| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me why we are doing this. Clause 171 not only achieves what she wants but improves on the current options available to regional assemblies. We made it clear in the sub-national review consultation document, Prosperous Places, that we wanted to facilitate closer working. The clause exists because, under existing legislation, there are limits on what RDAs can do in relation to planning. There are a number of situations where local authorities, regional assemblies and the RDAs want to work more closely together. The problem is that the RDAs cannot currently employ staff to engage in functions assigned to regional assemblies. They cannot support them and cannot facilitate them even where there is a desire on the part of both agencies to work more closely together. That is one reason for the clause. We know that some regions are interested in pursuing staff exchanges or joint appointments, for example. They cannot do that; they do not have an agency that allows them to do that. So we want them to be able to take some positive options, which is why the delegation powers are there.
We want, too, to avoid the risk that regional assemblies and RDAs devise solutions that might be deemed legally unsound because they exceed the existing limit on what the RDAs do. Clause 171 simply makes it possible for closer working where it is sought; it means that they can get on with the job of sharing skills. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is very important—that is, who will be on the regional planning boards? I cannot answer that directly because we have yet to see how some of these new arrangements will work. Clearly, there will have to be a balance of democratic partners and skills and experience as well. To reiterate what I said more incoherently earlier, any work done by RDAs on planning must be done within the range of planning law obligations, and so on—and, therefore, the imperatives of sustainability as well.
I hope that my noble friend is a bit comforted by that. The measure is timely and something that will enable us to plan more confidently for the future, if we
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1005
7 pm
Lord Judd: I thank my noble friend for her characteristically full reply. I know that she is wrestling with this problem very seriously. I also thank all those who have participated in an interesting little debate. I hope that all the points will be taken seriously.
My noble friend emphasised the importance of sustainability. Here is the rub. Sustainability does not necessarily give priority to the qualitative dimensions of society. The point about the regional assemblies—and, presumably, what will be characteristic about the RPBs—is that they are an endeavour to bring together a meaningful cross-section of those who have a wider concept of what society is about and, as I put it repeatedly, why we need a strong economy to support society.
My noble friend said a lot of things that obviously point in the right direction. I liked what she said about the significance of local councils. I shall go away and look very carefully at her remarks. I certainly hope that we can find some way of getting more explicitly on the record at this stage the Government’s commitment to the qualitative dimensions—environment, heritage, amenities and the rest. I will take advantage of the offer that she kindly made in her letter to me that I should meet with officials and work out some way in which this could be convincingly done, other than by seeking to amend the Bill at Report. But I hope that she will take it in the best possible spirit that I shall need to be convinced; otherwise, I regard this as so important that I shall want to come back to it at Report.
I hope that the Committee will forgive my saying that my formative young years in politics were in the post-war period. What struck me, and has always remained with me during subsequent years, is that we had a desperate task to rebuild the economy—but central in the counsels and deliberations of our leaders was the need for quality in that society. Hence, we had the Town and Country Planning Act and hence the national parks, with which I am associated, and the rest. We are now faced with a dire economic situation, which it will need all our resolve to overcome. I just wish that we could have it explicitly and clearly in the message to the nation that this is in order to have a worthwhile society. Therefore, in everything that we are doing about planning, those wider considerations should be as explicit and given as much priority as they were in the post-war years.
I thank my noble friend for what she has said, and I will take her arguments very seriously as I read them again in Hansard. I may well ask to have a meeting with her officials. I reserve the right to come back to this matter at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 172 [Local development documents]:
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1006
[Amendments Nos. 408 to 409C not moved.]
Clause 173 [Development plan documents: climate change policies]:
[Amendment No. 409D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 410 and 411 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 412:
412: After Clause 176, insert the following new Clauses—
“Publicity for planning applicationsPublicity for applications affecting conservation areas and setting of listed buildings
(1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) For subsections (1) to (8) of section 67 (publicity for applications affecting setting of listed buildings) substitute—
“(1) This section applies where an application for planning permission for any development of land is made to a local planning authority and the authority thinks that the development would affect the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area.
(2) The local planning authority shall—
(a) for not less than seven days display on or near the land a notice indicating the nature of the development in question and naming a place within the locality where a copy of the application, and of all plans and other documents submitted with it, will be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours during the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the notice was first displayed, and
(b) where the authority maintains a website, publish the notice on its website.
(3) In a case where the land is situated in England, the local planning authority shall send a copy of the notice to the Commission.”
(3) Section 73 (publicity for applications affecting conservation areas) is repealed.
(4) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 (S.I. 1990/1519) are amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).
(5) Paragraphs (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) of regulation 5A are revoked.
(6) Paragraph (4) is amended as follows—
(a) the words “Subject to paragraph (7)” are omitted;
(b) the words “both of the following periods have elapsed, namely” are omitted;
(c) for the words from “in paragraph (2)” to the end of paragraph (b) there is substituted “in section 67(2) of the Act has elapsed”.”
The noble Baroness said: This is a long and fairly disparate group. I shall speak to my amendments and make one comment on the Minister’s.
Amendments Nos. 412 and 413 took much longer in the drafting than I need to take in the explanation. These are matters that were brought to me by the Local Government Association, dealing with what it hopes can be a more efficient and economical way of publicising applications. Currently, applications must be publicised in local newspapers. The ODPM’s review in 2004 encouraged local planning authorities to use
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1007
I shall speak to my other amendments in this group but, taking it chronologically, I should point out that the next amendments in the group were tabled by Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has tabled an amendment to government Amendment No. 417 that I support. My antennae twitched very rapidly at the number of times the word “prescribed” is used in government Amendments Nos. 416 and 417. Although the Minister’s amendments may be happier provisions than the original clauses, I hope that she can justify this amount of prescription.
I am grateful to the Minister for her letter on Amendments Nos. 425, 427 and 428. She said that my first amendment would require that consideration be given to any other change of any degree of significance which might have been made, and that the clause itself is intended to stop the cumulative impact of a number of minor changes to the original permission leading to a material change occurring. In response to that I say: exactly. I think that we want to do the same thing. I am not convinced that my amendment is unhelpful.
On Amendments Nos. 427 and 428 and whether an interest in land is required for subsequent changes to permission, the Minister wrote that for very minor changes it seems right that the ability to request a change is limited to someone with an interest in its implementation and that a local planning authority should not be able to use this provision to impose a minor change. I agree with both comments. However, it seems to me that at the stage when this is relevant the applicant might not still have an interest in land. I wonder whether the Government are being overcautious about this.
Amendment No. 432A covers a point that was brought to my attention towards the end of last week. I have passed the paperwork on to the Minister’s office. Although I understand that her officials may not have had an opportunity to consider this fully, I shall speak to the amendment in order, I hope, to enable her to give some assurances about the Government taking the point seriously.
The point was brought to me by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the successor to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. The earlier authority was able, as a precepting authority, to
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1008
Baroness Whitaker: I shall speak very briefly to Amendment No. 413ZA and deal also with Amendments Nos. 413B and 432B, which are in the next group, since they all concern the identical issue of discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers. My noble friend’s intention to omit Clause 177, which I welcome most warmly, does away with the need for the first two amendments. Regarding the third amendment, she has kindly written to me to explain safeguards to avoid discrimination, which will be attached to the criteria for determining the procedure provided for by Clause 190. I am extremely grateful for that too, so I shall not be moving any of these three amendments.
7.15 pm
Lord Cameron of Dillington: I rise to speak to my Amendment No. 417A, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I thank the Minister for tabling her two clarifying amendments to Clause 183. As I represent rural interests, I hope that she will not mind if I probe a bit more.
These generally permitted development order rights are important to small farmers, particularly in the western half of the country where I come from. On the whole, these permitted rights—and this is probably a huge generalisation—do not affect larger farmers quite so much as their desired development mostly comes above the size limits of the buildings. Most of them are not so much engaged in small-scale part-time diversification projects, but for smaller farmers these rights can make or break their business.
I add that the Government have, rightly, greatly encouraged, and been very helpful to, diversification by farmers and landowners, possibly reducing their reliance on government subsidies and other government support. Suffice it to say that many farmers—and it is not only the farmers because some rural tourist businesses are also affected—rely on the use of these permitted development rights to carry out modest scale developments that are essential to the running of their business. We are talking about the temporary use of land, such as the odd day’s game or clay pigeon shoot, holding a motocross day or a car boot sale, allowing two or three caravans to park in a spare field, or erecting very small agricultural or forestry buildings.
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1009
Local planning authorities can issue Article 4 directions to bring specific developments within planning control in specific areas. Currently, they require the Secretary of State’s approval and there is a liability to pay compensation if the permitted right is withdrawn. These safeguards are entirely appropriate. It is interesting to note that the Department for Communities and Local Government has recently undertaken an internal review of permitted development rights to see what scope there is to relax them even further. Perhaps I have misread Clause 183 in its amended form, but it would seem to me that it is going slightly in the opposite direction. On the other hand, reading between the lines of the debate in the other place, in response to the amendment of Mr David Curry MP to this clause, I got the impression that it was not the Minister’s intention to undermine permitted development rights for small family farms or for agriculture and forestry in general. I seek confirmation of this fact.
Lord Tyler: Amendment No. 429A introduces a new clause in relation to the use class orders, which neatly follows the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as it is concerned primarily with rural areas. I hope that Members on all sides of the House will share my concern that they are not ignored in this very important Bill.
There is a welcome emphasis, which I think is shared by all sides of the House, for the way the Government are seeking more local determination and community involvement. It is important to establish that we all share enthusiasm for the revival of localism and greater responsibility for locally elected councillors. Most of the Bill has been concerned with major development projects and policies, but my proposed new clause is specifically aimed at the more immediate concern of residents of particular areas, of their communities and their elected representatives. They must surely be given renewed confidence that they can discuss and determine the appropriate planning policies for their own areas.
My proposed new clause may well help many communities to do just that. However, as the Minister may be aware, my especial concern is for a problem peculiar and critical to areas of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset and, indeed, the Lake District, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. In those remote, scattered communities, which are very popular for second homes, there is a huge problem in need of urgent attention relating directly to the planning system.
There is no problem with second homes in some parts of the country, notably in London. However, it is clearly true in some communities—not least those in north Cornwall that I represented in the other place—that second homes reach a point where they are simply so excessive in proportion to the natural housing stock, when they so dominate a town or village, that they present social, economic and planning problems. I remember one particular parish council area reaching well over 30 per cent second homes. When that parish council—Crantock, near Newquay in Cornwall—surveyed other councils in other parts of Cornwall, it found some also in excess of 30 per cent. At that point, the school is no longer viable; the post office and shop
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1010
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, earlier referred to nimbys: the “Not in my back yard” people. They are often the most recent arrival to a village. This is writ large in those communities where the nimby representatives have a second home. The last thing that they want is any development for additional social or affordable housing. It is a huge problem, and getting worse.
I emphasise to the Minister that this is a proper responsibility for the planning authority. Unless the Government come forward with some specific new powers, or new ways in which a planning authority can obtain that power, there will be a continuing escalation of this problem. There is no power at the moment. The full-time residence and the second home are in the same use class, so no consent is required to transfer from one to the other—despite planning conditions in many parts of the country insisting that a particular development is only for holiday use. It is therefore perfectly possible to do this, it is just that the Government have not been prepared to follow that precedent.
As I am sure the Minister and others would agree, the last thing that we would want is a blanket restriction on second homes. We want those communities faced with the problem on such a scale that it reduces social cohesion to be prepared and able to take some responsibility for finding a solution. Hence the use of the use class order in certain circumstances. We do not want “The man in Whitehall knows best”; not least, the Minister will be glad to hear, “The woman in Whitehall knows best”. We want locally elected representatives to be enabled to initiate locally the application of the use class order only when and where that may be necessary. It may be a very restricted area, but it is extremely important in those areas.
There are two well researched reports—still on the desk of either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State—on rural housing, one prepared by Elinor Goodman, the other by Matthew Taylor, MP. They have laid great stress on the importance of doing something to provide affordable housing for rural communities. So far, the Government have failed to respond. I hope that the Minister may be able to do that this evening.
Some people seem to think that the current housing crisis will alleviate this. Not so. While those seeking substantial investment opportunities away from the roller-coaster stock market may well put more money into investing in second homes in the expectation that scarcity will give them additional value over the long-term, they will of course continue to outbid local people by paying generous prices for second homes that will be quite out of the reach of those on modest incomes.
In north Cornwall, when I represented communities there in the other place, we had the biggest affordability gap in the whole of the United Kingdom. The average local incomes in the area were way out of the average local house prices. I recall the day after the devastating floods of August 2004 in north Cornwall, when Boscastle
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1011
I hope that there will be sympathy for my position from the Conservative Front Bench. With their newfound interest in these areas of the rural economy, I am sure that the Conservatives will recognise what a major problem this is. I hope that no Members of the Committee will be inhibited by being personally interested as having a second home from expressing a view on this extremely important issue. Principally, however, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to indicate this evening what, precisely, the Government are prepared to do for what is now becoming a devastating problem for a small number of communities. Unless we are prepared to address it as a Parliament, it will get a great deal worse.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |