| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.47 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on securing this debate and giving us a subject that is of grave importance to his constituents and others who are concerned about the planning system.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for writing to me in advance with further details of his concerns, which as he said, wandered slightly wide of the designation, "Planning regulations for funeral parlours".
Referring to one of the more memorable comments by the former Prime Minister, Lord Attlee, my hon. Friend described himself as a modest man. I am not sure that my
hon. Friend should be so modest. He has made a most significant contribution to the House in the two years or so in which he has been here, and he has certainly enhanced the sum of human happiness and amusement in this Chamber. I hope that in my response I will be able not merely to answer his questions, but to respond to some extent in kind.
I noted the example with which he opened his speech. Some people who take an interest in health matters might well consider that the change of use from a tobacconist to a funeral parlour was a related use. I leave that thought with my hon. Friend.
I disagree that there will be any cause for rejoicing in his constituency at the death of the Pound--a situation that none of us look forward to. I congratulate him in his success in securing the change of name from Crikey O'Reilly's to the Belmullet Tavern and I will not ask how long it took his focus groups to secure that happy outcome.
Finally, before I come to the serious side of the debate, I suggest that the flexibility to allow a change of use from a museum or art gallery to a place of worship or a school, about which my hon. Friend expressed concern, might be to the benefit of Ealing, North because it can work in the opposite direction. The change of use to a museum or art gallery might be easier without the requirement for specific planning consent. The creation of the hon. Gentleman's museum of Fulham football club memorabilia might therefore be easier to achieve.
It may helpful if I set out the legislative and policy background. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, which I will refer to as the UCO, sets out classes of land use. Changes within each of those classes do not require planning permission. In addition, the town and country planning general permitted development order grants a general permission for specified changes of use between some of these classes.
Both the UCO and the permitted development order are well-established measures in the town and country planning system. The UCO was introduced on the ground that the changes of use that it permits will have a broadly similar impact, for instance, in terms of noise, traffic and visual appearance. The intention is to strike an appropriate balance between the need to facilitate development and to protect local amenity and the environment.
The UCO plays an essential role in delivering a positive, proactive planning system that helps business and local communities to thrive. It removes from businesses and others the requirement to seek planning permission from the local planning authority for uses that are generally uncontroversial and do not adversely impact on local amenity. The UCO is kept under review so that problem areas can be addressed or particular matters clarified. Since 1987 only five amendments have been felt to be necessary.
I shall now move on to the first specific area of the UCO about which my hon. Friend commented--funeral businesses. Funeral directors' premises are included in the A1 shops class of the order, so a change to use by an undertaker from a shop does not require planning permission. That is on the basis that they have similar land use implications and provide a service to visiting members of the public. However, any works arising from the change of use may require a planning application to be submitted to the local planning authority.
Following a review of the UCO in 1991, the previous Government decided that funeral directors' premises should remain in the shops class. They felt that when people have to cope with bereavement, they should expect to be able to contact an undertaker in the locality. I agree with this view, and I think my hon. Friend does because he spoke warmly of the quality of service provided by funeral directors in meeting genuine needs. If such businesses had to be located well away from other shops and people's homes, it would only add unnecessary inconvenience to the distress of the bereaved.
We know that some would like funeral uses to be removed from the shops class of the UCO. Difficulties have, on occasion, arisen when shops in residential areas have changed to that use. Clearly, the siting of such businesses close to neighbouring developments such as old people's homes can be a delicate matter and may cause disquiet. However, those are isolated instances and we have no evidence that there is a widespread problem that would justify removal of funeral directors' rights under the UCO.
As my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, funeral businesses traditionally conduct themselves with discretion and sensitivity appropriate to the nature of their work. They adhere to their trade associations' code of conduct, which sets standards to address the more delicate aspects of their work. Funeral directors are well aware of the need to minimise as far as possible the distressing connotations of the service. Funeral businesses are generally perceived in their communities as an uncontroversial and, indeed, valued presence in residential and shopping areas.
While funeral directors' premises fall within the UCO, funeral directors' chapels of rest are generally treated separately. If I may lapse into Latin, the technical term is sui generis, that is, outside the use class system. Mortuaries would also be sui generis unless ancillary to some other use of land, such as a hospital or clinic. That is because such activities are more likely to have an impact on local amenity and generate concern. Sui generis uses require specific planning permission for any changes to or from that use. A planning application would, therefore, be required for a new chapel of rest or a mortuary. That gives the local planning authority the opportunity to assess the impact of the proposed change of use on amenity and on the environment, and to consider any representations from interested parties. Local authority environmental health officers also have responsibility for ensuring that the required public health and safety standards are in place in chapels of rest. In addition, Government guidance sets out recommended standards of siting and design for public mortuaries.
In cases where a chapel of rest forms part of a funeral directors' premises and is ancillary to it, it is for the local planning authority to determine, on the particular facts of each case, whether the premises as a whole should fall within the shops class. That is very much a matter of fact and degree. Ultimately, of course, interpretation of the law is for the courts.
Where a planning application is necessary, local authorities are required to determine the application in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Development plans must take account of central Government policies. Those policies may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications. The Government have
not issued specific planning guidance relating to funeral directors uses. However, planning policy guidance note 6, on town centres and retail developments--PPG6--promotes A1 shop use in existing centres where they are easily reached by public transport and conveniently located for those without a car. PPG6 also promotes the retention of facilities in local centres and neighbourhood shops. The aim of the Government's planning policy is to contribute to the regeneration of existing town centres and high streets.
Sustaining town centres depends on flexibility in the use of floor space. It is widely recognised that vacant properties can blight town and district centres. The presence of outlets that provide essential services, such as funeral parlours, may, therefore, actually have the effect of protecting, and enhancing the prospects of, other businesses.
My hon. Friend also referred to changes of use within the A3 class. That class comprises uses for the sale of food and drink, and of hot food for consumption on the premises. Class A3 uses may include restaurants, cafes, wine bars, public houses and takeaway establishments. The class was introduced to reflect the loosening of the traditional boundaries between the different types of catering establishment. When my hon. Friend referred to Pret a Manger, in a sense he made my case by pointing out the difficulty of distinguishing between those premises where people may eat on the premises and those where they may take food away for consumption elsewhere. Those boundaries are increasingly blurred in the patterns of retailing that are becoming more familiar to us. The aim of the use class order is to enable the trade to adapt to changing trends and demands without making businesses operate in an unduly rigid framework.
In general, the freedom to change use within the food and drink class has caused little difficulty. However, we have received a number of representations, including comments from the London Planning Advisory Committee and the Local Government Association. Their anxiety is that some changes of use within the class--for example, the change to use to a themed pub or super-pub, to which my hon. Friend referred, or from a pub to a drive-through takeaway--can lead to new, or more, intensive activity and give rise to concerns about such issues as parking, noise and public order.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, there are extensive controls outside the planning system that local authorities can use to remedy problems such as those. For example, local authorities have wide-ranging powers to prevent or abate noise under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In addition, under sections 93 and 94 of that Act, local authorities can issue a street litter control notice, which requires the occupier to take steps to keep the area free of litter. That may involve sweeping, or providing and servicing litter bins. Failure to comply with the order could result in action through the magistrates court.
Under the Licensing Act 1964, it is open to magistrates to revoke, or to refuse to renew, licences for public houses and to impose certain other remedies where local residents are suffering unreasonable noise and nuisance. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Office is currently undertaking a review of liquor licensing laws. Those controls are all part of the wider picture. Having said that, I know that there are concerns about the existing planning controls and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are
giving them very careful consideration. I hope that he will accept those assurances in the spirit in which he opened the debate.
My hon. Friend is concerned about the change from light industrial to office use permitted by the B1 class. The 1987 UCO amalgamated those formerly separate classes. The change was, in part, prompted by the changing relationship between industrial and office uses, especially in the field of high technology, and because those uses appeared to have no significantly different environmental impact. The changes were designed to afford more flexibility in the use of premises and thus to foster enterprise in local communities.
My hon. Friend is concerned that the freedom to change to office use might have had an adverse impact, and other hon. Members have made representations on the grounds that it might lead to a fall in light industrial premises and a decline in business diversity. In the past few years, we have received few representations about the issue, other than from the City of Westminster in respect of specific local problems. As with the issues relating to the A3 class, we are considering the points that have been made.
The recent White Paper, "The Future of Transport" contained a commitment to look for ways of improving the planning system's delivery of an integrated transport
strategy, including a review of the UCO and relevant aspects of the permitted development order. Our intention is to examine the changes of use allowed under the UCO and part 3 of schedule 2 to the permitted development order to establish what transport implications they may have, in terms of traffic generation and car parking. That work might involve considering some of the use classes mentioned in today's debate.
In conclusion, the Government are well aware that there are aspects of the UCO that have caused concern in some locations and in some particular cases. However, we would need evidence of more widespread and significant problems to justify amending the UCO, which currently affords valuable freedoms and flexibilities that enable businesses to respond appropriately to changing economic and market circumstances and trends. We shall continue to monitor closely the operation of the order.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues to my attention today. I assure him that the debate will contribute significantly to the Government's continuing interest in those matters, and to the monitoring of the performance of the use class order and the general permitted development rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |