| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, again before the Minister sits down—this is part of the same issue—does he accept that if a good application is approved and then later another applicant comes along with something similar that is not good quality, the local planning authority needs to have the tools to say no without fear of being taken to appeal on the basis that the first one, which is close, has been approved? That is a practical danger.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I see that. Perhaps my comments did not reflect enough on the issue. I recognise that it is a problem. We have all been in and understand local government. We have all come across such examples: how do we tackle them? Obviously there have to be clear design policies within the local planning framework, which will be distilled from the national framework, and there has to be an effective use of planning conditions. Those are the building blocks of the issue.
I want to consider the matter further. We may need to provide a note identifying how we see it working in practice, because I recognise the issue. Sometimes councillors on planning committees would like to say, "We'd like to have the design we had last time round: can we have it now with this developer?" However, the real world does not work like that. As we know, the financial framework that surrounds development moves on all the time. There are new ways of generating revenue out of development and communities want new things; and there are new objectives for any given site, particularly if it is well placed and can be used for different purposes—leisure, retail, housing and so on—depending on the money available for it. We have to recognise that there are some constraints but not lose sight of the overall push to improve the quality of design with a particular development proposal or set of proposals.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put it well in her interjection. The core of the issue is to ensure that a local planning authority faced with a second application for a site where it has already granted permission feels able to say, "No: the reason we gave that application permission is that the design
was good. Yours may have the same number of houses with the same number of rooms and a similar layout, but the design is not good for other reasons and that is why we are rejecting it," and to be confident that that is a valid reason. Such a provision would enable authorities to look back to an earlier application by another developer and say, "No, you can't read over from one to the other because you haven't got the design right". I can see that the Front Bench opposite understands and I am delighted.Nothing in what we are trying to do will give us universal good design. The best architects can design buildings that we find horrible or difficult to get on with. I shudder every time I cross Vauxhall bridge going south: other people think that it is wonderful.
We cannot achieve perfection by laying down rules. I hope, however, that we achieve a system where someone could build another building as wonderful and eccentric as the Royal Pavilion in Brighton. It must have seemed difficult at the time. Indeed, I am even starting to like the British Library; there are some nice things about it now that one is familiar with it. Thoughts and tastes move on and early judgments can be wrong.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may interject with a point that might amuse the noble Lord. In the 1920s there was a move on the part of the then Brighton town council to have the Royal Pavilion demolished. They probably thought it was vulgar, but that was the taste at the time.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am glad they missed that one. This is not about perfection, but ensuring that the worst is dealt with, that the real horrors are prevented. One is just being put up opposite where I am. It is so obviously bad and I am sure that everyone knows exactly what I am talking about. I look forward to Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 136:
- After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 136 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 137 and 149. I am not sure about giving the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, ideas about becoming a Prince Regent but, if he builds another Royal Pavilion, I hope that it will have jolly good access arrangements, because that is the concern of these amendments.
The first amendment in the group concerns access statements to accompany planning applications. We all agree that disabled access is currently addressed much too late in the process. At present, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 simply requires that a developer's attention is drawn to the issue on his being granted planning permission and later at the stage of building control. We have the new good practice guidance from the ODPM encouraging authorities on their part to encourage applicants to submit access statements with their applications. The guidance argues that such statements are key to getting developers to take seriously the issue of inclusive design at the earliest stages. It suggests that if an access statement is not submitted, the local planning authority could reject the registration of the application, with the comment that this would overcome the matter delaying the eight-week period which applies.
Four years ago, the Disability Rights Task Force recommended revisiting, reviewing and revising Section 76 of the 1990 Act when a suitable legislative
This provision would require the developer to outline the process undertaken to establish the access provisions within the design and would also apply where a building was undergoing a change of use. The exact form of the statement would depend on the size, nature and complexity of the scheme. It could also specify how the building should be managed and operated to ensure that it continues to be exclusive—I am sorry, I meant to say "inclusive"; I hope that that was not a Freudian slip. Specifying information early would be in the interests of the developer so as to avoid later delays and costs.
The Government have said that they will consult on whether access statements should be a required document and have used the term in this connection in appropriate circumstances. At the previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, queried whether such a provision should apply generally. I suggested to the Disability Rights Commission—which has provided me with considerable assistance, not least by giving me the appropriate nudge to table these amendments again—that wording such as,
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam said in Committee that he would,
Amendment No. 137 seeks to place a new duty on authorities to have due regard to the need to ensure that reasonable provision is made so that buildings and their approaches are accessible to and usable by people regardless of disability, age or gender. The amendment is intended to ensure that all planning officers, committees and inspectors properly scrutinise planning applications against relevant access standards and provisions so that potential design barriers can be nipped in the bud. Again it is a matter of getting to the issue early.
We think that it would make it more likely that applications that had not properly addressed access would be rejected or would have specific conditions attached to them. This would, we think, provide for greater consistency across different planning authorities—I am told that they are something of a
We are aware of the issue around listed building consent. Preserving the character of a listed building may appear to conflict with proposals to widen a door or make other access improvements. Under current legislation disability access is a much lesser consideration than preserving the building character, even though with a little imagination and hard work in many cases a solution could take both into account. The Minister said in Committee that an amendment similar to this was not necessary. I think it is.
Finally, there is the repeal of Section 76. As I have said, its repeal was a manifesto commitment. That is important but the underlying issue is more important, which is it that the provision is out-of-date and does not reflect the Government's current policy. The Government have said that they are not revising the section because they want to mainstream disability access through new planning policy statements. The Disability Rights Task Force did not recommend either revision of Section 76 or updating guidance. The Government should do both. I do not know whether it is up to the Opposition to make too much of a point about how the Government deal with the issue; nor do I know how such a decision in respect of a manifesto commitment would be regarded outside, but we can probably read between the lines well enough.
Revised guidance is not adequate. It will not end the huge variances in the ways in which different local planning authorities address the issue of access to the built environment. The courts do not always leave planning guidance where it starts. We shall no doubt spend time later on Section 106—although perhaps not later tonight—but the guidance there states that local authorities should not seek a contribution unless it is necessary and directly related to the proposed development, and case law broadened the interpretation of the kind of contribution that could be required. That is an example of guidance not staying quite where it started.
Generally, of course, the courts attach more importance to statutory duties than to guidance, and unless and until there are clear duties in planning law on inclusive environments, too many planning officers and too many inspectors will continue to assume that access is a matter to be left to the building control process; that it is an add-on about which they do not need to bother their heads too much at the stage at which they are involved.
These are very important issues. I know that the House's heart is in the right place but, as with so much in this area, we must find a mechanism to achieve what we all want. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing those few extra words into Amendment No. 136. I am totally comfortable with the way in which it is expressed. Subject, as always, to guidance from those concerned with drafting
"ACCESS STATEMENTS
(1) In the principal Act after section 62 (form and content of applications for planning permission) there is inserted the following section—
"62A ACCESS STATEMENTS
(1) An application for planning permission for development of a prescribed class or size shall not be entertained by the local planning authority unless it is accompanied by an access statement.
(2) An "access statement" is a statement which demonstrates that the applicant has fully considered how reasonable access and ease of use for people, regardless of disability, age or gender, will be provided in the context of the works in question.
(3) Any access statement—
(a) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act; and
(b) shall include such particulars and be verified by such evidence as may be required by the regulations or by directions given by the local planning authority under them."
(2) In the listed buildings Act 1990 after section 11 (certificates as to applicant's status etc.) there is inserted the following section—
"11A ACCESS STATEMENTS
(1) An application for listed building consent which materially affects access to or around the building for people shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by an access statement.
(2) An "access statement" is a statement which demonstrates that the applicant has fully considered how reasonable access and ease of use for people, regardless of disability, age or gender, will be provided in the context of the works in question.
(3) Any access statement—
(a) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act; and
(b) shall include such particulars and be verified by such evidence as may be required by the regulations or by directions given by the local planning authority under them."
(3) In the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (c. 46) after section 2 (control of works affecting scheduled monuments) there is inserted the following section—
"2A ACCESS STATEMENTS
(1) An application for scheduled monument consent which materially affects access to or around the monument for people shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by an access statement.
(2) An "access statement" is a statement which demonstrates that the applicant has fully considered how reasonable access and ease of use for people, regardless of disability, age or gender, will be provided in the context of the works in question.
(3) Any access statement—
(a) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act; and
(b) shall include such particulars and be verified by such evidence as may be required by the regulations.""
"in the context of the works in question",
might meet the point made by the noble Lord. I believe that he referred to a window in a listed building.
"press officials for a tighter timetable".—[Official Report, 2/2/04; col. 456.]
I hope that tonight he can be much clearer about the timetable and give us a statement that applications without an access statement will not be entertained. It would be useful to know more about Government thinking as to what applications they would wish to exempt. Perhaps he can also help the House as to the application of access statements in the case of listed buildings and scheduled monuments when the impact on access to and around the building and monument is in issue.
9.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page