Previous Section Home Page

Column 512

Mans, Keith

Maude, Hon Francis

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Mills, Iain

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Moate, Roger

Moss, Malcolm

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Neubert, Sir Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Norris, Steve

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Patnick, Irvine

Porter, David (Waveney)

Powell, William (Corby)

Rathbone, Tim

Rhodes James, Robert

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Sackville, Hon Tom

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Shersby, Michael

Sims, Roger

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Speller, Tony

Stanbrook, Ivor

Steen, Anthony

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Viggers, Peter

Waller, Gary

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Winterton, Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Tim Boswell and

Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 12

General duty of sustainable development

It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and local planning authorities in discharging any of their functions under this Act to have regard to the desirability of securing sustainable development.'.-- [Mr. Win Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Win Griffiths : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 132, in clause 14, page 24, line 4, leave out may' and insert shall'.

Mr. Griffiths : Before we consider the new clause, for the sake of clarity, I wish to underline our welcome for a number of the important steps that the Government have made by seeking to introduce some environmentally important matters into the Bill. However, virtually all of them were introduced after pressure from some Conservative Back Benchers as well as the Opposition--for example, the introduction of environmental assessment, the concession which the Government have just made on development plan priority and the important step which I mentioned earlier on interim development orders, when I underlined that we thought that the Government had not gone far enough.

We are in a similar position on sustainable development. The Government took on board a number of important environmental considerations, but unfortunately they were not prepared to move when we tried to press several matters which would have further improved the Bill in Committee. Yet the previous Secretary of State is on record as saying :

"The planning system is in many ways the most effective tool of environmental management available to us."

We agree with what the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) had to say about the planning system.

We know that public concern about the environment is increasing and we were hoping that when the Bill first came to the Lords the Government would have been leading the way by introducing environmental considerations into the

Column 513

planning process. However, in Committee we found that, when we wanted to place an environmental duty on local planning authorities, the Government were not prepared to take that on, even though, in nine other instances, such a duty had been placed on other bodies through legislation.

The Government were not prepared to take a further step, from introducing environmental assessments for specific planning proposals, to get local authorities to use environmental assessment techniques when drawing up structure plans, even though there have been preliminary proposals for such developments through European legislation.

The Government were not prepared to require local authorities to survey the natural resources within their area--water, minerals and the use of energy ; nor were they prepared to accept the inclusion of policies for the conservation of energy and natural resources in development plans. The Government were not prepared to extend to other areas of environmental concern the present requirements for local authorities to use planning permission to minimise the impact of development on trees.

We have been considering some other way which we think will be consonant with the Government's declared objective. We hope that we have found it in the amendment, and that they will be willing to accept greater concern for environmental matters in the planning process. We want to place a general duty on local authorities to have regard to the benefits of securing sustainable development, which is in line with the Government's previously declared objectives. A precedent in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill states that Scottish Natural Heritage

"shall have regard to the desirability of securing that anything done, whether by SNH or any other person, in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is undertaken in a manner which is sustainable."

The concept of sustainable development has been with us for some years. It is at the heart of much national and international thinking on environment policy and was the key plank of the Brundtland report, "Our Common Future", which gives a definition of sustainable development as

"meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

Sustainable development is not a policy of no growth but a policy that says that growth is necessary and desirable, provided it can be done in a sustainable way. Economic development must be matched to the environmental and other resources that are available. In their response to the Brundtland report, the Government expressly accepted that principle and said that the Government

"fully intends to continue building on this approach and further to develop policies consistent with the concept of sustainable development."

The Government confirmed the relevance of the planning system to sustainable development by stating that the United Kingdom's planning legislation had already put in place some of the policies needed to achieve it.

Introducing the Government's response to the report, the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), said :

"At the Toronto Summit last month, I joined with my fellow Heads of State or Government in endorsing the concept of sustainable development, the central message of the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development--Our Common Future The message from the Toronto Summit echoed the Report's call for environmental considerations to be taken into account in all areas of economic policy making."

Column 514

9 pm

That was in July 1988, but the Government's positive approach to sustainable development was reaffirmed in the environment White Paper which was published last September. That document identified it as the foundation of policy making, and said :

"The starting point for this Government is the ethical imperative of stewardship We have a moral duty to look after our planet and to hand it on in good order to future generations. That is what the experts mean when they talk of sustainable development' : not sacrificing tomorrow's prospects for a largely illusory gain today." We must put a proper value on the natural world. It would be odd to cherish a Constable but not the landscape that he depicted. The foundation stone of all the policies in the White Paper is our responsibility to future generations to preserve and enhance the environment of our country and our planet. Statements made several times by the Government show that they wish to take initiatives to further the achievement of sustainable development and that they recognise the role of the planning system in achieving those aims. We hope that the Government will give new clause 12 a fair wind, as it would be crucial in helping them to further their aims. Although we have had no indication of their thinking on the matter, given its background and their statements made in support of the concept of sustainable development, we hope that they will accept the new clause and place a general duty on local authorities to have regard to sustainable development when considering all planning matters.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : I do not want to detain the House long, as many hon. Members wish to return to their constituencies. We all cherish our constituencies, and when one considers what has happened in the past 15 years we learn to cherish them even more. My constituency is still beautiful and contains a large area of outstanding natural beauty. The scale of development leads me to conclude that new clause 12 is well worth supporting, for the reasons so eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).

Too often in the past, people have opposed development in areas of natural beauty because they suffer from the NIMBY--"not in my backyard"--syndrome. That has been true in the past 15 or 20 years, when we have seen an explosion in development. It is only natural that people should want to protect what they believe is their special view or their special environment, but there are much wider considerations, as we learn to cherish and treasure what we still have left of our environment. It is concern for those considerations that motivates me, and I believe that I speak on behalf of many of my constituents as they watch the extent and pace of development, which not only may be ugly from an architectural point of view but may jeopardise the environment itself.

As development proceeds apace, our roads become congested. Our infrastructure--our schools and railways--become inadequate. That puts pressure on other Government Departments and on councils responsible for budgets in respect of private development and education.

Mr. Speed : Does my hon. Friend agree that, in his part of the world and mine, the shortage of water represents a very real constraint on such widespread development?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, of which, as an angler, I am

Column 515

well aware. One has only to look around at some of our reservoirs in the south-east and to note the fall in the water table to realise that we are placing in serious jeopardy the water supply that future generations will enjoy.

I shall not elaborate. I think that I have made my point, and I merely ask the Government to respond.

Mr. Simon Hughes : I happened to come through the constituency of the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) yesterday. [Hon. Members :-- "Oh!"] I merely went through and admired it on my way to somewhere else. I understand the hon. Gentleman's attachment to preserving what is best about Sussex and many other counties. The Government could easily incorporate the important statement of principle that is proposed. In doing so, they would not merely confirm the statements that they have made about the general attitude that should govern all environmental policies ; they would add something practical to planning legislation.

At the moment, the duties in planning law fall on the Secretary of State-- on the Government--or on local authorities. As I understand it, there is nothing in current planning law that requires that all the various jobs done by Ministers in exercising their powers and by local authorities should be compatible with the aim of upholding sustainable development.

For example, it is not a prerequisite of the function of a local authority in drawing up a unitary development plan that all the policies therein should be compatible with sustainable development. When a local authority considers a planning application, whether for mineral extraction, for building a reservoir, or for a housing or industrial development, it is not a requirement that it must take account of the concept of sustainability. Similarly, it is not a requirement of Secretaries of State, in deciding planning applications that are remitted to them, that they should decide whether those applications are consistent with sustainability. If we write such a requirement into law, we shall be filling a gap. It is no good saying that Ministers and local authorities will impute that requirement to the legislation because, if they do not, there is nothing that anyone can do by way of redress ; there can be no argument.

There are obvious practical examples. I am not sure whether there have been such examples in Sussex, but there was a controversial case not long ago in Oxfordshire--very near, in fact, to the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was proposed to build a large new residential development in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside. The compatibility of such a proposal with sustainable development raises all sorts of proper questions. For example, is such a development near existing transport routes or will further routes have to be built to service the new town, whether near Henley or near Thame, perhaps with the countryside being destroyed in their wake?

We are talking not only about a statement of principle but about the Government's general commitment, which they now have a chance to enshrine in legislation. It is not just, as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) rightly reminded the House, that the Government have already adopted, in legislation that has gone through the House in this Session of Parliament in the Natural Heritage

Column 516

(Scotland) Bill, a very similar set of words reflecting the concept of sustainability. It is a test, in one of the most practical areas, of doing something about it.

The planning law, the powers that we give to those able to influence the planning of our communities, the structural planning of what is built, what is destroyed and the rest, require

sustainability. It is no good believing that we can have sustainable economics--from which the Government are still a long way removed--or a sustainable transport or energy policy, unless the simple step is first taken of having a sustainable planning policy reflecting sustainable development.

So, without knowing exactly what the Government will offer in defence, it is anticipated that it will be said that this is unnecessary because structure plans and guidance issued by the Secretary of State will not make specific legislation a requirement. If that is to be the Minister's answer, I must say that it is not explicitly in legislation, it does not explicitly govern the duties on local and central Government and it is not necessarily enough that it is in guidance notes in read-between-the-lines script. If we cannot have it here, the Government will go into the next election--it is not a point that is any more advantageous to me than it is disadvantageous to the hon. Member for Wealden--with the accusation able to be made against them that they had an opportunity to state and implement their commitment to sustainability but did not take it.

Even if it requires the Minister to throw away his present speech and concede that it is a good idea, that he is under pressure and that the Government should have said yes, I hope that he will so concede.

Mr. Steen : I believe that it is recognised on this side of the House that, for the first time in 20 years, a major planning Bill has come before the House. I resent the view expressed by many of my hon. Friends and colleagues that the Bill should be speeded up because we all want to go home. We do not want to go home. This is a very important debate about a very important matter which affects millions of people in the south and the north of this country. Constituents all over Britain will be affected by this planning Bill. It is a very important Bill and I find it extremely disappointing that the Government are so intransigent as to say that no changes can be made. The Government should be making changes and this is a very important series of amendments.

The new clause tabled by the Opposition talks about sustainable development. It is a matter that has been discussed for the past five or six years as the earth's resources have become scarcer. At the same time, amendment 132 in the name of some of my hon. Friends deals with page 24, line 4, of the Bill and asks the Secretary of State to change the word "may" to "shall", so that the Secretary of State shall make regulations to ensure that the environmental impact is considered by planning committees. How harmless that would be, and how important it would be to constituents all over the country who feel that the planning committee and the planning officials are not giving sufficient emphasis to the effect of development on the environment.

It is all very well having local plans--we all agree that local plans are a good thing. It is all very well having PPGs and saying that they keep the thing running and take precedence over the local plan. But why can there not be

Column 517

in local plans a recognition of the environmental impact of building houses and ruining green field sites? Why cannot the environmental consequences be considered?

Why are the Government so resistant to any change whatsoever in this Bill? This is an opportunity that may not occur for another 10 years for the Government, being concerned about the environment, to take a lead instead of always acting because the EC has said that action must be taken. The EC has said that the environmental impact is important. Clause 14 says that the Government may introduce regulations when considering the environmental effects of developments. Why not take a lead and change "may" to "shall"?

Dr. Godman : I remind the hon. Gentleman that we in Scotland are familiar with environmental impact assessments of developments, particularly developments involving the offshore and onshore oil and gas industries.

9.15 pm

Next Section

  Home Page