Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Earl of Clancarty

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity; I fear that my preparation will not be as polished as customary.

The genesis for this group of amendments was the ad hoc committee on the scrutiny of the Licensing Act 2003, which I had the great honour to chair. I would just like to record my deep sadness that, since that time, two of the leading members of that committee, Baroness Henig and Lord Blair, who contributed greatly and lent a great deal of knowledge and expertise to its work, have very sadly passed away. I know that Baroness Henig supported me vigorously when I tabled similar amendments during the passage of the levelling-up Act.

I am delighted to say that, for Amendment 110, I have the support, for which I am most grateful, of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Parkinson, for family reasons cannot be here this evening, but I know that I have their staunch support. Sadly, on Amendment 111, I am very much on my own, but there we go. I recognise the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who was also a leading light and a great authority on that committee, and I am delighted he is in his place this evening.

The purpose of tabling these amendments is similar in one respect to that of the previous group. We have, if you like, the principle of agent of change, which is recognised by the Government, but I would like to see it enshrined in law. I welcome that there has been a recent press release from the Government, as analysed closely by the Institute of Licensing and many of those in the industry who follow this. The press release from the Government is very good news indeed. Obviously, it might be from a different department to that of the Minister who will be summing up the debate this evening. The Government have announced reforms to planning and licensing laws aiming to reduce bureaucratic barriers and fast-track the revival of town centres with a wave of new cafés, bars and music venues. What is important in adopting the two amendments—there should be nothing in them that is objectionable to the Government—is simply to establish the principle that, where people wish to put a new development in place against an existing music or other cultural venue, the onus is on those developers to ensure that the change of use will be recognised and that the ongoing existence of the current venue will be secured.

Why is this important? In 2024, the number of venues making a loss increased from 38.5% to 43.8%, so this is an industry which is very much under threat. If you look at developments since 2020, the impact of Covid probably hit this sector—music venues and the hospitality sector more generally—more harshly than any other sector.

I welcome the fact that the agent of change principle is guidance in the NPPF, and Section 106 agreements between local councils and developers have been vital tools. However, I make the strongest possible submission to the Minister that there are real concerns that they are not being respected as they should be, and I would just like her to agree—or, if she feels that the Government could come forward with amendments that are better crafted than those that I have drafted, I would welcome that indeed. I would like to see Amendment 110, which would insert the new clause “Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities”, and Amendment 111, inserting the new clause “General duty of local authorities”, given the force of statute. With those few remarks, I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on the agent of change principle. As the noble Baroness says, just one example of the effect of this amendment is that it would be of significant help to grass-roots music venues, which are such an important part of the music industry’s ecology. Bands and individual artists cut their teeth in such live music settings. The loss of those venues is then a loss not just to the local community—which is important in itself—but to the music industry as a whole.

Precisely because of their importance within the overall ecology, the Government should do everything possible to protect those venues, which is a major reason why the existing guidance should be turned into law. As the Music Venue Trust says, with almost every constituency housing a grass-roots music venue, this amendment would, unusually, have an impact on over 720 venues across England, in communities from small villages to big cities.

As UK Music points out, this has been inspired by similar protections in Australia. In cities such as Melbourne, it has helped to revitalise the night-time and cultural economies. When a similar Bill was introduced in Parliament in the UK in 2018, it had the backing of music stars such as Paul McCartney, Chrissie Hynde, Brian Eno, Feargal Sharkey and many others. In 2019, the agent of change principle was made statutory in Scotland. It remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK—better than nothing but not nearly as effective as it might be.

The Government are keen to build new housing, so there is immense practicality about this amendment as well as a moral right in the principle. It would pre-empt and avoid complaints and ill feeling, potential court proceedings and the loss of important cultural assets. As Caroline Dinenage pointed out in the other place earlier this year, such legislation is

“supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smallest clubs, pubs and venues to the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will benefit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure, from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/25; col. 710.]

Potentially, one can add sports venues—anywhere where sound is a significant aspect of the activity concerned. Any loss of these assets will have an effect on the local and wider economy, not to mention local pride in cultural facilities.

There is a strong argument that locally appropriate soundproofing should be a default concern for new builds in particular. Also, as the Music Venue Trust points out, full legislation would decrease red tape and speed up the planning process, meaning that housebuilding would be speeded up as well. The Music Venue Trust makes the important distinction about how the process operates in Scotland and England. In Scotland, because the agent of change principle is statutory, an objection submitted by the Music Venue Trust can refer directly to the national legislation alongside the impact of omitting the principle, so that as soon as the planning committee receives the objection, it can go straight back to the developer to ask them to change their plans. It is a relatively simple and speedy process. In England, because it is not statutory, there is a constant back and forth between the Music Venue Trust’s emergency response service and the local authority, with the same venue often appearing in their service multiple times for different applications. Sometimes the venue does not even appear in a noise impact assessment. All this contributes to a slower and fundamentally unsatisfactory process in England, leaving many applications awaiting decisions for far too long. These are significant concerns that making the agent of change principle statutory would address.

This is a very important amendment. Such legislation was a recommendation of the DCMS Select Committee’s 2024 special report on grass-roots music venues. The Government need to take this very seriously. I fully support it.

Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Earl of Clancarty

Thursday 14th July 2022 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I spoke in support of these measures when they were first presented two years ago, and I am glad that they have been extended for another year. It is worth emphasising how important the hospitality trade is. In 2019 it was worth £59.3 billion and represented 3% of total UK economic output. From the point of view of levelling up, the trade is important across the whole country. But as the Minister says, hospitality has by no means recovered to pre-Covid levels. This is not just about the pandemic, although that is part of it: we now have the energy and cost of living crisis and the prospect of further rail strikes. But we should not forget what the pub group Mitchells & Butlers said last autumn—that Brexit was still

“an important event for the market”

in terms of workforce shortages, which have run into the thousands for that group alone. This is shades of what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was talking about in the earlier SI on airports. There are also supply and cost of product problems, and transport costs as well. So what measures, alongside this welcome if relatively modest measure, are the Government taking, or considering taking, to help the hospitality trade? The trade clearly needs considerably more help, not least to save more pubs from closure.

Clearly, it is important that pavements can be accessed properly by all users, including those with disabilities. It is worth repeating what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, two years ago: this is about not just access but predictability of access, so that street furniture is put out as precisely as possible, in the same place as the day before, to enable that access. That is a really important point, which I hope will appear in the new guidance. Will businesses clearly be able to refer to such guidance? Will this be checked after licences are awarded?

We are getting better at al fresco dining in this country. Of course, the weather at present is perfect for it, and I hope that we will enjoy the rest of the summer in this way and that the hospitality trade benefits from this as well.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I too give a warm welcome to my noble friend for stepping into the breach and presenting the regulations this afternoon. I join my noble friend Lord Young in congratulating my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh on all he achieved in his position. We have been extremely fortunate to have him. I do not think a day or a week passed without him making some contribution and he was extremely knowledgeable and skilled in his field, so I look forward to his many further contributions from the Back Benches—for the moment.

I will give a plug and a thank you to the Liaison Committee, which allowed us to do a follow-up report on the Licensing Act 2003, which is like the mother Act of many regulations, including those before us this afternoon. We published the report on Monday and it seems to have been extremely well received. I was fortunate enough to meet UKHospitality at a beer dinner last night, where I was able to discuss it briefly, and I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss our recommendations and conclusions.

One of the witnesses, Kate Nicholls, was in fact from UKHospitality and was extremely powerful. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done; I think the Government have appointed her as the first ever disability ambassador for hospitality. She will have a great role to play on pavement licences. We are fortunate that we are able-bodied and able to walk around quite freely—if you can pass the crowds on the pavement at the moment. But I think anybody who is hard of sight, or with a disability and needing a mobility scooter, is very mindful of the obstructions that street furniture and other things can cause.

We had a debate on airport slot allocations earlier. I would say that the airline, retail and hospitality sectors have definitely been the most damaged by the Covid crisis, which is still ongoing, so I warmly welcome the provisions that my noble friend has set out today. Looking back to 2003, when I had been an MP for, I think, six years—I am looking at my former Chief Whip—we were full of expectation that there was going to be a café culture and that we would be able to take young children and older family members into cafés to order coffee, wine or soft drinks. That never really took off under the Licensing Act 2003 in the way that the then Government intended.

However, we should pay tribute to the original regulations that my noble friend referred to, which came in in 2020, as she stated. Under the temporary provision, the process for applying for a licence was capped at £100—I think it still is—so everybody knows and the local authorities are onside. Perhaps even more importantly, a licence is automatically deemed granted if the authority does not make a decision on the application before the end of the determination period.

The two things I welcome most warmly in what my noble friend said are, first, the fact that the regulations today will extend the provisions right up to 30 September 2023 and, secondly, the commitment to make that a permanent feature in the levelling-up Bill. I am really looking forward to tackling that Bill as I have many other ideas, and I hope that my noble friend will enter into the spirit of that. With those few remarks, I welcome the regulations before us.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Earl of Clancarty

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]]

My Lords, at this stage, I would like to suggest something which the Government might include in the guidance. I do not fully support Amendment 1, as is not about access but about erecting barriers, which is often unnecessary and counterproductive. It should be perfectly possible, as in other European cities, to do something as simple as mark the corners of the café’s territory with an object, such as a wooden tub of flowers, so that that territory is fixed in what I termed in Committee an open but rigid structure. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, correctly used the term “segregation” if barriers were installed, although I disagree with his inference. The problem with barriers is that those who have them imposed on them push back against them. They start to move, whereas fixed markers do not.

I appreciate that the reason for extending the café on to the street is to increase business at this time, but it should be done in a way that enhances the community. It is wrong that we insist, even before the local geography is assessed, that the café be cut off and isolated physically from everything else. The Government’s draft guidance only says that the use of barriers should be “considered” by local authorities. However, I notice that markers of the kind that I referred to are not listed in that guidance as a possible strategy. Will the Government consider this? I am not talking about permanent fixtures, just something solid enough to help determine the territory designated but able to be carried off the pavement at night and replaced in precisely the same position the following day.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl. I declare an interest in having had the honour, I think in 2016, of chairing the ad hoc Select Committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003. When my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh sums up this little debate, could he put our minds at rest that the measures in the government amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe, will negate the need for the other amendments tabled? I think that will carry the House with him. Does he share my concern that the wide-ranging consultation proposed in Amendment 4, while well-meaning—normally I would be in favour of as wide a consultation as possible on any long-lasting modifications —would in this case negate the whole point of speedy measures, which are, of necessity, of a temporary nature?