National Planning Policy Framework
Debate between Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the answer to that is yes, again. As I say, the Government are seized of the importance of culture and of its value within sustainable development. There are questions about the interpretation of sustainable development, and that issue is being looked at with regard to the result of the consultation that has just taken place.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I recall that my noble friend rejected certain amendments to the Localism Bill which included culture and heritage in this context. Does she have a scintilla of sense—? I shall rephrase that. Does she have an inkling that this subject may be returned to quite frequently in the future?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, just that scintilla of sense would tell me that this is likely to reappear.
Planning: Naseby Wind Farm
Debate between Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Baroness Hanham(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, on the back of that history lesson and exposition, I do not think I can say anything more, other than that I hear what noble Lords have said.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that would be a matter for the local community to decide when they put together the local plan on which ultimate decisions will be made.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the royalist centre at the Battle of Naseby was led by that great soldier Sir Jacob Astley, who subsequently surrendered the last royalist army in the field with the words which have a lasting relevance to the political scene: “Gentlemen, you have beaten us, now go fall out among yourselves”?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I merely thank my noble friend for adding to the history lesson which we have all much enjoyed.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Baroness Hanham(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. With regard to Amendment 205ZA, I hope I have made clear that we do not want to impose further restrictions on the purpose of a neighbourhood area, but we do want to make clear that a forum may also have an explicit purpose of promoting the development of business in a neighbourhood area. This picks up that point and makes it clear that it is possible to have business areas as well as neighbourhood areas which are mostly residential. A business area can also include residents and often does. However, there are places such as business parks where there is not a resident to be seen, and therefore it is appropriate that there should be business areas in such cases.
Amendment 205ZB has generated the most emotion. I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Deben and what he said about adding “cultural”. We had quite a long debate at the previous stage about the definition of sustainable development. At one stage I recall myself saying that if we were not careful we would have a whole string of additions to sustainable development. The cultural and spiritual aspects were both discussed, and we were in danger of developing a wider and wider concept of the environment.
We still have to decide what we will do about the definition of sustainable development. However, I am not anxious to have extra elements added in to it. This is specifically because the national planning policy framework is very clear about the preservation of historic regions, areas and buildings. These have to be taken into account and looked at by a neighbourhood forum. It cannot simply ignore them and they will probably already have been identified in the local development plan. There are sufficient ways of making sure that culture is protected. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is correct that the question of theatres, opera houses and other cultural buildings was also raised. There is enough to protect all of these and make sure that they are taken into account in any question about the development of a neighbourhood plan.
Amendment 205ZC explicitly promotes the purpose of business. Amendment 205A would specify that neighbourhood forums shall be open to employees, owners of businesses premises, and, as was specifically raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas, volunteers. We do not think that this amendment is necessary as the wording in the Bill, which was amended in the Commons, is sufficiently broad to include individuals who work in businesses carried on in the neighbourhood area, who own businesses, or other organisations operating in the area or who otherwise work in the neighbourhood area. That very specifically also includes volunteers. It must be right that an organisation which is helping in an area or providing volunteers for it should have a say. We do not think that the amendment is necessary and I hope my noble friend will take that reassurance.
The word “businesses” in the context of this amendment is used in the broadest of terms. It includes commercial, industrial and professional activities, the public and third sectors as well as the agricultural and fishery sectors, but ensures that membership is open only to those with a local connection. This encompasses practically everybody, but they have to be specifically related to the neighbourhood area. By specifying these categories in the Bill, Amendment 205A would reduce the scope we have provided for in terms of the diverse range of people who can become members of a neighbourhood forum.
I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I am not entirely clear whether under our procedure I am allowed to say a word about my amendment to my noble friend’s amendment. However, I would be speaking after the Minister and I am not clear whether I am allowed to or not.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am conscious that the Minister has spoken, but can she deal with one point, which may be just a matter of drafting? The existing Bill refers to,
“furthering the social, economic and environmental well-being of individuals living, or wanting to live, in an area”.
The amendment would change that to,
“it is established for the express purpose of promoting or improving the social, economic and environmental well-being of an area”.
The reference to “individuals” has slipped out. This may be a point of drafting rather than one of substance, and I am trying to see what it is if there is one. Can the Minister give us an assurance on that?
Baroness Hanham
I think my inspiration has arrived in this note. We have used the phrase “well-being of an area” because it is already used in the Local Government Act. We want the purpose to relate to the area rather than to the well-being of individuals within the area. It is not a mistake and the word “individuals” has been taken out, but by definition individuals would make up an area. You cannot deal with one without taking account of the other.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, from what the Minister has just said, I understand the purpose of her amendment and the change in emphasis from the original text to which it gave reference. My noble friend Lord Deben and I have, on one or two occasions both in this House and the other place on matters of some importance, differed in a most agreeable way in the course of respective debates. I can remember defending Westminster Abbey and its Dean and Chapter against him, and I now find him defending the Department of the Environment against me. I am not suggesting for a moment that I am trying to put the tanks on his lawn with my amendment, but I will remind him of something in terms of what he has said about the 1992 division of responsibilities. It is not for me to comment on whether it was done for personnel reasons, not least because I was a totally incidental participant in that process. But I will say that one of the great virtues of the separation made in 1992 is that it removed the need for Chinese walls within the Department of the Environment. Previously the department had been involved both in making listing decisions and in listing building consents. The great advantage of the separation—I can remember it when my noble friend Lord Deben was the Secretary of State for the Environment—was that we did not have one department making all the same decisions. That was extraordinarily useful.
I understand the desire of the House to move on. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Cormack for his intervention. I do not know whether we can move the Minister at all between now and Third Reading, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Baroness Hanham(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have seen the Electoral Commission’s submissions in relation not only to the costs, but to questions and to how it should be involved. I cannot give the noble Lord a direct answer but it does seem to me to be inconceivable that we should not take quite serious note of the Electoral Commission’s representations on this. I am sure we will come back to that issue.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, if I may intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, winds up: am I to take it from what the Minister said that we will not be debating any amendments which involve the clauses up to at least Clause 59, as these are in fact going to leave the Bill? If that is so—and the Minister is nodding her head—may I say that the amendments which I was going to move arose because of the serious gap in understanding between the Common Council of the City of London and her department about the size of the Corporation of the City of London’s voting arrangements? I hope it will be possible—if she could perhaps give me a nod again—to deal with these matters in correspondence, simply in order to remove the misunderstandings which clearly still exist in the Bill.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I confirm that Clause 59 would go, along with all the other clauses, because what the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, effectively do is to take out the whole of Part 4. If there are still areas that need clarity—and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said that there are—then I will of course write to him to clarify the amendments he has tabled, although I am bound to say that I do not think that they can be of relevance any more under the circumstances.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, this is the first time in my parliamentary life that I have found myself moving two initial amendments to be followed by 19 government ones, which in turn secrete in their midst a single Cross-Bench one, to be moved by the highly experienced noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I am also conscious that when today’s business started, this group of amendments was the haven towards which the Government were sailing.
I am moving my two amendments on behalf of the British Retail Consortium, the BRC, which supports in principle greater localism in decision-making and welcomes the Localism Bill. It has been active throughout the Bill’s passage and has supported the Government’s focus on facilitating greater business participation within the decentralisation process. Although significant improvements have been made, though, there are still areas of substantial concern for retailers that, if left unresolved, will increase uncertainty for business and could reduce the potential for economic growth.
Your Lordships’ House will be familiar with the state of retail markets at present. Although my only home is now in rural Wiltshire, only a blind man could miss the effects of a struggling economy on the nation’s high street. In the eyes of the BRC, the clauses covering the community right to buy have the potential to distort markets for property and land, as well as having unintended consequences on the performance of businesses impacted by assets being placed on a statutory list. I am using this more clumsy definition because listed buildings, or listed assets, have another, more specific definition.
The BRC is calling for maximum certainty about what is and is not a “community asset”. In its view, there should be a clear national framework within which local decisions are taken. It is calling for minimum uncertainty for current owners and would-be investors. Assets such as undeveloped land and buildings, or assets with only potential future community value, should be excluded. The BRC is also seeking full and genuine opportunities for businesses to be consulted and listened to during the development of this legislation and when the listing process is established.
In short, the BRC is seeking amendments to the Bill to help provide clarity as to what “community value” may encompass and to ensure that potential building usage and undeveloped land are excluded. To this end, I hope that Amendment 201A is self-explanatory.
I realise that Amendment 202A may also be inelegant and clumsy, but its purpose is to avoid distorting markets for property and land and the legendary incidence of the law of unintended consequences and to protect the proper behaviour of markets—that is, to accelerate economic growth. I understand and concur with the Government in their emphasis on growth in their planning arguments but sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, and attention should be paid to business interests in their analysis of what will happen if the legislation serves in any way to impede economic growth taking place at this time. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I apologise at this time of night, but I am going to take a little time both in responding to the first amendment and in going through the amendments that are down in my name.
In Committee we discussed a lot the concerns of noble Lords in relation to some aspects of the provisions within these clauses, and I agreed to take those away and consider them further. I do not think that the noble Lords were on the whole opposed to the principles of the provisions; they were just concerned about the implementation.
There were particular concerns that the provisions could act as a disincentive to landowners who are currently making their land available for community use, and could impact on their ability to dispose of their land to family members or through inheritance. There were also concerns that the provisions could have a detrimental impact on the sale of going-concern businesses, and that the provisions were open to vexatious nominations from individuals with no real desire or ability to purchase the asset in question. There were also calls for greater certainty to be put on the face of the Bill regarding the definition of an asset of community value and the length of the moratorium periods.
We have been working over the Summer Recess with interested parties to address these concerns, and I am therefore going to beg to move a series of amendments that will provide greater certainty and clarity and will minimise any unintended consequences. As I said, I hope the House will forgive me for taking a little time to go through these.
As for the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I say now that I do not think that the response I have got is adequate, and I am hoping that by the time I get to the end of what I am saying the Box will have provided an answer for me. If not, I am going to have to write to him.
In summary, these amendments will place a definition of community asset on the face of the Bill; clarify that individuals will not be able to nominate assets to go on the list; set out a number of exempted disposals, including transfers of land within families and by inheritance, and business-to-business going-concern sales; put the length of the moratorium periods on to the face of the Bill; and remove various delegated powers.
We placed in the Library a policy statement which we sent to everybody on 8 September and which explains these amendments and sets out our thinking about the content of the regulations in more detail.
Perhaps I may pass over the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for the moment. I hope that I get an answer that is nearer to what he was dealing with than the one that I have at the moment. I hope he will forgive me for that.
I turn to the government amendments. Amendments 202B and 202F place a definition of asset of community value on the face of the Bill. A building or other land is to be defined as an asset of community value if the following requirements are met: first, if its actual current use furthers the social well-being and interests of the local community, or a use in the recent past has done so; secondly, that that use is not an ancillary one, such as where farmland is used for the annual village bonfire; and thirdly, it is realistic to think that there will be a use which furthers social well-being in the future, whether or not this is exactly the same as existing use. This means that for an asset which already furthers social well-being or interest, it must be realistic that it will continue to do so. And for one which did so in the recent past, it must be realistic to think that there will be community use again within the next five years—and that is the period for which a listing would last.
Amendment 202F clarifies that social interests can include cultural, recreational and sporting interests. Each local authority operating the scheme will refer to this definition when deciding whether a building or other land should be listed as an asset of community value, and in the light of these amendments we are proposing to remove, through Amendment 202E, the power for the Government to set out matters that local authorities must take into account in deciding whether a nominated asset should be listed. These amendments are in line not only with concerns that noble Lords have raised but, importantly, with the results of our recent consultation exercise, in which 80 per cent of respondents agreed that local authorities should have the power to decide what constitutes an asset of community value based on a broad definition and the list of exclusions.
Statues
Debate between Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
No, my Lords, I cannot give that assurance. I have not the slightest idea whether they are all microchipped. I will endeavour to find out. It is a very serious question: theft of copper is now prevalent because it commands a high price. If I can find out what secures the statues, I shall do so, and I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that anyone proposing to put up a statue has also to provide a capital dowry to ensure that it is subsequently maintained? Does she not think that that of itself must concentrate the minds of those who propose to put up statues?
Baroness Hanham
I am very grateful to my noble friend for that addition. It is a fact that all statues have to have maintenance and dowry money and that people are responsible for that. It is undoubtedly true that that concentrates minds wonderfully.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Baroness Hanham
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, in my excitement over design and Denys Lasdun, I failed to speak to Amendment 152D in my name, relating to Schedule 10. The new national planning policy framework will form an important plank in planning for localism, as well as for the wider planning system. It is therefore important that the new document continues to protect the historic environment. The current suite of policy planning guidance notes and statements is, as your Lordships will know, to be replaced by the NPPF. National policy is a vital tool in the planning processes and it expands and enlarges upon statute. The current planning policy statement 5 on planning for the historic environment was introduced in March 2010. In the short period since, it has worked extremely successfully and has been supported by the heritage and development sectors. The Heritage Alliance, to which I alluded earlier, is responding separately to the Department for Communities and Local Government on the content of the NPPF. National planning policy guidance is referred to at page 321 of the Bill at paragraph 8(2)(a) of new Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires regard to be taken of the NPPG. However, this provision is not strong enough. Development could be approved under the neighbourhood development order process without the current requirement for predetermination, information and consultation. We talked earlier about archaeology. Without predetermination of archaeological work, fewer unknown sites will be identified and, as a result, such sites may be destroyed without any adequate record, and development work may be delayed with additional costs. That is why I and others on behalf of the Heritage Alliance have proposed our amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a very interesting debate. It has circled around a number of areas. Most specifically, the concentration has been on design and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best. We believe that design is sufficiently well taken care of and safeguarded in the planning policies. One needs to take account of the fact that design is very subjective. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, made that point. However, nothing within the development of a neighbourhood plan would stop neighbourhoods saying what sorts of designs they would like. It would not necessarily be binding on the inspector but it would be guidance for the future—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, talked about predetermination —when developers were going to develop and had to hold predetermination discussions with the neighbourhood.
I think that I will resist taking it any further today by putting it more strongly in the Bill, as proposed in the amendments. I understand exactly what the noble Lord is saying; and I understand those who say that this is a very difficult area to deal with because what is good design in one person's mind is not appropriate in that of another.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked whether we would include in the Bill the question of using local stone, and so on. No, but the response I have just made about design probably covers the same. If the local neighbourhood wanted to have Cotswold stone as the only means to use in developments, there is nothing to stop it saying in the plan that it believes that Cotswold stone would be the ideal. It would then have to discuss that with developers before any suggestion of a development order or planning permission was given. Once again, I do not think that that is suitable for the Bill, but it can be taken into account.
Baroness Hanham
I will have to come back on that.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, neighbourhood plans and orders will have to have appropriate regard to national policy, as in the past. I will try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, this time, because he gets upset if I do not. On neighbourhood planning in cities, the amendments would strengthen the requirement on neighbourhood plans and orders to meet local planning policies. Our test is general conformity with the strategic policies and the local plan. We believe that that strikes the right balance, ensuring that neighbourhood planning proposals are in general conformity with strategic local policies, giving flexibility to determine those issues that are rightly dealt with at community level. I do not think that that answers what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked me and I shall write to him. I hope that I have covered reasonably satisfactorily a number of the points that were made.
Baroness Hanham
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Brooke for not having picked up the matter that he raised and I shall write to him.