 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Planning and Energy Bill |
Planning and Energy Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Committee Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeWednesday 20 February 2008[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]Planning and Energy Bill9.15
am
That if
proceedings on the Planning and Energy Bill are not completed at this
day’s sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday 27th February
at quarter-past nine o’clock and half-past two o’clock,
and thereafter at the same times on Wednesdays when the House is
sitting.
On behalf of
the Committee, I warmly welcome you to the Chair this morning,
Mr. Atkinson. When it comes to detailed discussion of
renewables and low-carbon energy, and the issues of off-site and
remote, it will be helpful to have on-site guidance from someone with
your experience.
The
sittings motion is essentially precautionary. I do not wish to curtail
debate on the Bill. Indeed, throughout its drafting, I invited
suggestions for its improvement. However, it is necessary to have some
order to the proceedings so the motion enables the Committee, should it
wish to do so, to reconvene next Wednesday and
thereafter.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 1Development
plans
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 2, in clause 2,
page 1, leave out lines 15 and
16.
Amendment No. 3,
in
clause 2, page 1, line 17, after
‘in’ insert ‘Part 2
of’.
Amendment
No. 4, in
clause 2, page 1, line 21, leave
out subsection
(2).
Clause 2 stand
part.
New clause
1—Energy
policies—
‘(1) A local
planning authority in England may in their development plan documents,
and a local planning authority in Wales may in their local development
plan, include policies imposing reasonable requirements
for—
(a) a proportion of
energy used in development in their area to be energy from renewable
sources in the locality of the
development;
(b) a proportion
of energy used in development in their area to be low carbon energy
from sources in the locality of the
development;
(c) development in
their area to comply with energy efficiency standards that exceed the
energy requirements of building
regulations.
(2) In subsection
(1)(c)—
“energy
efficiency standards” means standards for the purpose of
furthering energy efficiency that are—
(a) set out or referred to in regulations made by
the appropriate national authority,
or
(b) set out or endorsed in
national policies or guidance issued by the appropriate national
authority;
“energy
requirements”, in relation to building regulations, means
requirements of building regulations in respect of energy performance
or conservation of fuel and
power.
(3) In subsection (2)
“appropriate national authority”
means—
(a) the Secretary
of State, in the case of a local planning authority in
England;
(b) the Welsh
Ministers, in the case of a local planning authority in
Wales.
(4) The power conferred
by subsection (1) has effect subject to subsections (5) to (7) and
to—
(a) section 19 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, in the case of a local
planning authority in
England;
(b) section 62 of that
Act, in the case of a local planning authority in
Wales.
(5) Policies included in
development plan documents by virtue of subsection (1) must not be
inconsistent with relevant national policies for
England.
(6) Policies included
in a local development plan by virtue of subsection (1) must not be
inconsistent with relevant national policies for
Wales.
(7) Relevant national
policies are—
(a)
national policies relating to energy from renewable sources, in the
case of policies included by virtue of subsection
(1)(a);
(b) national policies
relating to low carbon energy, in the case of policies included by
virtue of subsection
(1)(b);
(c) national policies
relating to furthering energy efficiency, in the case of policies
included by virtue of subsection
(1)(c).’.
Amendment
No. 5, in title, line 1, leave out
‘generation’ and insert
‘use’.
Mr.
Fallon:
I hope that the Committee will bear with me while
I explain what we propose to do. I shall be asking hon. Members to vote
against clause 1, and to vote in favour of new clause 1 and the
amendments grouped with it. That is because I have been advised by the
House authorities that, instead of tabling a whole series of
amendments, it would be more appropriate to table such proposals as one
new clause. Sadly, but inevitably, the new clause is longer than my
original clause, which the House considered on Second
Reading.
It is only
right to say that new clause 1 reflects the intensive discussions that
have taken place between the Department and myself, and other parties.
I want to place on record my thanks to the Minister and her officials
for the extremely helpful and constructive meetings that we have had
since we discussed the Bill on Second Reading. I particularly
appreciate also the assistance of the hon. Member for Southampton,
Test, who has a long-standing interest in such matters and who assisted
me at one of the
meetings.
I draw the
Committee’s attention to two main aspects of new clause 1.
Subsection (1) is similar to the original clause 1, but with
one significant improvement. The potential specification is widened to
include near-site sources as well as off-site sources.
That significant gap in the Bill’s drafting was well articulated
by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,
the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Iain Wright), in his
speech on Second Reading. He certainly convinced me that it needed
improvement. We have therefore replaced the original words
“as part of
the...development”
with
“in the locality of the
development”.
I want to
make it clear to the Committee that “in the locality of”
includes both on-site and near-site; it is certainly not an invitation
to developers to prioritise near-site over on-site. It includes
both.
The second
improvement to clause 1 is made under subsections (5) and (6) of new
clause 1, which ensure that new development policies must not be
inconsistent with national policies. I thought originally that it would
be possible to say that such policies must have regard to national
policies, but I am assured that that would not have enabled us, for
example, to have excluded remote sources and might otherwise have led
the Bill into inconsistency with other national policies such as the
right of consumers to choose their energy supply through a competitive
market and the right of the Government and all of us to encourage more
affordable housing. Those are the two major improvements in new clause
1 over the original
clause.
Amendment No.
2 is an improvement because the definition of development plan that I
spelt out in the draft is simply not necessary. Amendment No. 3 is
technical and would tidy up the definition under the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Amendment No. 4 deals with Wales and
would make it clear that that provision is better included in
subsection (1). I hope that that explains the group that is before us.
The procedure is slightly unusual because we want the amendments to be
agreed to, but must first vote against clause 1. In due course, I will
invite the Committee, if it so agrees, to vote against clause
1 standing part of the
Bill.
The
Minister for Housing (Caroline Flint):
This is the first
time that I have been before you in Committee, Mr. Atkinson,
and I look forward to future
encounters.
In the
brief span that I have been the Minister with responsibility for
housing and planning, I am pleased to have had an opportunity to engage
constructively and positively with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. My
hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has also been party to
some of our discussions on the revised Bill. Part of our discussion has
been about how we can use the Bill to reinforce the direction of the
planning guidance that is already available, which requests and
requires local authorities to consider how they can reduce carbon
emissions. To that end, we have sought to find a way forward that is
positive on all counts through amendments to the Bill as outlined by
the hon. Gentleman.
We
are all agreed that we have to do a lot more in Government, in local
authorities and as individuals to change the balance of how emissions
affect our climate. In doing so, hopefully we can offer to future
generations not only a cleaner and greener Britain, but a cleaner and
greener planet on which to live.
I fully support the intentions
behind the Bill. I know that on Second Reading my hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary said that we were not initially convinced that the Bill
was necessary, but I recognise the positives that can be taken from
placing such a power in primary legislation. In particular, it will
reassure local authorities that they can go further, faster than
through building regulations and within a national framework. It will
mean that there is no place to hide for local authorities who do not
want to take up this agenda, a point that has been part of our recent
discussions. It will enable us to underline everyone’s
commitment to using local energy, including on-site and near-site green
energy, in new developments. Although this might not be a realistic
outcome, it could also protect against the possibility of there being
no planning policy because if planning policy is cancelled, for
whatever reason, the Bill will remain. Those are four examples of
where the Bill reinforces our current guidance and targets in
this
area.
Bill
Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): I am pleased to hear the
Minister’s comments about the Government’s change in
position. May I ask about her point that there will be no place for
local authorities to hide? My understanding of the legislation is that
it is an enabling Bill for local authorities, not a compulsion. Is that
correct?
Caroline
Flint:
It is an enabling Bill, as can be seen from the
text with the word “may”. However, I refer the hon.
Gentleman to the “Planning Policy Statement: Planning and
Climate Change”, page 16, paragraph 26, entitled “Local
requirements for decentralised energy to supply new
development”, which
states:
“Drawing
from this evidence-base, and ensuring consistency with housing and
economic objectives, planning authorities
should:
(i) set out a target
percentage of the
energy”.
I will not go
through the whole subsection, but the paragraph
continues:
“(ii) where
there are particular and demonstrable opportunities for greater use of
decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy than the target
percentage, bring forward development area or site-specific targets to
secure this
potential”.
Yes,
it is an enabling Bill, but it is right to acknowledge that within the
planning guidance there is a requirement for local authorities to
tackle that area. The guidance allows some flexibility for local
authorities in how they approach that and what sources of supply they
might pursue, which is important. It refers to on-site and near-site,
and allows local authorities, within building regulations, to move
further faster. That was the ethos behind the Bill both in its first
form and in our more recent
discussions.
We have
reached the stage where local authorities want to be engaged in that
agenda. The house building industry is also very much taken by it and
we are seeing some rapid changes in that sector and what it can do by
using technologies to bring down the cost of creating zero-carbon
homes. Again, I hope that that clarifies for the hon. Gentleman where
the Bill stands.
As
the hon. Member for Sevenoaks mentioned in his earlier contribution, it
is important that the Bill is in harmony with the planning guidance
that is already available and is not inconsistent with national
policies
and objectives. Regardless of that, it still allows for a great amount
of creativity and thought by local authorities to develop at a
challenging pace that is faster than some of them may be up to. That is
part of the challenge that we are setting out
today.
We also have a
wider package of initiatives to tackle the impact of climate change,
including the Climate Change Bill, the Energy Bill and the Planning
Bill, and this Bill is a complementary part of that package. The
initiative to create a pathway for zero-carbon homes is well under way
within my Department. We are making it easier for households to install
equipment that will adapt their homes to renewable energy use. The
planning policy statement on climate change to which I have just
referred sets out our expectations for the planning
system.
Bill
Wiggin:
I have had a chance to read page 16 of the
planning guidance, which ties in with what the Minister was saying a
few moments ago about the Government’s desire to move forward
with low-carbon housing. What sort of resources can local authorities
draw down from central Government to help achieve
that?
The document
states that:
“Planning authorities
should have an evidence-based understanding of the local feasibility
and potential for renewable and low-carbon
technologies”.
Essentially,
that means that they must go out and do the research. That is great; it
is welcome and positive. However, will it not simply cost council tax
payers more, or is there a way of ensuring that they receive proper
support from central
Government?
Caroline
Flint:
A great deal of research is already being
undertaken both within and outside of my Department. We will be
providing detailed guidance on best practice and what the evidence base
is telling us to help inform those at a local level. A number of
partners are engaged with us to support local authorities so that they
do not duplicate research in areas that are already covered. I am happy
to write to the hon. Gentleman with further details of the research
that is already
available.
I will talk
more about the more detailed guidance we will be providing that I hope
will assist local authorities in planning on that area. Within the
Department, the substantial change that will assist local authorities
is from what the construction sector itself is doing and achieving. I
met a representative of the UK Green Building Council yesterday to talk
through some of the work already taking place in the area. It is very
exciting. To a great extent, the industry has decided that a number of
policy areas that the Government are interested in are the future and
it has started to use its ingenuity, understanding and expertise. We
are starting to see things move a lot faster than the Government could
necessarily achieve on their own, and I am willing to acknowledge
that.
It is far more cost-effective
for the taxpayer if the industry moves in the right direction,
particularly if it can demonstrate that it can bring down the cost of
some technologies to the point at which the process
becomes viable. We are working in partnership with the sector to achieve
that and our taskforce for 2016 is part of that work. I hope that fully
answers the hon. Gentleman’s question, because it is obviously
nice to say these things in Committee so that officials do not have to
write long letters, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is fully
aware—there are smiles of relief from the
box.
9.30
am
We have our own
ambitions on zero-carbon homes. From 2016 we are expecting 240,000
homes to be built to zero-carbon standards, with intermediate steps in
2010, when we will set building regulations at standard level 3 of the
code, and 2013, when we will set level 4 standards for building
regulations. That is a challenge for the Government, the industry,
house builders, the supply chain, local authorities and
non-governmental organisations, but they all support that ambition. I
am pleased that last year the Callcutt report confirmed that it is
achievable, but it is a huge delivery programme and I do not
underestimate the challenge within
it.
Above all, we will
need a co-ordinated programme so that we can minimise duplication and
wasted effort and maximise co-operative learning, which also addresses
the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. We need to provide a stable
framework to give certainty for investment over the next eight years,
and we are having positive discussions with the industry about a
dedicated delivery body to co-ordinate that work.
The Callcutt report raised the
legitimate concern, which we have attempted to clarify and deal with in
our discussions with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, that a plethora of
different standards for house builders, however well intentioned, could
get in the way of a co-ordinated programme. We clearly need to avoid a
situation where there are different building standards all over the
country, because it is in no one’s interests to fragment them.
However, we recognise the fact that some house builders, and certainly
local authorities, will want to go further and faster than the national
timetable, and there will be circumstances in which it is justified to
do so. We have tried to capture, through co-operation on the amendments
to the Bill, the spirit of that challenge and
ambition.
Mr.
Fallon:
No one wants a plethora of different standards,
but under the Bill local authorities will of course put forward
different approaches and might want to increase the proportion faster.
I hope that it is clear from the Minister’s interpretation of
the phrase “not inconsistent with” that should a local
authority want to go further and stipulate 20 or 25 per cent. of the
energy a future Minister will not be able to say that is inconsistent
with the original 10 per cent. that other people seem to be
adopting.
Caroline
Flint:
I am confident that a local authority could go
further forward faster, and there are of course some builders who are
moving in that direction. For example, Berkeley Homes has said that all
its new homes will be built to code level 3, which emphasises my point
that companies can be seen to do the right thing and be competitive
within the industry as well. Certainly, that is something that local
authorities could consider when looking for development
partners.
I am pleased to say that the
Housing Corporation, in developments funded by English Partnerships, is
also being required to build to code level 3 standards. That is an
exciting and fast-moving agenda, which is why it is important to
recognise that although we want to give some sense of what the evidence
base is telling us now, we also have to be attuned to flexibility as
technologies move forward. Some things that we may not think are
possible today may be possible in the not too distant
future.
We welcome the
fact that house builders and local authorities are already working
together on some good developments, and that local authorities could
clearly introduce policies to encourage and mandate that work, where
circumstances justified it. The climate change planning policy
statement sets out our policy in more detail. The Bill and the planning
policy statement now complement each other in that important policy
area. With regard to some of the detail, as I said before, it is
important that references to energy efficiency standards make it clear
that they are recognised standards that have gone through a proper
process of review, discussion and debate. That is as much to protect
local authorities in strengthening their argument as to ensure that the
industry can work within the research that has been developed and
agreed by different parties. In practical terms, that means the code
for sustainable homes. The amendments leave it open for standards to be
prepared by the Government or other bodies, such as the Building
Research Establishment, which can then be endorsed by Government. That
relates to my earlier comments about flexibility in this fast-moving
area.
It is important
to recognise that the question of reasonableness is reflected in the
new clause. The new clause links “reasonable” to a
requirement that policies adopted by local planning authorities through
the Bill “must not be inconsistent” with national policy,
as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks said. We must also acknowledge that
legislative powers for local authorities cannot be set in a policy
vacuum; local authorities operate within a broader policy framework,
which is important if we are to move forward in an ambitious but
sensible way.
I hope
that I have outlined why the Government feel that the Bill can now be
supported. Through discussion, we have taken out some of the risk
elements in the first draft. Should the Committee support the Bill
today, we will have something on the statute book that strengthens and
enhances our existing planning guidance and other measures that we are
taking through legislation, some of which is currently going through
the House.
Julia
Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson. It seems
that the progress of the Bill will be more straightforward and
consensual than the Private Member’s Bill Committee that I
served on this time last year, and I am pleased that is the
case.
The Minister has
spoken about the importance of co-operation and leadership from the
building industry, and the opportunities that presents to act as a
catalyst in improving standards. She is absolutely right, but we should
not underestimate the Bill’s importance as a catalyst in that
process. It is fair to say that some
local authorities have felt constrained by the existing framework; the
Bill allows them to be ambitious and provides a statutory basis for
their ambition, so that any uncertainties they may have had about being
legally challenged can be swept out of the way. That is important and
will open up great opportunities to push the envelope on what can be
achieved.
I had a
meeting yesterday with the Energy Saving Trust on exactly that issue,
because we were discussing how ambitious the Government’s
targets are and the challenges in meeting them. Our conversation
revolved around the fact that if we are to meet those ambitious
targets, it is important that there is flexibility on the ground and
the creativity to maximise opportunities and address challenges at
local level. Ambition on the ground will provide the best chance for
the Government to meet their targets. Such things are difficult to
impose centrally and if there is any sense that issues are being forced
from the top down it could impede progress. On the basis set out in the
Bill, however, we can see best practice. That may encourage the
Government to keep up with that best practice and local authorities
will compete with one another, so it is important for driving forward
the agenda.
The new
clause and amendments are entirely sensible. There are changes to the
language to ensure that there is no confusion about the development
plan. The changes that deal with energy generation in the locality,
referring to near-site and on-site, are important and will reassure the
building industry that it will not be constrained on some of those
issues by the legislation. It is also important to ensure that the
measures are consistent with national policy because ultimately any
confusion will hold back progress in that important area. It is a great
pleasure to welcome the Bill and to see it improved in Committee, and
we support the changes proposed by the hon. Member for
Sevenoaks.
Colin
Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab): I, too, welcome the
Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sevenoaks on bringing it
forward and I welcome the Government’s support for it.
I have a query and a
suggestion. We have all been sent a letter by the Home Builders
Federation urging us not to support the Bill. That leads me to think
that, at local level, the flexibility allowed in the Bill could lead to
dogfights over local authorities’ plans to implement the Bill.
At local level some people will try to get local authorities to go for
the lowest possible target, but as the Bill allows flexibility it does
not set a target and I feel that is an issue that the Government should
look at closely in their guidance. The Minister referred to detailed
guidance, and I would ask her to ensure that it is issued quickly and
that it does not take many months or a year or two. We need strong
guidance to back up the Bill and to prevent local
dogfights—perhaps they will be a little more civilised, but on
planning matters it often feels like a
dogfight.
My second
point is about resources. Another tenet of the Home Builders
Federation’s argument is that it cannot afford to do these sorts
of things. I think it can—I have looked at its profits over the
last ten years, which have been immense. However, putting that to one
side, I suggest that the Minister’s Department should be in
touch with the Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to discuss how it can
maximise take-up of the low-carbon buildings
programme. In the domestic sector it is anticipated that over the
three-year period £10 million will be underspent because of the
way that the rules were changed. That money could help local
authorities to implement the planning schemes they want sooner rather
than later, and it would address builders’ concerns that a huge
extra cost will be attached to the Bill. I hope that those two things
will be looked at closely.
Gregory
Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): I am pleased to support
the Bill. It has gone through difficult times but I am delighted that
the Minister has been so constructive in her reaction to it in
Committee. That is partly due to the persuasive work of my hon. Friend
the Member for Sevenoaks, but I have no doubt that the wise counsels of
her colleagues, the hon. Members for Morley and Rothwell and for
Southampton, Test have also played their part. The striking contrast to
her colleagues’ rhetoric on Second Reading is very welcome and
augurs extremely well. We should work together constructively, not just
in Committee, but in encouraging local authorities to take the
initiative, be more progressive, push the envelope and be more
ambitious. Across the House, if we can send out that message from
Westminster, it will be very positive.
This is an enabling Bill, a
permissive piece of legislation. It does not follow that anything will
change as a result of the Bill or the amendments unless people on the
ground decide to take the opportunity to invoke the new powers that
local authorities will
have.
The amendments,
which have been clearly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for
Sevenoaks, make for a tidier, neater Bill and we support them. However,
I reiterate the point that the Government appear to have caught up now.
We will judge the Minister in future by the high standard that she is
setting herself in the Committee
today.
9.45
am
Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)
(Lab): I add my support for the Bill. As my right hon. Friend
the Minister said, it will play a significant role in ensuring that
local authorities that want to go further and faster than the code for
sustainable homes suggests may do so, within a compatible framework
that will be understandable to the people who undertake
developments.
I have
a little bit of sympathy with developers who seek
clarity about how their developments will proceed in local authority
areas. I should like to add one caveat in respect of the building code
and the level at which a local authority may require buildings to be
built under the enabling powers provided in the Bill. Where buildings
are required to be built above a particular level of the code, it is
inevitable that they will require some form of embedded microgeneration
within the home. It is essential, in those circumstances, that the
embedded microgeneration is subject to the same rules on electricity
output as any generation that is retro-fitted to buildings. If such
embedded generation does not, for example, receive the renewables
obligation certificate that would accompany retro-fitted
generation for homes, there will be a considerable disincentive for
developers to undertake the embedded generation fitting that will be a
part of a code-level requirement put in place by a local authority
under the
Bill.
There are
concerns about whether the embedded microgeneration will
receive the same treatment, in terms of the ROC
regime, as retro-fitted microgeneration. I hope that the issue can be
clarified in the not too distant future to ensure that the procedure
set out in the Bill can be followed with the full support of developers
and with a genuine level playing field in respect of the requirements
that will be placed upon developers when they are addressing the
sustainable development code and the future extensions to it envisaged
in the
Bill.
Mr.
Fallon:
We have had a useful debate. I am most grateful
for the Committee’s support, not only for the Bill but also for
the amendments moved this morning. I am particularly grateful to the
Minister for the care she has taken over each of the amendments and for
her support for them. I also appreciate the support of the hon. Member
for Falmouth and Camborne and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and
Battle from their respective Front
Benches.
A couple of
substantive and important points have been made this morning. The
hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell alerted us to
developers’ fears, including, for example, that they might be
asked unreasonably to comply with differing standards. Those fears are
misplaced. Where Merton-style policies have already been applied,
particularly in Merton itself, I am assured that developers had no
difficulty at all in complying with what was laid down. I took trouble
to satisfy myself on that point, because I did not want to be accused
of in any way blocking or slowing development, particularly the
development of low-cost
housing.
Although the
Home Builders Federation remains opposed to the Bill, the Committee
might like to note that the British Property Federation wrote to me on
Monday, saying that originally it had some concerns about the
Bill:
“However,
we have now reviewed the amendments that you have brought forward to
the Bill and note that these appear to deal with those concerns very
satisfactorily and
constructively.”
The
British Property Federation is lining up with the consensus behind the
Bill, so I hope that in the fullness of time the Home Builders
Federation will join it,
too.
The hon.
Member for Southampton, Test made the important point
that embedded generation should not be put at any kind of disadvantage.
I should like to reflect on that point. Perhaps the Minister and I
could discuss it further before the next stage of the Bill to see if
any further assurance can be given. It probably does not fall to me to
give such assurance, but if there is more that we can do to satisfy the
developers, we certainly should do it. I want developers to be part of
the consensus. I want them to see innovation as being in their interest
and to their benefit. Yes, some local authorities will move faster than
others, but I want developers to be part of the process and to see the
advantages.
There we
are, Mr. Atkinson. I am most grateful for
the Committee’s support for this group of amendments, which are
an advance and will give councils the reassurance that they need in
going further and faster than the
welcome guidance that was published by the Government in December. So
with a final reminder to the Committee that we shall be voting no to
vote out existing clause 1, I thank it for its
support.
Question
put and
negatived.
Clause
1 disagreed
to.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 21 February 2008 |