Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Cumberlege Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. I have a legal case pending at the moment, concerning a planning application. I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments and have been told that the sub judice rule does not apply here. I am taking part in consideration of this Bill because I believe that it affects every community in England. The public, parishes and local community groups have been inspired by the Localism Act to produce their neighbourhood plans. As the Act suggests, planning is to be turned upside-down—no longer top down but bottom up.

I digress for just a moment. Many noble Lords might think that my contribution to your Lordships’ House is mostly to do with health and the NHS. On this occasion, I am taking part in a planning Bill—not family planning but neighbourhood planning—and briefly I would like to explain why. For 15 years, I served on my parish, district and county council simultaneously. Local government was the start of my career; I loved it—I was addicted; it took over my life. I chaired the district planning committee and, later, was leader of the council. The point I really want to make is that, when elected, I inherited the village plan, which doubled the village in size and was comprehensive and coherent. It incorporated a mix of different houses: bungalows, private, public, terraced, semi-detached and detached. It was very carefully worked out and provided sites for new shops, a health centre—and, eventually, we rebuilt the local school.

I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that you have to have a vision when you are designing a new community or building on to a community. But the thing with our plan was that the development boundaries were very clear and well understood, and were frequently challenged by developers, but they withstood all onslaughts. They were set by local planners; they remained sacrosanct and stood for 40 years. The quality of housing was good for its day, and the social mix was laudable. It was an undoubted success.

Now, things are different—we have moved on—and again there is a push for more housing, and a good determination to achieve an adequate supply, with an emphasis on affordable homes. This is necessary, of course, and it is the remit of the Secretary of State and the Government. Through the Localism Act we have encouraged local people with local knowledge to decide where, how and when housing can best be provided in their communities. This is the remit of local planning authorities and neighbourhood plans. But the weakness I see in the Bill is that it creates a gulf between the admirable sentiments of localism and the reality.

I make no excuse for using the experience of the village where I have lived for 70 years. It illustrates the weaknesses in the present system and suggests what should be done. I stress that I welcome change. I am not a nimby—I want homes to be built. I am not here to moan and, with the help of other noble Lords, I want to find solutions. As I understand the system, usually a parish, a town council or a neighbourhood forum decides to make a neighbourhood plan. It is to be comprehensive, and it takes time; in our situation, it took two and a half years to produce the plan. The DCLG subsidises district council planners to help local people draw up a plan for the number of extra homes required for that community, including adequate provision for utilities, environmental constraints, schools and playing fields, landscaping, the conservation area, and so on—and, after consultation, in most cases, where best to develop. When completed, the plan is examined by the examiner chosen from a list by the district council. In our case, this was a paper exercise. Our examiner saw no one and spoke to no one. He devastated the plan, and the district council advised us that, if his changes were not accepted, the plan would be rejected.

We should probably have appealed, but on advice it was decided to put the neighbourhood plan to a referendum, and it was passed with a really good turnout. In common with many neighbourhood plans, the examiner struck out the number of houses to be built—in our case, 100 houses plus windfalls. He decided that it should be read as a minimum of 100 houses. This was read by a developer, and subsequently at appeal, as there being no top limit. The appeal was called in by the Secretary of State, who concurred with this interpretation and has allowed a 50% increase in our allocation—another 50 houses. So we have no top limit and we now have a potential, and a precedent, for building significantly more houses on random sites not identified or chosen in the neighbourhood plan. The villagers were incredulous; they were furious when they heard the news.

What lessons have we learnt from this scenario? What do we need to bear in mind during the passage of the Bill? I will suggest four things. First, it is a great idea to get local residents to draw up a neighbourhood plan, giving their time—in our case thousands of hours—and local knowledge. It is a great idea for the Government to subsidise professional planners to advise, but no one can make a comprehensive and detailed plan unless they know what they are planning for: the number of homes, the location and the timescale. Secondly, the plan was drawn up by local people, guided by local subsidised planners. Too late we realised, as other communities will, that it is far from true that neighbourhood plans are a wonderful idea which the Government and local community will respect and accept. In reality, there is no place for volunteers and amateurs. Our plan should have been drawn up by a team of lawyers and professional planners to make it as near unassailable as possible.

Thirdly, at the referendum—and we had a good turnout —there was no clear warning that the Secretary of State can override the best laid plans at any time, on any whim. In future there must be, unless we make the Bill watertight and strengthen neighbourhood plans. Fourthly, we have learnt that there is no division between national policy and local implementation. The Secretary of State cannot resist meddling in the minutiae. I say the Secretary of State because he signed the agreement at the end. I have been in government; I know how departments work. He may not even have seen the document, but he is responsible because he signed it. In our case, the disillusionment was so great that over half our parish council resigned. It must be incorporated in the Bill that if the Secretary of State or the local planners determine, force majeure, that extra housing is needed within a neighbourhood plan, local people should be informed of the number of houses required. The requirement should specify any particular housing need—affordable, sheltered, bankers’ mansions or whatever—and then the neighbourhood planners should decide, in consultation with their community, where best to build and fulfil that need. In our case, we watched in horror as an extremely skilled barrister ran rings around the local planning authority at an appeal. This site was the least favoured and rejected in the neighbourhood plan. It has no synergy with the village, is entirely unplanned for, disregards the modest conditions agreed by the village, and is outside the plan’s boundary. After the referendum by parishioners, the local planning authority has, by law, to own the plan, implement it, and, hopefully, defend it. That should be strengthened in the Bill.

In the drafting of the Bill I can see a lawyer’s dream. What is a modification; what is a more comprehensive rewrite? If a community has 50% more houses than anticipated, a comprehensive rewrite may be necessary but, once again, this puts all power back to the examiner. This is dictatorial, unacceptable, arrogant and unnecessary. It is reasonable for the examiner to ask, to explain and to listen—not for a long period but perhaps for a day or so—so that the thinking behind the words in the plan, and why they have been incorporated, is understood. The Bill still stipulates that written submissions will be the norm. When amateurs write things about their community, for their community, each understands the nuances. The examiner may not. We wanted employment in the village but this was struck out by the examiner because we had no “designated industrial area”. At Poundbury, in Dorset, businesses, factories, offices, leisure and housing intermingle: it is a truly successful community. Ours was too, but now we are doomed to be a dormitory, maximising pollution, decimating community life, overloading roads and experiencing the misery of over-packed trains.

By talking to no one, the examiner just did not “get it”. Our neighbourhood plan specified that our community does not want street lighting, nor any more five-bedroom houses, as there are too many at the moment, and wants to keep a green space between our village and the next. The Secretary of State gave planning permission on the fields that separate the villages, allowed the five-bedroom houses and insisted on street lighting. He has destroyed our neighbourhood plan at a stroke, but worse, he has destroyed people’s trust in fair government.

This top-down action should not happen, so we must frame the right amendments to the Bill to prevent this abuse of power. It would be unkind to say that neighbourhood planning is a delusion, but it would also be disingenuous not to point out that the power is not vested in the people. They are in with a squeak. The legislation we now have has led to an acceptable level of litigation and lawyers’ fees. Too much public money is being spent. We need careful scrutiny of the Bill if it is not to be a lawyers’ love-in.

The policy of this Government has been to devolve power: to let sick people with long-term conditions have personal budgets; to let academy schools do it their way; to let foundation trusts control their budgets. They are judged on outcomes, not process. I fear that the Bill pretends to devolve power while actually imposing more central control. We simply must not let that happen.