| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 33:
- After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 94 and 97.
The purpose of this amendment is to place a new duty on planning 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, when considering planning applications. Amendments Nos. 30 and 32, to which your Lordships have just agreed, are perhaps more pertinent to developments that are the subject of particular applications.
It is widely accepted that the current system is failing. I very much welcome the repeal of Section 76, which is the subject of the two government amendments in this group. However, having warmly welcomed the amendments that the Government have
The Minister did not comment on the matter when it was before the House at the last stage. However, as I understand it, in mainstreaming inclusive design and access, the Government would prefer to rely on planning policy statements, saying that those would be material considerations in planning decisions. If the development plan fails to set clear policies on access, the planning authorities will need to look at the relevant planning policy statement.
The Disability Rights Commission—I am grateful for its briefing, with which I agree—and others say that that is not good enough, for the following reasons. First, access for disabled people is already a material consideration but experience shows that the system is not delivering. I remember that at Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, gave a number of examples of ways in which the system is failing, relating some personal stories of how individuals had come up against the system and quite literally banged their heads against problems.
Secondly, the guidance does not end the enormous variances in the ways in which different local planning authorities address access to the built environment.
Thirdly, of course, the courts are the ultimate arbiters of what is a material consideration, and they do not always quite go along with government guidance. We know as regards Section 106 agreements that the courts have to some extent rewritten the rules. In any event, the courts attach more importance to statutory duties than to guidance, and so they should.
Finally, unless and until there are clear duties in planning law on inclusive environment—it is probably human nature but it is part of our role to try to change the culture—too many planning officers and inspectors will continue to overlook access issues in determining planning applications. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have a considerable degree of sympathy with what the noble Baroness said. It applies to other parts of the Bill and to what is currently happening. The Bill will change the culture and the process. One could argue that her example relates to the idea that the Bill is designed to change the present system. We recognise that it has failed properly to address access and inclusion. There is no doubt about that—the present system has failed and we plead guilty.
We want a new system and the provision is intended to ensure that local authorities promote an inclusive environment and fully consider the needs of those with disabilities throughout the planning system. That means that issues such as level access are considered at the earliest possible stage. Access is considered by developers before we reach the application process. Therefore, Amendment No. 33 is unnecessary because the new system makes access just as important as other
That is not a criticism of the amendment—far from it. It is merely a question of the amendments and the debates catching up with what is now in the body of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I know not necessarily when I am beaten but when I have to withdraw. I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Power to decline to determine applications]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 35:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 to 38. We propose in Clause 44 to inhibit the use of repeat applications to wear down the opposition to controversial developments. Clause 44 provides for an amended Section 70A in the principal Act. The substituted Section 70A enables a local planning authority to refuse to determine a planning application where any of the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (4) of that section are satisfied and the authority considers that there has been no significant change in the relevant considerations in the period of two years since a previous application was determined. The applicant cannot engage the right of appeal under Section 78 of the principal Act because that section does not allow an appeal in these circumstances.
If the applicant wishes to challenge the decision of the authority, he or she must do so by way of judicial review. The conditions set out in subsection (4) provide that where in a two-year period preceding the receipt of a planning application the authority has refused a similar application and there has been no appeal to the Secretary of State against refusal, the authority may refuse to determine the current application.
The Government have received representations from house builders who want a right of appeal against the planning authority declining to determine a repeat application. They consider that without this, it would be unfair to developers who genuinely attempt to resolve issues that are of concern to the local authority. We have been persuaded of the merit of this proposal.
We consider that there should be a right of appeal on grounds of non-determination, but that it should be limited to a second application only. That is the general thrust of these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 38:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45: [Major infrastructure projects]:
Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 39:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to this extremely important amendment to the Government's proposals for major infrastructure projects. We did not discuss the amendment in great detail on Report because of the lateness of the hour. However, we had a useful exchange of views, which has been supplemented by a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, reiterating the points that he made in this House on 1 March. I thank him for that letter.
The amendment is intended to ensure that major infrastructure projects are subject to an economic impact report and to exclude site-specific proposals from White Paper national policy statements, to prevent them from reducing the scope of a public inquiry. The two provisions in the amendment are crucial to enhancing the democratic element of the Government's proposals in this part. I shall speak to each in turn.
The first paragraph of the amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct an economic impact report on any planning matter that he deems to fall within this part of the Bill. Major infrastructure projects that may cause great damage to the environment are usually promoted on the basis that they will deliver economic regeneration benefits. Thus, a robust appraisal of whether demonstrable economic benefits will accrue must take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, may say that the first paragraph of the amendment is unnecessary because the Government expect the promoter of a development of a type such that the Secretary of State is likely to declare a major infrastructure project to engage with all parties concerned at as an early stage as possible. Apparently, that would be well in advance of the stage at which the amendment proposes an economic impact assessment. However, as important as is the sequence concerning when an economic impact report is produced, it is more important that there is a guaranteed mechanism in the Bill by which the economic logic and justification for any development is subject to rigorous scrutiny. Statutory economic impact reports would comprehensively probe new infrastructure proposals for their genuine economic implications—both positive and negative. They would provide a firm, realistic basis for discussion of a project's likely economic consequences.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the arguments about the economic impact should be in the public domain at an early stage. However, perhaps if the Secretary of State made it clear earlier in the process whether the proposed development was a major infrastructure project, a statutory economic impact report would then be in the right part of the sequence to maintain the scrutiny required to ensure that the economic assumptions of the development were fully tested.
Local people affected by major proposals will not wait until an inquiry to make their voices heard. They want to confront the issues head on. By the time that the inquiry comes round—perhaps one or two years later—positions will have hardened and there will be little chance of persuading people of the merits of a particular development. That is all right if we are not too concerned about taking the local community with us, but I believe that that is wrong. We should make every effort to ensure that local people fully understand the rationale behind such planning proposals.
For those people in favour of a development, getting strong economic arguments into the public domain as early as possible should be welcome. I should have thought that the Government would seek to reshape local debate in that way. Robust economic documents and their potential to win over critics will be crucial for the processes of planning major infrastructure projects in future—Stansted Airport, bridges across the Thames and so on. Only impartial statutory economic impact reports can guarantee people's trust in the system.
The second paragraph of the amendment is equally important. It would enable an inspector to examine the justification for site-specific proposals in a White Paper. Planning by White Paper is simply unacceptable. Of course, we support the use of White Papers to provide a framework for guiding the planning of major infrastructure. However, bypassing the checks and balances in the planning system by making site-specific recommendations is another matter entirely. As I said on Report, that is what has happened at Stansted.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said that a national policy White Paper should help reduce the argument at planning inquiries about the need for specific development of a site. Although a White Paper does not authorise or preclude any development, it sets out clear national policies that are designed to speed up the process of major infrastructure projects.
The Minister is walking an impossible tightrope, while trying to leave the theoretical possibility of an inquiry. At an inquiry, the need for a site-specific development could be subject to challenge. The logic of that argument is clearly that the White Paper would pre-empt such questions from being asked.
Major infrastructure projects rarely enjoy all-round support, but they must have public legitimacy. A White Paper consultation does not adhere to the same checks and balances as a planning application. Even if a White Paper has gone through the Houses of
White Papers are very important, and I strongly believe that they should not undermine the democratic and local conventions of the planning system in this country. It is essential that democratic safeguards in the planning system, which help protect the environment and enhance the quality of life of local communities, are not bypassed. This is an important amendment. I beg to move.
"DUTY TO HAVE DUE REGARD TO NEED FOR ACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS
(1) In dealing with an application to which this section applies, the local planning authority, or as the case may be, the Secretary of State must have due regard to the need to ensure reasonable access and ease of use for people, regardless of disability, age or gender is provided in the context of the works in question.
(2) This section applies to—
(a) an application under section 62 or 73 of the principal Act for planning permission;
(b) an application under section 92 of the principal Act for the approval of reserved matters;
(c) an application for the approval of details required under a condition of a grant of planning permission (including a permission granted by a development order);
(d) an application under section 10 of the listed buildings Act 1990; and
(e) an application under section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (c. 46).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the local planning authority or the Secretary of State must have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidelines issued by the appropriate authority.
(4) The appropriate authority is—
(a) the Secretary of State in relation to England;
(b) the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales."
Page 28, line 10, leave out "a" and insert "more than one"
Page 28, line 12, leave out "that refusal" and insert "any such refusal"
Page 29, line 32, leave out "a" and insert "more than one"
Page 29, line 34, leave out "that refusal" and insert "any such refusal"
Page 31, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) Any planning application that the Secretary of State declares is of national or regional importance, as designated through subsection (1), must be subject to an economic impact report.
( ) Any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a national policy statement White Paper shall be considered by an inspector who shall be able to question the need for a specific development."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page