| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on his success in securing this debate and on raising an important aspect of the Government's planning policy. I know that he will understand that I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of the specific local case that has prompted him to obtain the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a formal role and responsibility in the planning appeals process. However, I can set the case within the context of the general legislative and policy position, and I hope that I can make some comments in which my hon. Friend will find some comfort.
It may be helpful if I begin by clarifying the relevant legislation. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, which, for the sake of brevity, I will refer to as the use classes order, sets out classes of land use, as my hon. Friend will know. It sets out four classes of land use--A, B, C and D. Changes within each of the individual classes do not constitute development under the law at the moment and so do not require planning permission.
The use classes order is a well-established deregulatory measure within the town and country planning system. It was introduced on the grounds that the changes of use that it permits would each have a broadly similar impact, for instance, in terms of noise, traffic generation and appearance. That was an assumption made at the time the orders were introduced. The intention is to strike an appropriate balance between facilitating development and encouraging enterprise, and protecting local amenity and environment.
In general terms, across the country as a whole, the UCO plays an essential role in delivering a positive, proactive planning service that enables businesses 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. Overall, it is considered to be working reasonably well. Since 1987, only five amendments have been made. That is the general context.
Class A3 is relevant to the case that my hon. Friend has raised. It comprises uses for the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises and of hot food for consumption off the premises. So the class may include restaurants, cafes, wine bars, public houses and take-away establishments. The A3 class was introduced to reflect the loosening of the then traditional boundaries between different types of catering establishments. The aim was to enable the trade to adapt to changing trends and demands and, therefore, for the general public to have greater choice in their areas.
In general, across the country as a whole, the freedom to change use within the food and drink class has caused little difficulty. However, as my hon. Friend has said, my Department has received a number of representations, including correspondence from some of my hon. Friend's constituents, from the London planning advisory committee and from the Local Government Association as well as a number of London authorities. Their concern is that some of the changes of use within the A3 class--for example, to use as a themed pub or a super-pub or from a pub to a take-away--because of the way in which the different outlets have developed over time, can lead to new or more intensive activity and give rise to issues of parking, noise and public order that arguably ought to be examined through the planning system. The argument has been put that some specific changes, perhaps such as that described by my hon. Friend, raise substantially different issues within a locality that deserve examination.
Of course, there are other extensive controls outside the planning system that can be used by local authorities to remedy problems with matters such as parking, noise and public order. For example, local authorities have wide-ranging powers to prevent or abate noise under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In addition, they can issue street litter control notices and so on.
However, I realise that there are concerns as to the efficacy of existing controls, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are giving those concerns careful consideration. We are taking some actions that may go some way to reassure him that we are considering the issues that he has raised about change of use within the A3 class.
The White Paper on the future of transport contained a commitment to look for ways of improving the planning system's delivery of an integrated transport strategy. That included a review of the changes of use allowed under the UCO to establish their transport implications in relation to traffic generation and parking. I hope that my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that, in commissioning a study into improvements to the planning systems delivery of an integrated strategy, we have included a comprehensive investigation of the impact of changes within the A3 class. That will form a specific strand of the study. It will consider not only the transport-related effects of such changes, but the impact on local amenity and the environment--for example, litter, noise and relationships with other land uses in the area.
My Department has just circulated a specification of the research to organisations that have expressed an interest in undertaking that work. Early next year, a tender for the whole study--including the elements that I outlined--will be let, and the report will be completed by next summer. We shall then consider the research findings and the recommendations alongside the representations that we have already received on the subject. That will allow us to come to a view on whether there are significant
problems, and their nature and extent. We shall then consider our response to the problems identified by the report. I hope that that offers my hon. Friend some comfort. We shall certainly consider the findings of the study as soon as possible.
The aim of the Government's planning policy for town centres is relevant to the debate. Our policy, as set out in planning policy guidance note 6, is to regenerate existing town centres and high streets. Sustaining town centres depends a great deal on the flexible use of floor space. It is widely acknowledged that vacant properties are a blight on town and district centres. The UCO helps business to respond quickly to changing demands. Keeping premises open and occupied can also have the effect of protecting other businesses in the area.
However, PPG6 acknowledges that problems canarise when changes of use--such as from shops to restaurants--create new concentrations of single uses, such as restaurants, bars or takeaway food outlets; there can be cumulative effects that cause local problems. Proposals for change of use in those circumstances should be assessed as to their contribution to diversification, and as to their cumulative effects on such matters as the loss of retail outlets, traffic and parking. Although I realise that town centres may not be the main issue in the debate, measures exist whereby local authorities can consider the impact of change of use on them.
My hon. Friend mentioned the value of social auditing. We are aware of work in that area, which, as my hon. Friend said, has the aim, at first instance, of improving the economies and environments of developingcountries by setting out clearly the commitments and responsibilities of business and other stakeholders. I know that the Department for International Development works closely with all its development partners, including the United Nations, in supporting social auditing as a means of promoting socially responsible businesses which have positive impacts on all their stakeholders.
My hon. Friend requested that the Government give a friendly steer to the adaptation of that concept to the planning system in the UK. I can give him that reassurance. We fully endorse that type of partnership between central and local government, non-governmental organisations, businesses and the wider community,
whereby the commitments and responsibilities of all stakeholders across a range of policy areas are clearly set out.
In that context, my hon. Friend may be pleased to know that, following our planning concordat with the Local Government Association, that association is now working on a planning users concordat with the business and voluntary sectors. That will set out the roles, priorities and responsibilities of all three parties. It will highlight the essential contribution of the voluntary and business sectors to planning decisions, encourage positive engagement and promote effective collaboration, and it will provide a valuable framework for co-operation. When there are specific concerns about a particular local business, it is generally the case that socially responsible companies are happy to meet local residents and local authorities to seek ways in which their concerns may be addressed.
I fully recognise the examples of good practice that my hon. Friend cited in his speech. The planning users concordat is all about fostering good practice, and it is to be hoped that more businesses will opt into that mode of meeting concerns in the local community where they are considering developing.
The Government are aware that some aspects of the use classes order--particularly the operation of class A3--have caused concern in some locations and in some specific cases. Our forthcoming research has been expanded to investigate fully the issues and concerns raised during the debate. We would need evidence of widespread and significant problems throughout the country to justify amending the UCO, but we are not averse to amending it if we find that there are such problems.
The UCO, as it stands, offers some valuable freedoms and flexibilities, which enable business to respond to changing circumstances. Nevertheless, I can assure my hon. Friend that we want to continue to monitor the operation of the order and assure ourselves that the problems that he has described are not widespread. If they are widespread, we shall respond to that concern.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues to our attention today.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |