| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3:
- Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which is grouped with government Amendments Nos. 4 and 7. The amendment relates to consultation by the regional planning body on the spatial strategy. Before I saw the government amendments, I made a note that, although the Minister had always accepted that consultation was important, he relied on regulations to deal with those matters. When we discussed the matter previously, I felt that, if local authorities are bound by the legislation as regards consultation, the regional bodies should also be bound. Otherwise, it might be suggested that what the region does in that regard is less important.
I welcome the Government's amendments. I am sure that the Minister will have noticed that we had given up on the statement of community involvement, so I am particularly pleased to see its inclusion. The cynical among the Members of this House might say that our short amendment was more effective because the statement that is the subject of the government amendment might be inadequate. In other words, the regional planning body is to prepare a statement and stick by it; we say that it should actually consult, so we have spelt out some of the content of the statement. I would not be so cynical. I beg to move, but I foresee that I shall have to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, my name was attached to the amendment. I welcome the Government's decision to include in the Bill a requirement for regional planning bodies to prepare, publish, revise and comply with the standard of community involvement with regard to the revision of the regional spatial strategy. The requirement is all the more important because the recent publication of the Barker report, which seems to advocate that the whole planning system should be driven by the requirements of the housing market, illustrates all too clearly just how important it is that people have a voice in planning decisions that affect their communities.
We have argued for a statement of community involvement from the beginning, so it is heartening that the Government have listened and, ultimately,
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 follow on from commitments that we gave on Report to bring forward amendments on the issue. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, acknowledges that we have gone further, at least in one respect, than she had earnestly anticipated. I am glad that that is the case. We gave that commitment; it has always been our intention that regional planning bodies would involve people in the process and that they would consult widely. We intended to put that into regulations. Our amendment includes that requirement in the Bill.
Consultation and involvement are covered in draft regulations and draft PPS 11. The new duty does not change that; it merely brings thinking to the forefront and includes it in the legislation.
It is perhaps worth giving a clue to our thinking on this. At this stage, we think that we should require the regional planning body to prepare a document setting out how it has complied with its statement, building on what the regulations already require. We intend also in the final version of PPS11 to make clear that the regional planning body should seek views on a draft of its statement and take them into account before deciding on its final version.
I am grateful for the acknowledgement, and I am grateful for the noble Baroness saying that she welcomes this and intends to withdraw her amendment. I would like to think that ours fits the bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not know whether that is a lower case or upper case "b". With all the graciousness that I can muster, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 4:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [RSS: further procedure]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 5:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be extremely brief here, because again this is an issue on which we had extensive discussions at an earlier stage. This group of amendments creates a number of additional express duties to give reasons that will rest with the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. These commitments have now been matched.
I could go through each amendment, but I do not think that there is much point in doing that because they are almost standard in their effect. They simply place requirements on the Secretary of State to give reasons. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 6:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 7:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bridges moved Amendment No. 8:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this issue at earlier stages, and it concerns the relationship between this Bill and existing legislation regarding the status of areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. It still concerns me that the powers entrusted to the new regional planning bodies clash with the status and protection conferred on the national parks and the AONBs in laws still on the statute book. I quoted the statutes concerned in the earlier debate on 24 February at column 173 of the Official Report, and I do not need to cite them again.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, kindly wrote to me on 6 March explaining his view that it was a question of finding a balance between environmental, social and economic considerations. I regret to say that I find this formula seriously misleading. You cannot balance contrary principles; in this case economic development
As regards Mr Michael's speech, which causes me grave anxiety, I remind the House of another matter that I raised at an earlier stage in the debate, namely the references in the Bill to the wishes of the Secretary of State, "however expressed". I suggested then that these words might have undesirable and unforeseen consequences and could lead to policy making in speeches or public remarks made on the hoof or off the cuff, what I called at the time "legislation by mouth". Ministers indignantly denied this possibility, saying that the phrase "however expressed" frequently occurred in statutes, although they did not quote me an example. It appears to me that legislation by mouth is exactly what Mr Michael has been doing.
The conclusion is clear. If the Government want to alter the priority given by existing law to environmental considerations, they should proceed legally, by seeking to alter the current statutes. We could then debate the merits of their proposals in the usual way. Meanwhile, we can protect the natural environment by inserting into this Bill the words suggested in the amendment. It is deliberately phrased in moderate terms, speaking of all ordinary circumstances, which leaves scope for some debate and discussion about particularly difficult cases that may arise.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to agree to the amendment. It should not cause him any serious anxiety. He can, if he wishes, undertake to suggest an improvement to the Bill when it returns to another place. If he is unable to help me, I expect to find it necessary to seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
"( ) In preparing a draft revision the RPB shall consult persons who appear to the RPB to have an interest in matters relating to the development and use of land within the region."
4 p.m.
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"RSS: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
(1) For the purposes of the exercise of its functions under section 6, the RPB must prepare and publish a statement of its policies as to the involvement of persons who appear to the RPB to have an interest in the exercise of those functions.
(2) The RPB must keep the policies under review and from time to time must—
(a) revise the statement;
(b) publish the revised statement.
(3) The RPB must comply with the statement or revised statement (as the case may be) in the exercise of its functions under section 6.
(4) The documents mentioned in section 6(5)(b) and (c) include the statement and revised statement."
Page 5, line 14, after "publish" insert "—
(a)"
Page 5, line 15, at end insert ", and
(b) his reasons for making the changes.".
Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) the procedure to be followed by the RPB in connection with its functions under section (RSS: Community involvement);"
Page 6, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) In all ordinary circumstances, planning authorities shall pay heed to the existing statutes which confer protection on landscapes in the National Parks, in this case section 62 of the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) (duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to the purposes for which National Parks are designated) and in the case of areas of outstanding natural beauty, section 86 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37) (establishment of conservation boards)."
"Conservation is not enough...We cannot say that we have achieved sustainability unless the parks are viable, economically and socially as well as environmentally".
This is in direct conflict with the words in the statute in the Environment Act 1995 which clearly states:
"If it appears that there is a conflict between these purposes, the authority shall give greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty . . . of the areas comprised in the national park".
This is the heart of my case. Ministers are seeking to alter the provisions of earlier legislation not directly by amendment to the statute, but by public statement and administrative means. Another example may be found in the text of the new draft guidance of PPS7 circulated for consultation last September. Paragraph 25 states:
"The Government does not believe that local countryside designations are necessary. Planning authorities should remove any existing designations and instead adopt criteria-based policies in development plans".
It is not clear to me whether this is intended to apply to existing national designations such as those of the national parks and AONBs, or to local classifications only, such as special landscape areas. Even if the latter only is intended, and the circular is ambiguously drafted—I trust not with deliberate intent—the local designations are extremely important in some cases and allow the planning authorities some degree of control over the more rapacious developers.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page