Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 31st January 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. The account that we heard from the noble Baroness at Second Reading was pretty shocking. It seemed to be a failure of process but also of principle. The case she told us about then, and again today, seemed to contradict the basic assumptions on which neighbourhood planning is based. After the degree of detail that we went into when it was first proposed in this House and the expectations that were raised, it also raised issues about the nature of localism and its credibility—not only at a local level; I think it actually contradicts the core principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

When you look at those core principles—of course, a neighbourhood plan, like a local plan, has to subscribe to the NPPF—the NPPF says that the Government are committed to a plan-led system,

“empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area”.

Planning should,

“not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives”,

and it should,

“proactively drive and support sustainable economic development”,

to deliver business and employment. All that should indeed be contained in the neighbourhood plan, rather than having a plan that is driven simply by housing requirements, however important they are. We know they are important—in that part of rural Sussex they are really important. But it is very important indeed that the principles are upheld, that the coherence and richness of the plan are upheld, and that local people are involved. From everything the noble Baroness said at Second Reading, it appeared that much of that had not happened but had in fact been ignored.

One of my questions to the Minister is: to what extent do we think that the sort of example that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, gave is happening in other parts of the country? What evidence does the department have that these sorts of things are happening in other places? Some time ago I asked a Question in the House about the number of appeals that had been made on housing decisions. There is a common phrase in circulation: “We’re having our planning by appeal rather than by local plan”. I would be very interested if the department could look at the figures for the number of appeals that have been made and let the Committee know so that we have some sense of whether that is a phenomenon.

When you look at the amendment, a lot of it is absolutely what we already expect to happen. Of course, there is a massive issue about resourcing. I do not think the problem that was identified in the noble Baroness’s example was an issue of resourcing but resources drive the capacity of the local authority to stand up for the local plan where there is a local or neighbourhood issue. The loss of experienced planners and conservation officers—the people who defend the principles, whether environmental or regarding sustainability—is significant when it comes to making the case against the inspector.

No amendment is perfect and I am sure the noble Baroness will understand if I raise a couple of issues. I am concerned, and have been concerned for a long time, that the definition of sustainability in the NPPF is not particularly strong. Therefore, it makes it relatively easy for forms of development to be pushed ahead outside the notions of sustainability. The role of the inspector and the planning authority is to get the balance right and to ensure that everybody makes the right judgment. Of course, that involves making the right judgment about the balance of housing, infrastructure and everything else. But I am slightly worried about the phrase,

“except in exceptional circumstances of national importance”,

because you can always make that case, especially in terms of housing. Is there a way of strengthening the local capacity to hold to its neighbourhood plan irrespective of such claims? I just put that into the debate.

The other point I want to make is about informing the local community. It should not need to be said because it is so fundamental to the whole democratic foundation of a neighbourhood plan, but I understand that in the case which we cannot discuss there was a considerable lack of information at the relevant stages and a positive exclusion, as it were. In that respect, if we are going to be consistent and logical, and if we believe in neighbourhood plans and want to make them work, the final subsection of the proposed new clause, which states that any agreed additional housing has to be decided by the local community, seems in all logic to be the beginning and the end of the conversation that a community would have about its neighbourhood plan and where it wanted new housing put—as well as about what sort of housing for what sort of community it had in mind.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I should remind the Committee at the outset that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want briefly to express my support for the objectives set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her amendment, which provides a foundation for and gives a clear sense of direction to the Bill. The crucial word of course is “duty” in that the amendment seeks to place in the Bill a duty on the Secretary of State to undertake certain actions, one of which is to uphold neighbourhood development plans and not simply to think that such a plan can actually be overwritten because a planning inspector or the local planning authority suddenly feels that the neighbourhood plan is out of date or may no longer apply. This is important because if the duty does not exist, it means that local people cannot have confidence in the fact that the neighbourhood plan they have produced will actually stand the test of time. The second duty on the Secretary of State would be to ensure that local planning authorities had sufficient resources to enable them to own, implement and defend—a very important word—neighbourhood development plans.

This amendment is important and I hope that discussions may be held prior to the Report stage at which the Minister might give us some indication of what the Government are prepared to do to give greater force than is provided by the Bill to the development of neighbourhood plans which can stand the test of time. One problem we have had to date is that local planning authorities have not been as supportive as perhaps they ought to be, and as I said at Second Reading, there has been a problem about the creation of a five-year land supply. A neighbourhood plan, where it has been adopted in advance of the local plan being agreed, then finds itself under pressure which may, in the view of the Secretary of State, lead to it having to be revised.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has said many wise things, one of which was to express her concern about poor-quality development in defiance of good planning principles. This Bill is about building communities, not just building houses. The noble Baroness reminded us of how the roles are confused between the Secretary of State, and through the Secretary of State the Planning Inspectorate, the local planning authority and the neighbourhood plan. This needs to be sorted out and I hope very much that the Minister will be agreeable to trying to find a way to do so that gives even greater weight to the statutory importance of neighbourhood plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews]

This point is very similar to the one my noble friend just made. It is very welcome that the Minister is prepared to talk along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It is worth a conversation. The amendment strikes a balance between elevating the principle of local neighbourhood planning and reinforcing it; it does not take away the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene except in exceptional circumstances. I raised that point. There are other ways of reinforcing the importance and integrity of neighbourhood planning. Since the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework is still in play, will it be possible to reinforce the importance of the plan and the nature of exceptional circumstances in the National Planning Policy Framework while it is being reconsidered?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, in response to the points made to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, it is right that the National Planning Policy Framework is still in play. I certainly do not rule out looking at issues such as this. I am addressing the amendment and saying that we certainly cannot accept it as it stands. I think I have made that point clear. I am very happy to look at the centrality of the neighbourhood development plan to see what we can do to consolidate it. It is indeed central to the process, but I will not concede the importance of a role for the Secretary of State in exceptional circumstances. I am very happy to take away the points made and look at them in the context of the general issue raised by the amendment.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 2nd February 2017 Grand Committee

This is having a very serious effect. I know it is not the case in all parts of the country—our debate on the then Housing and Planning Bill was replied to by the former leader of Trafford Council in Greater Manchester, and she said that the conversion from office to residential was having a beneficial effect in that part of the world. That is good and I welcome it, but surely we should recognise that different places have different requirements. We used to call it localism, but I think that that is no longer the buzzword. Is it not common sense that local authorities should have the power to determine what is necessary in their area? If conversion of redundant offices to residential use is desirable—I would say, with sufficient safeguards to ensure that it is the right sort of residential development, which ought to apply everywhere—it must be a good thing, but in outer London, generally in London and in other cities, it is having a devastating effect and really should not be allowed to continue. That is why I am happy to support either or both of these amendments.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments and thank noble Lords for what they have said because, although I thought this was a serious issue, I was unable to take part in debates on the then Housing and Planning Bill. It is clearly very important. Permitted development is a useful tool when used proportionately. It has been able to free extra capacity to build housing, in many cases, very appropriately. When the National Policy for the Built Environment Select Committee was doing its Building Better Places report, this came up as a formidable problem. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has described it. It is to do with the scale and the concentration in particular areas. I will be very grateful if the Minister has any figures that show how much conversion of office space to residential there has been and a geographical breakdown that shows some notion of the scale. We are getting housing development outside the normal planning provisions. Once that happens, essentially none of the planning rules applies. One of the things that exercised the committee was that the casual conversion of office space to residential space was compromised because of the absence of space standards and, I think, normal building regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister will state the official position on the lack of acceptable agreed building standards in buildings that are being converted.

There are two social impacts of casual conversion. One is on the nature of the living accommodation that is being created in this era of desperate demand for housing. What sorts of lives are people living? The other impact is that with 28% more housing instead of office space, the demand on services is quite different. Therefore paragraphs (a) to (c) of the proposed new clause are extremely important. Does the department have any assessment of this? Has it done any work on the impacts that can be measured? What is the Minister’s judgment about that? We need more information and to know more about what the department and local authorities know about the way this is working.

Amendment 44 raises an important principle. The point about planning changes is that single changes are manageable and have a useful, and often positive, effect, but cumulative change can be very different. Cumulative change is what the noble Lord, Lord Porter, raises in his amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, represented him very well and spoke about development rights and the impact on sustainability overall. The only analogy I can make—and I hope it would be contained in Amendment 44—is with conservation areas. In conservation areas, you have permitted development rights. You may be able to advise individual householders to put in wooden windows rather than plastic windows or not to put a porch over the front door, but after a while control and discipline slip and the character of the conservation area can be completely compromised. One has to be extremely careful about the nature of the slope when one embarks on permitted development rights. The notion of cumulative impact is very important.

I do not know whether there is anywhere in planning law the concept of a cumulative impact which could inform the way this amendment could be very usefully attached. If there is, there is something to be gained from thinking intelligently about how Amendment 44 might be pursued. It is obvious that local authorities ought to have more control over what happens in the exercise of permitted development rights, and this is very timely because we have now had five or six years of accelerated deregulation, of which permitted development rights are probably the most conspicuous aspect. It is time that we step back and look at the impact of that in relation to local authority competence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the amendments in this group. Before I respond to some of the specific points that have been made on the two amendments, let me say a little about permitted development generally.

Permitted development rights have long been a part of the planning system and have been recognised as a beneficial way of simplifying the need to secure planning permission. The current permitted development rights for England are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and provide flexibility, certainty and reduce planning bureaucracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked about the number of additional homes that have been delivered by permitted development rights. I am particularly proud that development rights in the latest year for which we have figures, 2015-16, delivered an additional 13,800 homes. We are looking to see if we have a geographic breakdown of that, and I will certainly pick up on it.

[Baroness Andrews]

Are those 13,000 homes generated by the conversion of offices?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I believe that this is all permitted development rights conversion to residential.

[Baroness Andrews]

It would be useful to have a breakdown of the number generated by the conversion of offices.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I suspect that that forms the bulk of them but I shall endeavour to get that information.

Permitted development rights are making a real difference in providing homes in town centres, rural areas and brownfield sites, supporting our housing delivery ambition. We should welcome that permitted development rights provide that opportunity.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for Amendment 14, which seeks to prescribe those matters which must be considered by the local authority as part of the prior approval process in any future permitted development rights that allow change of use to residential. When new permitted development rights are designed we work to ensure that any matters that we think require the consideration of the local planning authority are included in the prior approval contained within that right. Certain criteria have to be considered in this prior approval process for the change from office to residential, and these include some of the matters contained in the proposed amendment.

Four matters that have to be considered on office-to-residential prior approvals are: transport and highways impacts of the development; contamination on the site; flooding risks on the site; and the impact of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development when it shifts, as is proposed, to residential. So they are tailored to consider those specific points. We recognise that in all cases of change of use to residential, the prior approvals that are set out are important. However, this is not necessarily true of all the other proposed prior approvals in the amendment.

The current approach to permitted development certainly simplifies matters—it cuts out some of the bureaucracy and helps in relation to costs for the applicant and the local authority. Amendment 44 covers some of the same territory but is wider. It was tabled initially by the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, who is not in his place, but was ably spoken to by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and supported by other noble Lords. In the Government’s view the proposal is far too wide. There will be exceptional circumstances where a national permitted development right is not appropriate in a particular location. This is why an effective process to allow local planning authorities to remove permitted development rights already exists. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to this and said that it had made a difference. To be fair, he said that he had hoped it would have gone further but that it has made a difference. As noble Lords will acknowledge, this is true in some of the areas that are hardest hit.

I have been listening carefully. There are issues relating to change from office to residential which have had an impact in some communities on the availability of commercial premises. That is undoubtedly true. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke of his personal experience and made reference to the experience of my noble friend Lord True, who is not in his place, who raised this issue in relation to Richmond.

Article 4 provides part of the answer but obviously fairness demands that those affected are given an opportunity to be heard, that they are given notice and that they are compensated where necessary. However, I am pleased to offer the reassurance that the Article 4 process gives planning authorities the flexibility to withdraw rights in exceptional circumstances, while ensuring the fair treatment of those affected if they are not able to pursue the development. I accept that there is a concern more generally about these issues, and although I believe that these amendments—in particular Amendment 44—go far too far in requiring consideration across the board without being properly targeted, I acknowledge that there is an issue that should be looked at. That point was well made. However, as I said, these amendments go far too far.

I am not sure about the point that was raised concerning cumulative impact, and I suspect that that will be very difficult to define. I do not think it is recognised in planning law but I will investigate that. I think that challenges of cumulative impact would arise depending on how large the area was and so on, but I do not think that it would be easy to tackle.

I would like to reflect on what has been said in Committee today and, without prejudice to the outcome, to go away and perhaps speak to other noble Lords who cannot be here, such as my noble friends Lord Porter and Lord True, as well as others. I shall be very happy to have an open door to discuss this matter but, in the meantime, and with the reassurance that I have given, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Andrews]

17A: Clause 6, after paragraph (e) insert—
“(f) the education, health and well-being needs of the population.”

[Baroness Andrews]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baronesses, perhaps I can speak to the amendment. This is completely spontaneous, but I feel quite strongly about it. The issue is one that surfaced very conspicuously in the Select Committee on the Built Environment; that is, the absolute necessity of planning places that essentially support and nurture the health and well-being of the whole community. Plans must explicitly include designs for such spaces, rather than spaces that, at their very worst, encourage criminal activity because they are small and narrow and do not allow for sufficient activity. It is very interesting that Milton Keynes, in its 50th year, has been praised for the quality of its environment and its particular ability to promote well-being through its green spaces. We can all agree that education and health are part of the fundamental infrastructure of our communities. Good schools, good health services and good health opportunities are part of what makes a community successful. I will leave it at that. The amendment deserves a longer debate, but in the absence of the noble Baronesses, I want to put my comments on the record.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Amendment 19, which lies in this group and derives from a lengthy debate in the other place. It seems extremely important to address specifically the housing needs that result from old age or disability, so I hope that the amendment will secure support. Regarding the other amendments in this group, a number of these issues are very important and will be debated elsewhere in our consideration of the Bill in Committee. But some of them will also depend on what is actually said in the housing White Paper, which will be published at the beginning of next week. In that sense, we have to reserve our positions with a view to waiting for Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews]

I would quite like to speak to the other amendments, if I may, and welcome the Minister in the name of my noble friend. What we are looking at in these amendments is something rather more radical than somebody tacking on to the development plans some fundamental issues such as housing affordability and so on. It invites us to revisit the local development plans. The point about the elements that have been identified, including flood protection, which is more and more of an issue, is that they are exactly the elements that should inform and drive the shape of the local development plan. They are not accidental outcomes—they should be shaping the quality and priorities and the relationship between the local development plan and the local economic plan, led by the LEP. So those additions, as identified, would give us a better opportunity to imagine the sort of communities that we want and give us proper inputs to create a more robust as well as more creative local development plan, which at the moment is very remote from most people. So the only people who tend to get involved in this protracted and complicated process tend to be those who already know the process and have something specific that they want to say.

I turn to Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to say how much I welcome it and say a few more things, if the Committee will bear with me. This is a really important step forward, but I have some concerns about it, which I want to raise with the Minister. I may be wrong, and I would be happy to be corrected, but this is the first time when the challenges of ageing in terms of housing needs for elderly and disabled people have been recognised in primary legislation. Many of us have been working to that end for quite some years, and seeing it in this Bill is extremely welcome. I look forward very much to following it through with the noble Lord. I would be interested to know why it is felt to be the right move at this time.

My concern is whether it will meet the challenges of an ageing society. I am anticipating much of what the Minister may say, I suspect, but my caveats start here. One of the most predictable things in policy-making is demography; we have known about the demography of the ageing society for 30 or 40 years and known about the impacts. What we have done essentially is to fail to plan for it, because it is in the “too difficult” box—and now it has caught up with us and it is pretty monstrous. We were told in evidence to our Select Committee on the National Policy for the Built Environment that in 20 years’ time, by 2037,

“the number aged between 70 and 80 will grow from 4.5 million to 7.5 million”.

That is another 3 million elderly people. This winter we have seen just in the past three or four months the impact of winter on A&E and the health service in general, and it is clear to me and to many others that we have a model for funding and organisation of the health service that is unsustainable.

The resources that we have, and the conversations that must lead to action, are the ones for housing. What we are debating here is essentially not about housing but about the front line of the health service, and how and where and under what conditions elderly and disabled people live is becoming a prime order question for healthcare and social care policy and not just about finding a housing solution. In another context, we know that 60% of total household growth in England up to 2033 is expected to come from households headed by someone aged 65 or over, and many of them will have disabilities that come with age. Most people want to age in place and live and die at home—and that is part of the responsibility of government. Only 2% of the country’s housing stock is in retirement housing.

In addition, the amendment reflects the responsibility that the Government feel that they have to provide for children, as well as adults with disability; it recognises those needs. But it is really beyond time. We were told in our Select Committee—I keep quoting it; I am conscious of that—that,

“only 4% of the current housing stock met basic accessibility criteria”.

That is a shockingly low figure.

In the context of the amendment and what I have just said, does the guidance recognise that changes are required not only in the amount of specific and specialised accommodation across the range of healthcare and housing needs for elderly people, but also in relation to the need to plan for the housing of elderly people as a whole in housing supply policy? I would argue that we are not providing niche market housing. We should be planning as a whole for an elderly and ageing society. That is the only way to build in foresight and anticipate the needs of the future, and it is the only way to create a national housing policy.

Can the Minister therefore ensure that the guidance that he is planning will make explicit the economic and social argument across health and social care? Local authorities have to know that this is an urgent need, but that it would also help them to hit their other policy objectives. They need to know that it is not only economically efficient but also socially efficient, in terms of health and social care. Frankly, if I were in charge of all this, I would prioritise the handyman services, so that you could get the adaptations—in the homes that need them—that keep people out of hospital or get them home more safely and quickly.

Will he also recommend—and this is in the guidance—that all new homes are built to lifetime home standards, so that everyone has the chance to stay where they are? We were working, in 2008, towards a mandatory standard. I understand the political changes that have driven a more deregulatory agenda, but we now have optional standards. However, since 2004 places such as London have adopted a universal lifetime home standard that has been extremely successful. It is compulsory and has led to a significant increase in provision, and there seems to be no evidence that it is a deterrent because of extra costs.

My second set of questions—I will try to be brief—is also about the context of this amendment. In relation to the NPPF and local development and neighbourhood plans, I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse. Although the cart is very welcome, I would like to see the horse involved. My fundamental question is whether we can count on this planning guidance to achieve the changes that we need in what local authorities are going to plan for and secure. Current planning policy requires authorities to plan for housing for older people. McCarthy and Stone—with which the Minister will be familiar, and one of the biggest builders of retirement housing in the country—told a CLG Select Committee on housing in 2014 that 65% of planning applications for buildings for older people are rejected first time round by councils, and went on to say that measures around the need for local authorities to plan for demographic change were neither clear enough nor likely to be powerfully enforced in their current form.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Best, is not in his place because he has been a great inspiration behind this. We put forward a recommendation by the All-Party Group on Housing and Care some time ago—I think it would be welcomed by local authorities and providers—that the NPPF itself be strengthened and made clearer in relation to planning for an ageing society. That would be wise, because the references in the NPPF are rather vague and insubstantial. It says, in paragraphs 50 and 159, that local planning authorities should,

“plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes)”.

I do not think that that is enough in the light of what we are facing and need to do. The Minister has an opportunity to do it because the NPPF is under review. Can he tell us whether the issue has surfaced in the review and the consultations; whether the DCLG is looking at strengthening those sections of the NPPF; and, if not, whether he will commit to looking at how it might be done? There will be no better opportunity.

I have a final comment on the next stage, the local development plan. In relation to the earlier amendments and the identification of things that might go into local development plans, which I support, the point is that this is guidance. It would be entirely logical for it to be in the development plan, so that the guidance had some attachments to it: for example, to set ambitions for lifetime homes. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me, with his officials, to talk about whether this is a possibility and how it might be done?

Turning to the guidance, I have some specific questions. Can the Minister give me some examples of the tone and nature of the guidance, and the degree of detail that we might expect? For example, would he include guidance on how best local authorities might assess our present and future needs, and the range of those needs? Will there be a specific requirement to plan within the housing supply targets at local and neighbourhood level? Will there be specific guidance on how to assess the financial viability of, and benefits from, investments in lifetime homes standards? Where will local authorities go to get the best advice? Will there be advice on how best to link planning with social care and health, and achieve genuine collaboration on setting targets? What provision will there be for consultation with older people about getting a home that they say is the right size for them—usually a smaller home—since “right sizing” is a better term than “downsizing”? Will the Minister ensure that the guidance goes to those dealing with both local and neighbourhood planning? And how will he ensure that this guidance is followed and implemented, which is the only question that really counts? Will he take advice from agencies such as Age Concern, as well as from Habinteg, FirstStop, Berkeley homes and McCarthy & Stone? There are lots of people who know about how to deliver this properly.

I have gone on quite long enough and I think that the Minister will get the message. I look forward very much to seeing the guidance, and I wonder when we will have it. I presume that in the housing White Paper, which we are looking forward to so much and on which the Minister has already given many hostages to fortune, we will have something on this as well.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I too want to speak in support of Amendment 19, which I welcome enthusiastically for two reasons. First, I believe that it signals important progress for the Government to propose their own amendment specifying that the Secretary of State must issue guidance which requires local planning authorities to,

“address housing needs that result from old age or disability”.

This is surely common sense. On the one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has already argued very persuasively, demographics show that we are an increasingly ageing society. On the other hand, thanks to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and subsequent disability rights legislation passed by your Lordships’ House, disabled people increasingly, and rightly, want and expect to be able to live independently. The supply of more accessible housing is essential to them realising that goal.

Therefore, it makes sense to plan for the future now, in the present. This amendment simply reflects that reality. However, in my view, it does more than that, which is my second reason for welcoming it. It also has real symbolic—even radical, as the noble Baroness said—significance because it underlines the importance of inclusion not just on paper but in practice and, crucially, on an anticipatory basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this group of amendments. Before I turn to non-government Amendments 17 and 17A, perhaps I may highlight some important issues which deliver clear social and environmental benefits. They are important matters that should be addressed through a plan-led system.

Clause 6 puts beyond doubt the Government’s commitment to a plan-led system: a system where all local planning authorities have development plan documents in place to ensure that sufficient land is allocated for housing in the right places to meet needs, with roads and other vital amenities required by communities. At Second Reading, several Peers raised the frustration that many communities face when their local planning authority has not put its own local plan in place, or the policies in the plan are out of date. The Bill makes clear the Government’s expectation that all local planning authorities must have up-to-date plans to deal with those issues.

However, as my honourable friend Gavin Barwell, the Minister for Housing and Planning, outlined during discussion in the other place, as long as authorities have policies to address their strategic housing and other priorities, we want them to have more freedom in the type of plan that is most appropriate for their area. The Government have put local and neighbourhood plans at the heart of the planning system. We put local authorities and communities at the forefront of shaping a vision for their areas and deciding how to meet their development needs. The existing regime reflects the understanding that local planning authorities, together with local communities, are best placed to set out future development for their local area.

I turn to non-government Amendments 17 and 17A. As the Minister for Housing and Planning stated in the other place, we need to guard against attempts to duplicate matters which are already addressed in national planning policy. Perhaps I may also address a couple of slightly extraneous points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I assure him that we are certainly not following any of President Trump’s policies. On climate change, which was specifically raised, although it is not central to this legislation, I reassure him that there is a very strong bipartisan approach which I pursued with the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. We fulfilled our international commitments by signing the climate change treaty—I know because I was there—and very much follow the policy set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, passed by the then Labour Government, of setting carbon budgets.

I move now to the specific points addressed in these amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for moving Amendment 17A on behalf of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Watkins, who I know feel strongly about these issues, and enabling it to be part of the debate.

The matters addressed in these amendments relate to affordable and social housing, energy, flooding, air quality, green spaces, education, health and well-being. All are clearly addressed through the National Planning Policy Framework. I do not propose to read out all the parts of the framework that cover each issue. However, for example, paragraphs 99 to 104 of the framework require local authorities to shape and direct development to protect people and property from flooding, including through strategic flood risk assessments. Furthermore, paragraphs 120 to 124 require local authorities to safeguard people from unacceptable pollution risks; paragraphs 73 to 74 and 76 to 77 deal with the need for local authorities to provide green spaces and public leisure areas; and paragraphs 69 to 78 set out how local authorities should use the planning system to create healthy, inclusive communities. Noble Lords will be aware that legislation already protects land registered as common land areas.

Local authorities are already required by law to have regard to national planning policy and guidance when preparing their local plans. At examination, the extent to which a draft plan accords with national planning policy is one of the matters that the examining planning inspector will check. The planning regime is already set up to ensure that local authorities have regard to such important matters as those raised in this amendment.

There is no doubt about the importance of the issues raised, all of which help to create attractive and sustainable places. However, specifying them afresh in the Bill would lead to unnecessary duplication and prescription. I therefore do not believe that Amendments 17 and 17A are necessary. They would also limit the freedom for local authorities to choose the type of plan that is appropriate for their area, contrary to the intention of Clause 6.

I turn to Amendment 18, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I fully recognise the importance of ensuring not only that housing is delivered but that the appropriate number of dwellings for an area is agreed at a local level. As noble Lords will be aware, housing is a key priority of the Government and we are clear that we must build more of the right homes, in the right places. To achieve this, it is essential that local planning authorities have an up-to-date plan in place which identifies, as far as possible, the housing needs of their local area. This provides the certainty communities deserve as to the number and location of new homes that will be built.

The very same concerns I expressed on the previous amendments apply here. This issue is addressed more than adequately in paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Local planning authorities must identify and plan to meet, as far as possible, the market and affordable housing needs of their area. Failure to include this information in a local plan may lead to the plan being found to be unsound at inspection stage. We are clear that local communities must be consulted during the plan-making process, in accordance with both legislative requirements and the local authority’s statement of community involvement. Additionally, neighbourhood plans offer a further opportunity for local communities to become involved in planning for the development needs of their area. Alongside this, the Bill includes further measures to ensure that communities are involved from the outset in wider plan-making activity in their area.

In short, I understand the concern that some local planning authorities currently have no local plan, while others do not have up-to-date plans in place. This has a negative impact on the allocation of development sites. However, measures introduced in the Bill will ensure that, in the future, plans are put in place more quickly. Clause 6 will ensure that local planning authorities set out their strategic priorities, including housing.

On government Amendment 19, I thank noble Lords for their warm welcome of this provision. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, I, too, believe that this is the first time that it has been recognised in this way in legislation. To echo what my noble friend Lord Shinkwin said, it is of great symbolic importance as well as practical effect. It sends out a powerful message, just as the Disability Discrimination Act did in 1995. I am proud of the role of my party and other parties in securing that legislation.

The important issue of the housing needs of older and disabled people was raised in the other place, particularly through my honourable friend Heidi Allen. I appreciate that the devil will be in some of the detail and we would not expect all the detail to be in the legislation, but I am certainly happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—she is not in her place, but she has been very interested in this legislation and has vast experience through Age Concern—and other noble Lords to see how we can take this forward in a meaningful way. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, will also have a valuable contribution to make. It is important that we secure sensible legislation and sensible policy moving forward, as I am sure we can.

I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that there is provision for this in the National Planning Policy Framework, which we will look at. Also—another hostage to fortune—I think that there will be something in the White Paper to enable us to discuss it more fully. I am keen to ensure that, having made this commitment, we get it right. We have to deal with many challenges. Indeed, it is part of the wider issue across government of health and social care. The impact of an ageing population affects probably every government department that you can think of—it applies to DCMS, the Department for Education and other areas—so there is something to be done across government, which I hope we can take on board as well. As a bonus, the aim is to do something for this part of the community. It is important that we do that but it should have the effect of freeing up some housing that this group is in. That, too, is to be welcomed. As I say, I thank noble Lords for their welcome of the amendment.

More specifically, there is already a structure in place that recognises these needs. We have mechanisms through local authorities, the National Planning Policy Framework and building regulations. We need to build on those. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns that have been expressed by many Members in the Commons and the Lords, across parties, about these issues.

Understandably, specific questions were raised. I will try to pick up some of those details in responding by letter. I hope that I have given a broad view of where we are going, but I am, as I say, happy to engage with noble Lords on the more detailed approach as we take the policy forward. With that, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Andrews]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 17A.

Amendment 17A (as an amendment to Amendment 17) withdrawn.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I have serious concerns about Clause 12, particularly about subsections (2), (5) and (6) in new Section 100ZA on pages 10 and 11. The Government are going to have to rethink this very carefully because, as it stands, Clause 12 will cause more problems than it solves. We have heard many reasons for this, but I will go further. What discussions have been held with the Royal Town Planning Institute? I ask the Minister that because it has sent a briefing on the Bill which states, broadly speaking, that there are advantages to pre-commencement planning conditions:

“These have certain advantages to applicants who may not be in a position to finalise details of a scheme but wish to secure a planning permission as soon as possible. They have advantages to local authorities because councils may have in practice limited legal ability to enforce conditions once a scheme is underway. Conditions are useful to the development industry in general because they enable schemes to be permitted which otherwise might have to be refused”.


If they were refused it would take longer and, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, you may get faster and better planning decisions as a consequence of having pre-commencement conditions. Refusal of planning permission should, in general, be avoided because of all the complexities which are then introduced.

In telling the Committee what discussions the Government have had with the Royal Town Planning Institute, will the Minister explain what consideration they have given to the 15th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which was written substantially on the subject of Clause 12? It points out that,

“the national policy framework confirms that planning conditions should only be imposed where they meet six tests. They must be: necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise and reasonable in all other respects”.

So that already exists within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Paragraph 12 of the DPRRC report states that,

“the Government want to take this power because ‘there is evidence that some local planning authorities are imposing unnecessary and inappropriate planning conditions which do not meet the tests in national policy, resulting in delays to the delivery of new development’”.

There may well be such examples. If they do not meet the six tests, there is already a legal statutory requirement to demonstrate that the six tests are applied. But in paragraph 26 of the report, the DPRRC asked for,

“specific examples of pre-commencement conditions to help us understand the effect of subsection (5)”—

which my noble friend Lady Parminter talked about—because:

“None appeared to be included in the explanatory material accompanying the Bill”.


The committee had to ask the DCLG to provide a list of,

“details that developers have had to provide to local planning authorities before building works could begin”.

There are nine things on that list. With my long experience in local government, I can see a very good case for all nine of them. I will come back to this, with some practical examples of what goes wrong if you do not have pre-commencement planning conditions. But when I read that,

“installation of superfast broadband infrastructure”,

is not deemed to be required as a pre-commencement condition, I think this is wrong. We ought to have agreement on superfast broadband infrastructure, since within the next few years every part of the country is going to have it.

I will say more about this issue when we debate whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but it seems to me that if that is the extent of the problem, the things listed are not in themselves significant problems. I am really starting to think that Clause 12 is not a good clause. We will look at this further on Report, but at present I have to say that this clause will cause more problems than it solves.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his masterly demolition of Clause 12. My first point concerns the notion of relevance. Clearly, the committee really struggled with notions of relevance and found itself quoting, in paragraph 13, the memorandum, which illustrated,

“examples of the types of condition that the proposed power would prohibit. They include: ‘those which may unreasonably impact on the deliverability of a development, those which place unjustifiable and disproportionate financial burdens on an applicant, or those which duplicate requirements to comply with other statutory regimes’”.

That could probably cover every single impact of every aspect of development. These are vague and general in the extreme, so no wonder the important conclusion of the committee was that it would be,

“inappropriate for the Government to be given a power which could be used to go well beyond the stated aims of the Bill”.

Were these regulations to be enacted, the committee recommended that,

“the affirmative procedure should apply to the exercise of the powers”.

Do the Government agree that if this clause stands, the affirmative procedure will indeed be adopted?

The Delegated Powers Committee, on which I had the honour to serve for many years, does not make such recommendations lightly. This is a very serious indictment and a very serious conclusion. Do the Government intend to accept that the affirmative procedure should apply in this case?

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I find these amendments very important and significant. If we are going to tackle the issue of regulation, it is terribly important that we get it right and that we tackle the real problems, not just theoretical problems or those identified by people who are discussing the issues at a rather remote level.

Let me be very direct: I live five miles outside Cockermouth, in the Lorton Valley. There is a tremendous debate going on at the moment about development in Cockermouth. It is not about whether the houses being built are liable to flooding; that is an issue, but it does not seem that they will be. However, people who have suffered terrible flooding experiences more than once in recent years now say that there is a risk that what is being done will contribute to the flooding of other people’s homes, because the drainage arrangements necessary for the number of houses being built are inadequate. This is a real issue and in our approach to it, we need to be careful and the Government need to take the points raised in these amendments seriously. This is affecting people now, and there is real anxiety. That anxiety is accentuated because in Cockermouth and the surrounding area, people are not convinced that the arrangements being made will prevent the repetition of flooding in future years. A great building programme is going ahead before the people directly affected have been assured that arrangements are in hand to meet the challenges that have arisen.

The issues raised this afternoon are crucial. I hope the Government will think hard about whether the clause is necessary and, if they are determined to go ahead with it, ensure that it meets the real issues that are affecting real people in real situations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Andrews]

59: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
“Compulsory acquisition: payments from charitable trusts involved in conservation
In a case where—(a) a local planning authority has the power to compulsorily acquire a listed building or a building in a conservation area; and (b) a charitable trust whose objectives include the conservation of such property has given an obligation by deed to the local authority to pay to the local planning authority the costs of such acquisition;the planning authority must exercise its powers to compulsorily acquire the relevant building.”

[Baroness Andrews]

My Lords, I declare an interest as deputy chair of the National Heritage Lottery Fund and chair of the Heritage Lottery Committee for Wales. We live in a time when every national and local asset needs to work for its living. Across the United Kingdom there are abandoned, and often derelict, properties, many of high heritage value and well loved by the community, that could be providing much-needed homes and spaces for businesses and enterprise and injecting new economic activity into communities. In other words, the amendment is a step towards enhancing the means by which these liabilities can be turned into assets. I am grateful for the help I have received from the Heritage of London Trust Operations, Diana Beattie and Colin John, and Ian Morrison of the Architectural Heritage Fund. They have much fine work to their credit.

What opportunity is this amendment seeking to create? Many of the buildings I am talking about are already on the Historic England buildings “at risk” register. They range from rare surviving industrial buildings such as mills or colliery buildings to historic theatres, cinemas, schools, piers, magnificent town halls, hospitals and domestic buildings such as a concrete house in Lordship Lane. Buildings such as these have been at the heart of communities. They occupy a very important, familiar and well-loved place. When they are abandoned, the cost of saving them and putting them to use rises exponentially and they deteriorate fast. Owners cannot be traced and local authorities find it impossible to acquire them. Year after year they look worse and become more dangerous, and the community feels their loss even more acutely.

This problem has been in the “too difficult” box for too long. It is no exaggeration to say that when these buildings come back into life, they galvanise the entire area: they can act as a catalyst and a confidence builder. I think particularly of Middleport Pottery in Stoke, the last surviving example of a pottery using the transfer method. After a long struggle by the Prince’s Regeneration Trust and English Heritage to keep it alive, it is now bringing in apprentices and its order books are full.

The amendment, which to my knowledge is the first of its kind to be proposed in primary legislation, is designed to tackle this problem. It confronts the fact that both the country’s heritage and its economic performance are, as the Architectural Heritage Fund puts it,

“suffering from an embedded culture of impunity for private property owners who are not upholding their responsibilities”.

At the moment, the system colludes with both negligent property owners and risk-averse local authorities. Owners are sitting on their property waiting for land values to increase and for the degree of deterioration which, in many cases, justifies demolition. Some of these owners cannot afford to put the building right; some refuse to do anything and they disappear. There are many ways in which a recalcitrant owner can resist a CPO. Some owners fail to respond and disappear. They are particularly threatened by any attempt by a community organisation to engage with them. That is frustrating, since to win a CPO case the public body has to be able to show that it has tried and failed to resolve the future of the property by negotiation with the owner. But the owner may be in a tax haven overseas and the property in the hands of a nominee. Alternatively, the owner may launch a series of frivolous appeals or put forward new and ludicrous planning proposals. He can try to block a CPO by claiming that he is about to start work—but the work is never begun, or sometimes it is started and then the owner just walks away.

The 2015 locality investigations under the Community Assets in Difficult Ownership project illustrate how easy it is for ownership to become a block on action. Local authorities have powers to act, of course, including compulsory purchase powers, but many feel that the process is simply too complex, too expensive and too slow. The costs are high because in addition to the compensation to be paid, the CPO may also have to be fought through the courts or at a lengthy public inquiry. There is every incentive for the owner to prolong the case. The risks arise from the possibility of the case being lost, the delays and the unpredictable costs; and sometimes by the time the CPO is confirmed, the other policy objectives which drove the process may have changed.

Another issue is that community organisations lack specialist knowledge and advice, which is a particular problem when what is needed is investment to establish the viability of a project in the first place, so it is all the more to the credit of organisations like the Heritage of London Trust, because when such bodies undertake a project like saving St. George’s Garrison Church, it is very hard work and a triumph when it is achieved. We have other outstanding local authorities like Great Yarmouth, which has made tremendous progress in bringing its buildings back to life.

The new clause is very simple and I commend it to the Minister. In effect, it means that where a charitable body that could be a buildings preservation trust or any form of charitable body, such as a community interest trust with conservation objectives, has given a deed of obligation to the local planning authority to pay the costs of acquisition, which are set by the district valuer, the local authority must exercise a CPO. The deed would be in effect a form of contract, even though I understand that it can be a unilateral undertaking such as those attached to planning applications. The costs of acquisition will involve all the transaction costs, thus removing any risks associated with taking over the building itself. In some cases of extreme negligence, the costs have been assessed as nil. Clearly, no sensible charity would enter into such an obligation without having the capacity to cover the costs, and a local authority will do its due diligence as well. Once the deed of obligation is in place, the local authority is then required to exercise the compulsory purchase order that will enable the conservation charity to acquire the building, which will then be restored and brought to life. Ultimately, the decision will rest with the Secretary of State, who will decide on the basis of the risks removed and the possibilities raised.

The amendment would achieve two things. It would first break the logjam of no one wanting to undertake any initiative because of the costs of acquisition. Secondly, it would provide a greater degree of certainty for community groups to enable them to undertake creative projects for the benefit of all. The amendment is carefully crafted and has been the subject of a great deal of legal advice and consultation with conservation and heritage bodies. It is also central to the principles of this Bill, and to localism as a political construct. It would free up resources for housing and enterprise and for vital community development at the heart of communities. It would serve our heritage in the best possible way by making it part of the future, and it comes with the moral backing of all the national heritage bodies.

The housing White Paper is imminent, and I will be amazed if there is no reference in it to this issue. We know the scale of the challenges facing the country, including those of Brexit, so this is a very timely and plausible proposition. I very much hope that the Minister agrees with me, and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, at this stage of our flight, the co-pilot takes over. After a very smooth passage with my noble friend at the controls, there may well be some turbulence. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. She chaired English Heritage for four years, so she has a proud record in the conservation world. I applaud the way she is carrying forward that commitment by tabling the amendment to insert a new clause. She is well qualified and well informed on this issue. As she said, listed buildings are an important part of our environment: they create a sense of identity in a locality and support local economies by attracting visitors. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, this offers the opportunity to provide housing in some restoration projects. I also commend the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the work done by him in his particular field.

We all support the objectives of the amendment, but there may be alternative routes to the common destination. The noble Baroness has been a CLG Minister herself, so she may feel some empathy for someone who, having listened to a popular and powerful case for a well-argued amendment, picks up the departmental brief which has at the top, “Resist”. I have two points of my own to make. Listening to the debate, I wondered if there had ever been a case where a charitable trust had done exactly what the noble Baroness had suggested—raised all the funds and then presented the local authority with an indemnity—and the local authority had refused to go ahead with a CPO. If there was such an example it would be relevant to the case that is being made.

My other thought was that, having sat patiently through the debate on this Bill, I have noticed a recurrent criticism that we are fettering the discretion of local authorities. We are accused of not trusting them, of passing primary legislation which makes them do things. The amendment does have the words “a planning authority must”. What is the view of the LGA, which is very well represented in the Committee? Does it welcome the discretion of its members being fettered in the way that the amendment seeks to do? Having said that, the noble Baroness was quite right to remind us that local authorities have the ability to compulsorily purchase listed buildings that are in need of repair. It is an important weapon in their armoury to protect our built heritage.

If one looks at the guidance provided by the Government, paragraph 16 of the compulsory purchase guidance notes states that it specifically provides for local authorities to consider requests from community groups—which could include heritage trusts—to use their compulsory purchase powers to acquire community assets that are in danger and, under the guidance, local authorities are required to consider such requests and to provide a formal and reasoned response.

In a sense, the onus is already on the local authorities to explain why—were they presented with the sort of offer that we have just heard—they feel they cannot accept it. It is also the case, as the noble Baroness said, that heritage trusts have access to grant funds and other sources of income to enable them to carry out the preservation of listed buildings and bring them back into use. What this amendment seeks to do is, in effect, to lock in a statutory embrace the heritage trusts on the one hand with the resources and the local authorities with the CPO powers on the other. I am slightly worried that this might undermine the collaborative approach which I think works quite well at the moment. As has already been said, the CPO power exists, but I am not convinced that the relationship between the local authority and the trust would be assisted if the local authority knew that the trust had this sanction behind it to compel it to do something.

On the point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, Historic England is working with local authorities and giving them advice and financial and technical support in many cases where listed buildings are falling into disrepair, enabling a satisfactory solution to be arrived at. That collaborative approach is the way forward. A good example, which if it were not 7.56 pm I would share with the Committee, is Hastings Pier which was restored in exactly the way that has been outlined.

The noble Baroness has commented that absentee owners are difficult to deal with or if the owners or reputed owners do not engage with the compulsory purchase process it can proceed without them, and the acquiring authority only has to make a reasonable attempt to find them. That attempt includes information in CPO notices simply displayed on site, as well as being sent to the last known address of the owners—then they can proceed.

So far as the trust is concerned, the cost of compulsory purchase is not always easy to assess. There could be court challenges and it could end up in the High Court. The defence of a legal challenge would fall to the trust and any failure of a trust to meet its responsibility to indemnify the local authority would put the trust’s future in jeopardy and the local authority would be liable for those costs.

In a nutshell, the Government are not convinced that the noble Baroness’s amendment to compel a local authority to proceed with a compulsory purchase would have a significant effect on the use of the CPO legislation. The current process provides a balanced approach, allowing local authorities and heritage trusts to enter into mutually acceptable arrangements. It encourages collaboration between local authorities and heritage trusts, and as I have said, that approach could be jeopardised if an element of compulsion were to be introduced.

I am happy to reflect on the dilemma which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, outlined about local authorities’ reluctance to take things forward. In the meantime, with the greatest respect, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Andrews]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I detect a sympathy beneath his detailed rebuttal. I am also very grateful to Members who supported the amendment. The points the Minister made are worth reading properly and I will go on to do some research in connection with the heritage bodies about the response of local authorities and the effectiveness of the guidance. There is an argument which says that advice and guidance are fine as far as they go, but what we are looking at here is case after case across the country of deep frustration, of failure of capacity and of fairly old resources. I take the point about an element of compulsion, but there comes a point in all forms of policy where something more draconian needs to be considered as part of a conversation about what the alternatives are, otherwise we will never move away from the sort of stasis that we have had over sometimes magnificent buildings but which are a blight and an eyesore when they could be so productive in the community. We will rise to the challenge and see whether we can come back. We may be back before Report with evidence, but in the event, I certainly withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I was whispering to her because the spirit was on me, and was saying, “Preach it, sister, preach it”, as she referred to a document as a bible.

Clause 13 concerns pre-commencement planning conditions. This is the most controversial aspect of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill as it attempts to ban pre-commencement planning conditions without the developers’ agreement. This has been done on the basis that such conditions slow the development process, but I remain concerned that it could lower environmental protection and other standards. This is at the heart of the Bill. Amendment 11 was very graciously withdrawn because it would have neutered the entire Bill. I do not know why Amendment 12 was not pressed as it goes in almost the same direction as Amendment 18, but be that as it is.

The change we are discussing shifts the balance of power towards the developer. I know that this is a very technical issue and that there are arguments on both sides. However, I support Amendment 18 because it seeks to give local authorities exemptions to the regulations framework, particularly in regard to conditions that ensure conformity with the national planning framework. The Government’s proposed arrangement in which local authorities can only refuse planning permission entirely may lead to some authorities compromising on important environmental regulations in order to get a development off the ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, eloquently explained Amendment 18, and was supported most eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. That amendment would ensure that regulations would not prevent a local planning authority imposing conditions on a grant of planning permission that are in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework. If we do not allow that subsidiarity in every local authority, I am afraid that we will lose some of the best planning regulations. Therefore, I support this amendment because what it seeks to do is in keeping with the National Planning Policy Framework. It simply says that these regulations will not prevent local planning authorities imposing conditions on developers which they consider necessary in the interests of the environment, the development and sustainability. Therefore, as I say, I support the amendment too.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try not to embarrass the co-pilot any more but he is a reasonable man, and these amendments seem to be reasonable. They attempt to help the Government to make clear what is genuinely not clear at the moment.

On the principle of pre-commencement as set out in the Bill’s requirement for a written consent, the question of evidence is important—that is, whether the lack of that at the moment is generally slowing down the planning application process. I am not convinced, and clearly few other noble Lords across the House are. There is clearly a lack of detail about how this will actually be applied.

However, I am more concerned about the unintended consequences that might occur as a result and the confusion inherent in the situation. I would like to know from the Government whether it is correct—and therefore Amendment 18 would genuinely help—that the Government intend to stick to the NPPF. If that is the case, Amendment 18 would ensure that pre-commencement conditions in line with the National Planning Policy Framework could still be imposed. That is all that we are seeking to do to establish some clarity. If that is not the case and the Government want to go further, we should know exactly what they want to do, how they see any extension of that process working, why they think it is important to do it, what effect it will have, what problem it will solve and what benefits it will bring.

To come back to archaeology, which is a key area and an exemplar of what might happen, there are concerns among the archaeological and heritage bodies about the clause. Of course, for most applicants the archaeological work is done in advance of development work to mitigate risks—we all know that; we have been over it many times in this House. The archaeological bodies are concerned that it would potentially allow less scrupulous developers to try to avoid paying for archaeological work by refusing to accept a pre-commencement condition. That means that, essentially, they could just walk away and nobody would benefit, which seems a rather draconian situation.

I know that the Minister is inclined to say that that should be governed by regulations and guidance, but an awful lot goes into guidance and regulations in this Bill, and something as crucial as being clear about the status of the NPPF in relation to pre-commencement orders should be established in the Bill if there is any difficulty around what is intended.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, pre-commencement planning conditions arise in both this group and the subsequent one. Clearly, we have entered into the debate on this group, so perhaps it might be simpler if I speak now rather than in the debate on the subsequent group. I will try not to detain the House for too long, but there are essentially three good reasons why we should proceed in the way the Government propose, by seeking written agreement with applicants before the planning permission is granted.

First, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, and in that context I am reminded partly by this debate that, on the last occasion that our forum met—quite contrary to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, represented the views of the development sector—the head of the historic environment team for Cambridgeshire came to the meeting, made a full presentation on what that team does and why it does it, and responded to questions. They agreed to work on a collaborative basis, because the development community appreciates that satisfying the needs of the historic environment is an essential part of their responsibility. However, I will come back to that as an example in a minute.

The second thing is that we have to remember that at the back of this is the fact that local planning authorities have an obligation not to grant planning permission in circumstances that would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework if an applicant would not agree to a condition that was implied by it. We are having a debate that is not based in reality. The implication is that the applicant does not sign up to this pre-commencement planning condition, and therefore planning permission is granted without it. That is not the situation. I am afraid that these two amendments in particular seem to have ignored that local planning authorities would be quite within their rights—and indeed are required by the legislation—to proceed on the basis of the NPPF. If they fail to do so and grant planning permission, they will be in dereliction of their planning responsibilities.

I come back to three points. I do not mean to steal the thunder of my noble friend on the Front Bench, because his thunder will be better than mine, but, first, this is about creating an expectation. The Government are promising to issue guidance. This is driving towards the situation where a written agreement with applicants will direct them towards trying to anticipate and meet the proper expectations of a local planning authority and a local community in advance, and to proceed probably by way of a draft set of conditions associated with a planning application in the first place, which would relieve the pressure on local planning authorities. It is also perfectly clear from local experience that it would also assist local planning authorities, which are short of experienced planning officers. It is the inexperienced planning officers who tend to put forward long—and often arguably unnecessary—sets of planning conditions. Experienced planning officers recognise what is required and are then likely to get to a better result more quickly. It will therefore enable that to happen more directly.

Secondly, it will avoid the ambush—the sense that at the last minute conditions can be applied, and the applicant has very little opportunity to respond or to decide whether they can proceed with a planning application on the basis of something that is applied at the last minute.

The third point is really important. It has come to my attention that pre-commencement planning conditions can create a problem because often, like other conditions, they have yet to be drafted after planning approval is granted. We are trying to avoid delay—we are trying to build the right housing in the right places as quickly as possible. Drafting the conditions after planning approval is granted causes unnecessary delay, and seeking written agreement to the conditions with an applicant in advance will ensure that we get rid of that delay.

Finally, we need to minimise the number of pre-commencement planning conditions. There is always a debate about whether something is pre or post commencement. If the number of pre-commencement planning conditions can be minimised, that too will help with the difficulty of discharging the conditions. Where there are a lot of consents, discharging the conditions is often a considerable source of delay in moving from planning approval to the point where build-out actually starts on site. We want to see those starts on site taking place. For all those reasons, I feel that the Government have a perfectly reasonable basis for proceeding in the way they have set out in the Bill.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I support the intent behind this welcome amendment. I too thank the Minister and the Government for what they have already committed to do. If we could just nudge them a little further, it would give life to the position that this House made clear in Committee—which is that we believe there should be an equivalence of protection for ancient woodlands. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, used the memorable phrase,

“the cathedrals of the natural world”.—[Official Report, 17/1/17; col. 161.]

We need to be clear that the wording has to be watertight. We have seen with the National Planning Policy Framework that every word matters. We have boiled down planning policy guidance and we need planners to be clear about the level of protection that the Government want to offer to ancient woodland. If it is not given an equivalence in the wording, then there will be arguments about the level of protection that the Government wish to see and that this House has so clearly articulated that it would wish them to give.

That equivalence is important but if we do not do it now, at an early stage when we are beginning to understand the natural capital resources in trees—their cultural, social and biodiversity significance—there will be endless arguments among planners as this emerging field develops. The Minister’s clear statement that the Government want to give protection to ancient woodlands is welcome. With a small step in this direction, and tightening the wording of the NPPF, the Government could give us confidence that this intention can actually be delivered on the ground.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. There is a strong argument for consistency of vocabulary and for the notion of significance in planning and the treatment of national assets. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that:

“The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction … As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”.


This new status has taken many years to achieve. I remember having discussions in the department about how to increase the protection of ancient woodlands at least a decade ago. Thanks to the Minister and his officials, we have now got to the point where we recognise that there is an equivalence between a natural and a built asset. When we are dealing with the question of loss—even more than damage, in terms of ancient woodlands—it is fair to look at what equivalence can be made in relation to the NPPF. It is not just the use of language but the significance we attach to the notion of damage, and how extensive or irreparable it is, and to what it means to be wholly exceptional.

The formula which my noble friend Lady Young has come up with is quite sensible. It will save time and grief for planning authorities and people who have to deal with balancing these issues. Greater clarity and some consistency would be a help rather than an obstacle to achieving the objective and facilitating development.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her kind words and for raising again the important issue of protecting our ancient woodlands and veteran and aged trees. She should not underestimate the role she has played in putting this on the agenda. She made a very powerful case, as did other noble Lords. I thank noble Lords who have participated in the discussion, including my noble friend Lord Framlingham, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke with great force and passion as he always does on these issues; his generous words were most kind. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about ensuring that we have watertight protection, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who talked about consistency of vocabulary and these “irreplaceable assets”.

In Committee we had a range of passionate and compelling speeches including from many noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and my noble friend Lord Framlingham all spoke then, and again today, about protecting these irreplaceable natural resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, so evocatively—almost hauntingly—described them as the “cathedrals of the natural world”. I do not know whether she has ever thought about taking up another career as a wordsmith, but there is a Daphne du Maurier role to be carved out there. For somebody such as me, who is particularly attracted to cathedrals, that haunting image certainly brings it to life.

We have responded positively and are now consulting on the housing White Paper. This is not part of the legislation but part of the housing White Paper; we have succeeded in getting it in there and are very much committed to this. At the end of the consultation the Government will, we hope, clarify the protections for ancient woodlands and aged and veteran trees along the lines we have been talking about in this debate. The proposed change would put policies on ancient woodland and aged and veteran trees alongside other national policies. I am pleased that the proposal was warmly welcomed by the Woodland Trust and I thank the Trust for its role in helping on this. I believe we are making massive progress.

A consultation on the White Paper is open until 2 May. I encourage noble Lords and, through them, other sympathetic organisations, to contribute to the consultation, so that we can achieve something along the lines that noble Lords have been discussing. We are holding engagement sessions with a variety of groups alongside the consultation, so that everyone has the opportunity to contribute their views. The consultation will enable us to work together with these parties on appropriate protection for these irreplaceable assets and habitats.