| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I probably meant "so that it was generally understood".
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 48 [Planning contribution: Wales]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 46:
- Before Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the last two occasions that we have discussed the issue—perhaps I may call it the mezzanine issue—I promised the House that I would come back with a proposal when we had fully considered how to deal with proposals for additional floor space in buildings. I hope that the Government's new clause meets that commitment and will satisfy the concerns of the noble Baroness who initiated the debate and has pressed for change.
The new clause would have the effect of bringing within planning control the creation of additional floor space within existing buildings. At present Section 55(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act excludes from the definition of development,
This means that additional floors can be built within a building, even very large ones, without needing planning consent. But, unless this potential growth in floor space is brought within planning control, there is a risk that our wider retail planning policies could be undermined.
The new clause provides for Section 55 to be amended so as to enable the Secretary of State by a development order to bring specified proposals for the provision of extra floor space in existing buildings within the definition of "development". In future, a planning application will be required for those proposals to create additional floor space above the limit to be specified in the order.
We envisage that the development order will specify the type of floor space to which it applies and the scale of additional floor space which will require permission. It could, for example, specify that additional retail floor space above a certain threshold would be defined as "development". Our aim is to bring forward draft secondary legislation as soon as possible. Naturally, as a listening Government, we will consult widely before finalising the order. I hope that the provision meets with the satisfaction of the House. It is not an instant knee-jerk reaction but a considered view on what is identified as a serious problem. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister. It was not a knee-jerk reaction. He probably had to fight hard for it within his department. I and others are grateful for his efforts. My amendment, Amendment No. 48, which is grouped with the amendment, would put the matter on the face of the Bill. The Minister is providing for it through secondary legislation. I recognise that that is probably the best we shall get but I am pleased and thank the Minister.
Perhaps I may quote from a briefing I received from the CBI. It states:
Having said that I am sure that the provisions are the best that we can get and that I am grateful for them, I am a little concerned that there are changes in proposed planning policy statement 6 from planning policy guideline 6. I have concerns that it appears to favour big stores. There is a problem with privileged individual applicants' business muddles being taken into account, and that acts a little against what we are trying to do on the mezzanine floors. Also, the Government have withdrawn the need to apply the sequential approach to extensions.
Although I welcome the provisions, I hope that the Minister will look carefully at planning policy statement 6 and make sure that it does not undermine what he has obviously worked very hard to get into the Bill. Lots of people outside the House will also welcome the Minister's hard work.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I add my voice to the welcome for the clause. Some careful drafting of the secondary legislation will be needed to make the provisions work fairly and simply for the vast majority of shopkeepers. What concerns me about my reading
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I said, the change in the law proposed would be in secondary legislation, so we would have to consult on that. It would not come in now, obviously, because the details would have to be made in the regulations about how one measures the floor area. Some planning permissions have been given on the basis of floor area; that is the basis on which they were given, and one cannot go along putting in other floors. However, some have not. We have done enough checking on the matter, to make sure that there is a need. However, it is true that the provisions cannot be brought in overnight. We accept that; there is not much that we can do about it.
People talk about certain key retailers, but one also has to remember the existing policy. Our approach of putting town centres first remains the case; town centres first is the order of the day. PPG6 and PPS6, as it will be, do not change that. We have not gone soft on that at all. The sustainability of the town centres is crucial. One has to take that on board. There is another case, which is that some major players have made their investment decisions on the basis of PPG6—they have stuck to town-centre developments and have not gone out of town. We do not hear the CBI or others championing those. No one champions the individual shops in a town centre, because they are not a collective group; they are all diffused and small.
If one supports out-of-town development without looking at sustainability, one is attacking town-centre development, the very thing that we want to make vibrant, mixed and cohesive so that we do not have such pressure on the countryside and the green fields nearer the town centres. It works both ways; people are silent on one side and proactive on the other. To that extent, it is a one-sided approach from the large representatives of business and employers.
The town-centre approach stays first. Draft planning policy statement 6 is a draft—it is not the end. Quite clearly, we have received comments both for and against the changes, and they will be considered very carefully before we finalise the statement. I assure the House that the Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely adamant that we get sustainability and development in town centres as a first priority. That is existing policy; there is no change on that.
On the other hand, we need to look at some aspects of the drafting. We want to ensure that policy can cope better with some of the inevitable tensions, so that we are being fair. But we want to be fair to town centres and to those retailers and developers who have stood by sustainable town centres and have made multi-million pound investments on the basis of that policy remaining. The CBI will not be opening the door to work with them, because they are not asking for a change. I suspect that the CBI will be looking at the subs of its representatives, who are speaking just for
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 47:
"DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE CERTAIN INTERNAL OPERATIONS
(1) In the principal Act in section 55 (meaning of development) after subsection (2) there are inserted the following subsections—
"(2A) The Secretary of State may in a development order specify any circumstances or description of circumstances in which subsection (2) does not apply to operations mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection which have the effect of increasing the gross floor space of the building by such amount or percentage amount as is so specified.
(2B) The development order may make different provision for different purposes."
(2) This subsection applies if—
(a) section 55(2) of the principal Act is disapplied in respect of any operations by virtue of a development order under section 55(2A) of that Act,
(b) at the date the development order comes into force a certificate under section 192 of the principal Act (certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development) is in force in respect of the operations, and
(c) before that date no such operations have been begun.
(3) If subsection (2) applies the certificate under section 192 of the principal Act is of no effect.
(4) A development order made for the purposes of section 55(2A) of the principal Act does not affect any operations begun before it is made."
"the carrying out for maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building of works which . . . do not materially affect the external appearance of the building".
"It should be accepted that mezzanine accommodation is a particularly effective way of meeting the need for further floorspace, within the context of sustainable development".
Part of the problem is that what we mean by sustainable development is not understood. When I met with Asda, this was part of my argument. If one seeks to control expansion in particular in out-of-town shopping, while seeking a sustainable traffic policy, with town centres as part of the sustainable package, such an argument drives a coach and horses through the proposal. I thought it an extremely poor argument. I do not agree. It is sad that many businesses do not understand what we mean by sustainable development. They would gain for their customers if they did understand its meaning.
7.15 p.m.
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page