| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister explain how the concept of sustainable development applies to one particular aspect of planning that he mentioned earlier; that is, waste management? Are there overall considerations of sustainable development that apply to the types of waste management used in the regional spatial strategies and the local development documents that flow from them?
The Government have published studies that compare different methods for disposing of waste. They are prejudiced, if I may put it that way, against landfill and are trying to reduce it. The effect of that is that other types of disposal of waste will have to be considered—either pyrolysis, which is supposed to be effective at reducing emissions from the incineration of waste, or recycling, which, so far, has not proved very attractive to local authorities.
The cost of developing recycling plants is enormous, and the Government are not giving local authorities any assistance with the capital cost. The rate at which local authorities recycle their waste is far less, perhaps, than the Government would like. For sustainable development, the ideal is that the maximum amount of waste—household and other types—should be recycled. That is the principle behind some European directives, such as those that prohibit the disposal of refrigerators and electrical and electronic apparatus, all of which must be recycled.
That is the direction in which we are going. Should it be encouraged in any way by the planning system? Should there, in regional spatial strategies and the local development documents that flow from them, be some ground rules that point waste disposal strategies in a particular direction? That does not appear in the Bill, and it would be an interesting illustration of how the sustainable development principle was interpreted in practice. Can the Minister say something about that?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that it would be interesting, but, somehow, I suspect that it will not get into the Bill. I am not briefed to answer his specific points. The point that the noble Lord made that waste should be minimised in the first place in the design and packaging of products should be self-evident. In many ways, waste management should be part of the original design, before we ever get to recycling.
When I had a job in the real world as a production engineer, modularisation was not around. There were some items that we did not repair: we just threw them away and gave people a new one. That was in the old days of loudspeaker manufacture, which I was involved in in the 1960s. Today, simply to get the cost of production down, everything is more and more modularised, and repair becomes impossible anyway. In order to reduce the price and get economies of scale, they must build recycling techniques into the design. More and more, that is the way it goes. There are some
motor cars—I shall not mention names—for which it is claimed that 95 per cent of the vehicle can be recycled. That is genuinely so and has been independently tested. That is in the design of products, before we get to waste management and decide whether to use holes in the ground.I have some notes on the matter, and I hope that I can give some responses to the points made. I shall not use them all, because we will come to the issue. As I have implied, I shall table an amendment to this important clause at Third Reading. Because of the issues that have been raised, we tend to think that it is easier to describe what is meant by "sustainable development" in guidance. We could come up with a definition now, and, in three or four weeks' time, we could all agree something slightly different. I shall not argue the case between the 1972 Stockholm definition—as in the amendment—and the 1980 definition. I take the point that the use of the word "needs" in the 1980 definition opens up a can of worms.
We have produced planning policy statement 1. The matter is referred to not only in paragraph 1.13. I also refer noble Lords to paragraph 1.22, which sets out objectives that planning policy should seek to achieve. The first two are to promote regeneration and regional, sub-regional and local economies and to promote communities that are inclusive, healthy, safe and crime-free. There is a list of four of five other objectives in that fairly long paragraph.
The language has been carefully drafted, but it is not legally watertight in the sense that it would have to be, if it were in the Bill. I return to the point that I made at Second Reading: it has proved difficult to get a legal definition that we can be content with and does not open up a can of worms and prevent development. However, we have considered the matter again, and I am fairly confident that, by Third Reading, I shall be back with an amendment.
The nuances that one wants cannot be put in a Bill. They must be put somewhere where we can use more flowery language and more words and the parliamentary draftsmen have not been able to use their techniques because of the difficulties. Our view is that guidance is the right place for a definition, not primary legislation. We can be much clearer about what we mean by sustainable development, if we do not try to encapsulate the meaning in just a few words that will be argued over by lawyers and others whose objectives for particular developments might be different from those of local authorities, developers and the Government.
On the other hand, we want to make sure that there is sustainable development, so there is a dilemma for the Government and for both Houses. At the end of the day, it is our responsibility to get it right, and it is not possible to do that by accepting either amendment. I rest my case not only on the document that we put forward but on the basis that the Government will come back and tweak the clause. I hope that that will
send the right signal, which is an important aspect of the legislation, without any unintended side consequences.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his rather brief reply. I understand that the Government want to tweak the clause, but they are still not responding to the problem of not having an easily recognisable definition of sustainable development in the Bill.
I am not particularly bothered about Amendment No. 116, which relates to economic regeneration, but I have become deeply attached to my new clause. It has been tested out with parliamentary counsel. It has been tested legally, and it would be perfectly acceptable and cover all the nuances that the Minister wants.
I shall not extend our discussion of Amendment No. 116 any further, but I give notice now that I shall try to get Amendment No. 119 into the Bill and shall move it at the appropriate stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 117:
- Page 21, line 25, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it appears that this amendment makes it snow in London, as it did again last night. Fortunately, the snow has melted, but I must apologise to your Lordships for being unable to speak to the amendment, which I tabled for Committee, as ice and snow prevented me getting out of the house. Accessibility is subject to many forces, including the weather.
The amendment would put accessibility, inclusive housing and an inclusive environment at the heart of the definition of sustainable development. If the structured environment is to change, if we are to provide housing that embraces people, whatever their state, and if we are to create a country that makes a reality of the equality of opportunity for which our policies strive, accessibility and inclusion must be the default position in all development. They need to be seen to be as essential as the provision of light and air. Access requirements need to be enshrined in the planning law, not tagged on as an afterthought.
It will require a major culture change in the thinking of planners, developers and builders for inclusivity to be central to the planning system. That is why the coalition of organisations which back this amendment, including the Disability Rights Commission, the Town and Country Planning Association, Habinteg Housing Association and John Grooms is pressing for accessibility and inclusion explicitly to be defined on the face of the Bill as part of sustainable development. I look forward to the tweaks of the clause that the Minister has outlined.
The guidance published on 24 February in planning policy statement 1 is welcome. But it will not in itself end the huge variation in the ways that local planning authorities address access to the built environment. Draft PPS1 is certainly heading in the right direction, and is helpful in relation to disability access, but the emphasis on the achievement of an adequate supply of accessible, inclusive housing and an accessible local environment as a central goal in the planning system needs to be placed up front.
The fear of the organisations behind this amendment is that the guidance will not ensure that disability access policies get the priority that they deserve and that planning inspectors will not have a detailed enough understanding to assess whether or not strategies and schemes have adequately addressed access and inclusion. It will be left to planning authorities to determine their priorities according to regional and local conditions. If they feel that they ought to consult disabled people, they will. If not, then their spatial strategies or development schemes are likely to overlook access yet again.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the Government will go further to ensure that inclusive housing and inclusive environments are enshrined as central goals of the planning system. Do the Government intend to insist that planning authorities and regional spatial strategies follow the Greater London Authority's lead in requiring all new homes to meet lifetime home standards and setting targets of 10 per cent of new homes to be designed to be wheelchair accessible?
What is planned now will create our environment for the next 50 to 100 years. There needs to be a major shift in awareness and culture if we are to build a society that is accessible for all. The Bill provides us with the opportunity to do so. I hope that my noble friend can give me greater assurance that this will be placed on the face of the Bill and that we shall seize this opportunity. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in previous debates on the Bill, I said how strongly I feel that the issue of access should be regarded as part of sustainable development. I would find it hard to put it in as the only item spelled out in any detail. I hope that the Minister will tell us that whatever he brings back at Third Reading—although it may be a bit early for him to anticipate that—will extend not just to the general concerns that we all have but to pinning down how the issues that the noble Baroness has raised can be addressed through the planning process. We are all interested in the mechanism, not in fancy, warm words. It is much more important than that. Therefore, I support the noble Baroness, although I am not sure whether this is the time that we shall achieve it. I am optimistic that the Minister will help us to do so by the time that the Bill leaves the House.
"(2A) For the avoidance of doubt "the achievement of sustainable development" mentioned in subsection (2) includes implementing policies which ensure that housing and local environments meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion so that all potential users, regardless of disability, age or gender can use them safely and easily."
6 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page