading, I raised the question of the possible impact on amenity of those who might be affected by the extension of working hours. In response, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, met my argument by saying that it was always a question of balance. Self-evidently, of course, that is correct, but the question is whether the balance is tilted in these proposals against individuals and organisations that might be affected by an extension of hours. It is important to remember that conditions in relation to hours are put down in order to preserve amenity, and if a planning authority has reached a certain judgment in relation to that, such that an extension as proposed is granted, then self-evidently amenity will have been affected. We tend to think of these matters as being about individuals, but of course hostels, schools, care homes and churches might all be liable to be affected.

It is worth reminding ourselves—there has already been a passing reference to it—that the duration of works can extend to a whole day. As I understand it, any extension granted would have effect until 1 April 2021, so this is not a temporary matter, and it is possible to conduct these extended operations seven days a week. That is why Amendment 55 is a reasonable and sensible obligation to place upon an applicant. It requires an assessment of impact on the community and plans for mitigation of any such effect. Here, to some extent, it echoes the position of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on the need for an assessment of the impact on the environment and conservation interests and plans to minimise disturbance. I venture to suggest that an obligation to produce an assessment is as much in the interests of the applicant as it is of the planning authority.

Amendment 57 seeks to extend the period of 14 days by agreement and therefore allows for proper consideration and, if necessary, co-operation between the planning authority and the applicant. It is clearly the case that if these matters could be resolved by co-operation, then that is much more likely to be an acceptable solution for the applicant, the authority and the citizens or institutions that might be affected.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 61 in my name. Indeed, in this group, there are nine amendments, Amendments 61, 62, 64, 68 to 70, 72, 76 and 77, which, in relation to Clauses 17, 18 and 19, all have the effect of moving the extension of planning permissions and listed building consent from three months to four months. I will not, at this late hour, repeat what I said at Second Reading and in rather more detail in Committee. All I want to say is that I very much appreciate that my noble friend the Minister took very seriously what I said in Committee.

We have had some extremely productive conversations on a practical level about what the construction industry’s difficulties might be with the delays in the pipeline. In pursuance of those conversations, I tabled these amendments in the hope that the Minister will tell the House that he is able to accept them. Were he to do so in response to the debate, when the time comes, I will formally move those amendments in my name.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I propose to speak only to Amendment 56, tabled by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and to which I have added my name. It is approximately seven hours since this stage of proceedings began. Throughout, I have been reminded endlessly of two lines of a poem by Robert Frost:

“But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep.”

However, noble Lords should not be apprehensive, because I hope only to make some comments in addition to those of my noble friend, to underline what I believe is the very strong case for this amendment.

At Second Reading and again in Committee, I raised the question of the impact on amenity of extending construction hours. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, will forgive me if I say that I have been a little disappointed in the responses, both from him and his noble friend the Minister who has dealt with other parts of the Bill. It is worth reminding ourselves that an extension could go on until 1 April 2021, could be seven days a week and could extend to a whole day. It does not take much to realise that there is considerable potential for impact on the amenity of households, churches, hotels, hospitals and care homes.

It is helpful to ask why planning authorities imposed conditions for working hours. As my noble friend has already indicated, the purpose is to provide a balance, and part of that balance is the protection of amenity. In every instance, an authority will have been required to reach a judgment about how that balance should be constructed. It seems to me that it follows logically that any increase in hours will tilt that balance against amenity and in favour of the applicant.

The difficulty with what we are considering is that we do not know to what extent that may occur on any one of the occasions in which an extension is sought. That is why I believe it is a matter of necessity to require applicants to produce an impact study to the planning authority, together with plans for mitigation. I believe it can reasonably be argued that that is in the interests of both the planning authority and the applicant. First of all, the planning authority is working against a very tight timetable, and, so far as the applicant is concerned, it is obviously in their interest that as much information as possible can be provided to the planning authority. I believe therefore that an impact study is a necessity.

Indeed, I go further than that: the decision of the planning authority is an administrative one, and any administrative decision of this kind could be subject to judicial review. It would be much easier to resist any such application for judicial review if it could be demonstrated that the applicant had produced the impact assessment to which I have referred and that the planning authority had taken it into its considerations.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have withdrawn from the list. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.