| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
There will also be benefits—these will be driven in part through the assessment duty—of a common evidence base: one contestation and testing process and a single sustainability process. The examination in public panel report goes to the leaders’ board and the RDA, enabling them to make any required changes. The aim will be to ensure that they agree as far as they can but, where they cannot agree, points of contention can be negotiated. There should be little or no need for central government
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC290
There will be greater public engagement because we have drawn not only on the experience of the RSS but also on the consultative arrangements that were built in to the local development framework process. There will be crucial requirements to consult and engage on the formulae that we have worked out for the local development frameworks and statements of community interest. However, this is not prescriptive, because regions are different; they will have to develop their own arrangements to suit their own circumstances. We are not interested in blanket policies.
These proposals have been widely supported. We have held consultations over the past two years and found a strong endorsement for a single, integrated regional strategy as a way of prioritising a region’s needs and aspirations, driving forward economic development and regeneration. The joint duty on RDAs and local authorities has wide support from the LGA and the other RDAs. Since publishing our proposals the regions have taken the initiative and have made remarkable progress in putting these new arrangements in place. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has pointed out what is happening in the north-west. Many regions have gone a long way towards producing and agreeing the strategy, establishing the leaders’ boards and agreeing how they will work.
The drafting of the regional strategy will be jointly undertaken by the RDA and the leaders’ board in collaboration. They will work to a project plan which, through regulations, will become the agreed timetable for the strategy revision. Working with local authorities, they will develop a shared evidence base, engage with stakeholders and appraise the key issues and the options through a robust sustainability appraisal. Once it is drafted there will be rigorous testing through a full statutory public consultation and the EiP. That is important to build confidence. Any modification to the strategy following the panel will be undertaken collaboratively between the responsible regional authorities and the Secretary of State. The responsible regional authorities will be able to refine their strategy in the light of EiP and submit it to the Secretary of State for sign-off.
Currently in the regional spatial strategy, the legislation provides for the Secretary of State to make further changes, if needed, to ensure that the strategy reflects the imperatives of national policy and principles. However, such changes would be subject to further consultation, after which the Secretary of State will publish the agreed regional strategy that then becomes part of the single statutory development plan. That is what we aim to achieve and those are the purposes for which we have brought the Bill forward. I hope that that will help to clarify some of the key issues.
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC291
I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is not here. I do not know whether that is because of snow again, but she would be pleased by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Best, introduced her amendments. In essence, her Amendment 166A would require each regional strategy to make specific provision for meeting housing need in the region, making explicit an element of what is already implied by Clause 65 and Clause 71(1)(a). It is therefore a duplication. It would give prominence to one topic in primary legislation over others, which would be rather unfortunate. I reassure her that Clause 71(1)(a) requires the responsible regional authorities to take into account national policy that includes Planning Policy Statement 3 on housing and the housing Green Paper and all other statements that are relevant to housing. Significantly, housing was one of the three key areas where government will set clear expectations of outcomes, alongside the economy and climate change. That was set out in our policy document in January.
Amendments 175A and 176A would require the responsible regional authorities to consult housing interests when drawing up the strategy. Again, our policy document makes clear the importance of involving housing interests, and we expect to designate the Homes and Communities Agency as a statutory consultee. We have made it abundantly clear in successive policy statements that the regional strategy is a vital mechanism for addressing the long-term housing supply and affordability across the regions. The Bill’s approach is similar to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which established regional spatial strategies. The term “housing” does not appear in that Act, but housing is obviously a key element of the spatial strategy. With that on the record, I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, refer to the definition of sustainable development, which is the subject of many amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to which I shall turn in a moment. Sustainable development is at the heart of this policy and part of the architecture of our planning policy. It is set out in PPS1, “Delivering Sustainable Development”, and is the cornerstone of all our planning policies. The basic idea is that sustainable development is the only way of ensuring a better quality of life. Spatial planning, which is what we expect the regional strategy to deliver, is vital in bringing together and integrating policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes that influence the nature of places and how they function. This spatial planning approach provides the framework for delivering sustainable development. As I have said, that means not only protecting the environment but providing access to jobs and services, reducing the need to travel and enhancing biodiversity and natural resources.
Clause 65 provides that each region is to have a regional strategy with policies on sustainable economic growth and the development and use of land. Clause 78 explicitly requires regional authorities and the Secretary of State to exercise their functions in relation to the regional strategy with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC292
Amendment 166ZA would replace “development” with “sustainable development”. However, it should be clear from what I am saying that the regional strategies contribute to sustainable development in a way that meets the noble Lord’s main concerns. I am not minded to accept the amendment because Clause 78 already requires such a strategy to be produced in a way that contributes to sustainable development. We have to be very careful about the language, because “development” has a specific meaning in planning law. Under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it means building, engineering, making a material change in the use of any buildings or other land, and so on. We cannot simply replace “development” with “sustainable development” in that context. But I reassure the noble Lord that his concerns about this issue are very well taken. Regional strategies, like all other planning strategies, must be geared to sustainable development.
6.15 pm
On Amendment 166ZB and the green belt, Planning Policy Guidance note 2 sets out strong national policies about the protection of the green belt. The Government continue to attach great importance to the green belt, the fundamental aim of which is to prevent urban sprawl. It has a positive role to play in the future in shaping patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional level and we are firm in our determination to protect it. Clause 71 requires the responsible regional authorities, the RDAs and the leaders’ boards, to have regard, when preparing a regional strategy, to national policy and to guidance. We have published policy on the green belt. That means that the criteria have to be observed and sustained. As with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on housing, if we elevate the concept of the green belt as one issue, we do a disservice to other elements of policy and open up the prospect of adding renewable energy and transport to the list. I understand the concern to promote sustainable development and to protect green-belt land; they are fundamental to our policies on plan making and development management, and I hope that I have provided reassurance.
On the broad grouping of amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I hope that I have reassured them about the importance we attach to the spatial plan—we propose no diminution, no loss or compromise in that regard—and that we have our priorities right in terms of sustainable development, which sits as an envelope around growth. I believe that I have dealt with the spatial strategy. The relevant amendment would add little because our policy document made clear the need for high-quality assessment of the spatial characteristics and needs of the region against which the overview of the key regional and sub-regional opportunities and challenges can be assessed.
Amendment 166B seeks to change the scope of the requirement for regional strategy policy to deal with climate change by replacing “contribute to” with “further”, thereby making the relevant phrase read,
I understand that in most of the Bills that we have introduced recently, the noble Baroness has been a
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC293
It would also be inconsistent with the way local authorities address these important issues because the LDFs have to follow the planning framework. I am afraid that if we were to change the wording, we might add considerable confusion.
Amendment 182ZB sought to institute a requirement for the responsible regional authorities and the Secretary of State to further the achievement of sustainable development rather than contribute to it. This change would make the legislation inconsistent with Section 39(2) of the planning Act 2004 and would add to confusion about the duties in this regard in connection with regional strategy and local development documents.
As regards Amendment 182ZA and the general arguments about sustainability, although I understand the concern here I am afraid that the amendment is not needed because Section 4(1)(e) of the relevant legislation already gives the RDAs a duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development alongside their economic development duty. Our Bill also provides in Clause 78 for the RDAs to exercise their functions in relation to the regional strategy with the objective of contributing to sustainable development, and it requires regional strategies to have policies in relation to sustainable economic development. We are very clear about that. That is in Clause 65.
in Section 41E of the RDA Act. That would increase the scope of the RDA’s sustainable development purpose, but in such a way that the purpose would be to contribute to sustainable development everywhere else in the UK, as well as in the RDA areas. This is not the first time that Parliament has debated the issue, but if we remove that phrase, each RDA would end up having a duty to take actions contributing to sustainable development that would not be relevant to the area. The complication enables sustainable development to be relevant to an RDA area, but not restricted geographically to it. That is the best legal ground to capture what we want the RDAs to do; it is a difficult balance, but the right one.
On Amendment 165E, as I said in my opening remarks, sustainable economic growth means economic growth that can be sustained and is within environmental limits, but which also enhances environmental and social welfare. Sustainability is a key factor to apply
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC294
On design considerations, I take the point that it is proposed to change Clause 78(2), which relates to the need to have regard to the desirability of achieving good design, by removing the words “in particular”. This would make the legislation incompatible with the 2008 Planning Act which includes “in particular”. I remember that we had a major debate on that during the passage of that legislation, and again the amendment would cause confusion and alter the scope. As the noble Baroness said, good design is about social, environmental and economic considerations, not just aesthetics.
Finally, I turn to the specific amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. In Amendment 177A he proposes to remove the requirement for responsible regional authorities to take into account national policy, and available resources, in relation to Amendment 177B, when preparing a regional strategy. In Amendment 177E he proposes additional wording to Clause 71(2)(a), whereby a sustainability appraisal should deal with
Such a clarification, although well intentioned, is unnecessary, as policy, regulations and European law already require sustainability appraisals to consider economic, social and environmental issues. Amendment 177F changes Clause 71(2)(b) so that regional authorities must publish the sustainability report. Again, this is unnecessary as regulations and European law already require this.
I am very conscious that this debate has lasted almost an hour, but it has touched on many fundamental points about why we have constructed the Bill in this way and the intentions behind it. I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured by the way that I have approached this and the detail that I have provided, and that they will think more kindly in terms of the intentions and the benefits.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that long and detailed reply. We shall have to read carefully what she said before we decide whether she has answered the point satisfactorily, so I shall retreat on that one.
On the question of national policy, I clearly was not trying to remove the national policy because planning policy statements exist and they are a part of the regional spatial strategies and the planning system. What I perhaps did not make clear in my probing for clarity here is what national documents will be produced in respect of the economic development side; that is, what the regional development agencies are doing at the moment. I assume that planning policy statements will remain and that they will be the national policy in relation to the spatial planning side. But what do the Government intend to call in evidence in relation to the economic side?
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC295
On housing, are we to understand that the existing regional housing strategies will remain, and to that extent the joining up is not taking place?
The Minister said that she hopes that these proposals will bring about the sort of change that will deliver for local communities. In a sense that is our real concern. Every time the Government introduce changes to the planning system, it becomes more top-down, and is more like something from the old-fashioned eastern European central planning command economies. The point about bureaucracy was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, because we feel that the Government are trying to do too much. For the best of reasons, they are trying to plan and invest in too top-down a way—I am trying to prevent myself saying “social democratic”, but noble Lords will understand what I am saying.
Who is to put this together? One bit about the new regional strategy for the north-west which I did not read out concerns a new regional strategy advisory group that will be brought together to help the RDA and the leaders’ group put the new regional strategy together. A list of some 43 organisations is set out, one of which is the Government Office for the North West, but I do not see one that represents ordinary people who might want to get involved in the planning process. The Minister helpfully confirmed that the regional strategy will be part of the development plan. If it includes the RDA’s investment proposals, what possible confidence will people at the local level have in the planning system when they are told that the development plan itself, within which planning applications have to be determined, actually includes the detailed development plan for the region put together by the responsible regional authorities and which includes a detailed economic investment plan? They will have no confidence in it at all. If they say something is not right and they want it changed, they will be told, “Sorry, it’s in the document”.
This is not going to be just a planning document by which a development proposal or planning application has to be judged; the planning application itself will be for a development proposal which is in the development plan. That is where all this is becoming more centralised and more top-down, making it more difficult for anyone on the ground to make changes. No doubt we will have to consider these issues further.
Lord Hanningfield: I, too, thank the noble Baroness for that very full answer. I accept that any Government must have a strategy and that ways have to be found to build houses. I come at this from a different angle because we might be involved in it in a year or two. One has to make these things work.
I think that the Government have got it wrong. I agree with the noble Lord that it should be much more from the bottom up, wherever it ends up. I see how districts operate and the difficulties in the local framework. I wish that the Government had done it in a more bottom-up way. Telling people what to do the whole time will not work so well. Community people need to be involved. I tend to agree with bringing the strategies together for environmental, economic and social reasons. I wish the Government had thought of letting it grow from the bottom up, rather than trying to create
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC296
I am sorry to say to the Minister that it will still not work. Thames Gateway, for example, involves three RDAs. The system has not worked in the past and it will not work in the future. I know that Thames Gateway has its own government systems but it is still dependent on working with the RDAs. There are plenty of other such examples around the country, which would be better organised from the bottom up. The Minister has not given us the answers that we wanted to hear.
6.30 pm
Lord Best: I thank the Minister for her comments on housing strategy. I was not entirely sure whether the interpretation of her remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was correct. He suggested that a housing strategy will remain a separate exercise and undertaking at regional level, as now, but I understood the Minister to say that housing would be subsumed into a wider economic statement, which sounds as if it is downgrading it. Her remarks made it clear that if it were so subsumed it would have a prominent place within that economic plan.
Baroness Andrews: Absolutely. Obviously a huge amount of work has gone into the regional spatial strategies in determining housing growth, where housing is needed. The figures change because of more demographic information but, like everything else, housing will be part of the regional economic strategy. All the intelligence and work that has gone into housing plans will be addressed within the RES. As it evolves, it will be easier to link the pressures for housing with the provision of infrastructure, skills and jobs. We will have a much more coherent picture of why housing is where it is and the other implications.
Baroness Hamwee: I, too, am grateful to the Minister for that long and detailed response. I have made quite a lot of notes, but I suspect that raising points again at this stage will not take the matter further forward. I thought that the Minister was being optimistic when she said that this debate had taken nearly an hour—that was 10 minutes ago. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments 165D to 166ZB not moved.
Lord Greaves: I hope that this group will take a bit less time. I shall also speak to Amendments 168B and 177C in the same group.
9 Feb 2009 : Column GC297
Amendment 166ZC is intended to probe the difference in the wording between the original Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and that which now appears in the Bill. Clause 65(3) states:
“In subsection (2)(a) and (b) references to the region include any part of the region”.
The legislation that it is more or less re-enacting, Clause 1(3) of the 2004 Act, says:
“In subsection (2) the references to a region include references to any area within a region which includes the area or part of the area of more than one local planning authority”.
I do not understand the reason for the change and what practical effect it might have.
I think that there is a more general point, which will perhaps stop me saying more today. A great deal of Part 1 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act is being re-enacted in Part 5 of the Bill, but there are quite a few changes. It would be helpful if those changes could be listed and explanations given for why they are taking place. It is only five years since we struggled over that Act, and if changes are now necessary we need to know why the wording has changed. Words matter in legislation.
Amendment 168B refers to a national park that crosses two or more regions. As it stands, the Bill says in effect that the Secretary of State may allocate that national park to one region. The amendment is probing to find out if that would be the normal case. I have been trying to think of national parks that will cross regional boundaries. The North York Moors probably does, and certainly the Peak District will; it will probably be in four different regions. If that is the case, it is not clear to me why the national park, which is such an important area, should not have a toe in the water in each of those regions and why it should have to be allocated to one of them, on whatever basis. If national parks are important, as they are, and part of a park is in a region, it ought to be part and parcel of the system for producing the regional plan in that region.
Amendment 177C probes what that little bit of the Bill means. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: In the interests of speed, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to read Hansard in detail tomorrow. The amendments would restrict the ability of responsible regional authorities to have sub-regional policies, and I know that that is not what he is concerned about.
As I understand it, there are no substantive differences from the 2004 Act, but I will take his invitation to reply in writing about that so he can be clear. We can then pick up the question he raises in Amendment 177C as well.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |