Localism Bill

Baroness Valentine Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, in what people will no doubt regard as my characteristically generalist way, I rise not to move some clever amendment or ask some difficult questions but simply to express my support for what I take to be the basic thrust of my noble friend Lord True’s amendment, which goes to the heart of one of the tensions in the Bill. This is called the Localism Bill, and it is supposed to promote localism, but all too often we find that localism means what the Secretary of State wants it to mean rather than what people think it means locally. If I am right, I think that my noble friend is saying that there is a risk that the proposed neighbourhood forums—in the case of authorities that do not really want them to work—will simply be formulaic arrangements with box ticking and meetings where they can say who has attended. That is a risk, at any rate; we have all seen it happen. Meanwhile, however, perfectly good working arrangements in authorities such as those of my noble friend are made to be scrapped in favour of doing this other stuff. In other words, if you have a vehicle with four purpose-built wheels that work perfectly well, the Bill would appear to force you to replace them with the Secretary of State’s bog-standard design wheels. I do not see what is to be gained by that. It is not consistent with localism and we need the additional flexibility that my noble friend seeks.

[Baroness Valentine]

I declare an interest as chief executive of London First, a business membership organisation including infrastructure providers in its membership. I support Amendment 148C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, which seeks to exclude development associated with nationally significant infrastructure from the scope of neighbourhood development orders. This refers to infrastructure which gets, or would have got, planning permission via the Planning Act 2008.

A signal box next to a railway track is perhaps a good example. It may not constitute nationally significant infrastructure in the sense that the track does, but the signal box is integral to the running of the railway. If a neighbourhood plan had the ability to set land-use planning policy for the area containing the signal box, the plans could affect the running of the railway. It is therefore important that in drawing up neighbourhood plans and the associated development orders, development that is ancillary but integral to the working of nationally significant infrastructure is excluded from the scope of neighbourhood planning.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I follow the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord True, in expressing some concern about the relationship of the various amendments and clauses that will ultimately emerge, particularly in relation to neighbourhood development areas and business areas—if I might use that shorthand term. It seems that we could have a situation in which, under the later amendment that the noble Baroness will be moving, a business area could be declared on the basis that it is wholly or predominantly a business area, which sort of makes sense, I suppose. However, another amendment refers to a situation in which there might be two referendums in the same area because there is a business area and a neighbourhood development area, which implies that it is not just a business area, or that there is some sort of overlap.

I think of a situation in the ward I represent where you have a business area—a shopping street—on either side of which there are two distinct residential communities, both of which regard the shopping area as common, as it were. However, each has its own separate issues which might encourage it—this would no doubt be welcome—to seek area status in a development forum for each residential side of the road, as it were. I do not see how this fits together, particularly having regard to Amendments 148ZA and 148ZB, which the Minister will move later. I mention this at this stage to give her a little time to think, or be advised about, the relationship between these issues. It seems to me that this could lead to considerable confusion because, on the one hand, business areas are supposed to stand alone whereas, on the other hand, other parts of the Bill suggest that they will not stand alone. You might then have competing neighbourhood forums sharing, as it were, a business area. It would be helpful to have elucidation of this rather complex situation and how it might work on the ground as I fear that it will confuse rather than clarify the situation for those occupiers—be they residential or business occupiers—who want to progress with the development of a plan for the area as they see it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

On this question of voting, if there is a small business, a corner shop, for example, where the shopkeeper also lives, does that shopkeeper then have two votes?

[Baroness Valentine]

I support the government amendments but would like to make one suggestion about simplification. There should be two votes in all cases, a business and a residential vote, except where either businesses or residents are a negligible presence in the neighbourhood area. The benefit of that would be that the local authority can test the mood of both residents and business. Where they agree, the vote would be binding, but where they disagree the solution is likely to be a mediated solution rather than a yes/no vote. That is likely to represent a more sustainable solution where the residents and businesses vote differently. My plea would be for there to be a business and residential vote in most situations, with the local authority taking the casting vote. From a civic society point of view, the businesses would never override the residential vote and the default would be for the local authority to take the view.

[Lord Beecham]

I am sorry to add to the Minister’s burdens, but I would like a little clarification. In her recent intervention, the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has continued to use the term “business vote”, but as the Minister has rightly pointed out it is a non-domestic vote, which presumably includes the local authority’s own buildings, and indeed government offices, so she might be casting votes up and down the country. However, I have a difficulty—it might just be me, I must confess—with Amendment 148ZB. The latter provision in Amendment 148AE requires an authority in effect to consider whether a business area should be designated as a neighbourhood area, but Amendment 148ZB talks about a situation in which there are,

“two applicable referendums under that Schedule (because the order relates to a neighbourhood area designated as a business area under section 61GA)”.

Am I correct in thinking that there are two applicable referendums because they relate both to a business area and to a residential neighbourhood area? I do not quite understand the reference to “two applicable referendums”. If there are to be two applicable referendums, I come back to the question that I posed earlier about a business area that might adjoin two separate residential neighbourhood areas. I do not understand how this will work for referendums and how proposed new subsection (5)(b) in Amendment 148ZB will operate, because there might conceivably be three referendums: one for the business area and one for each of the two adjoining residential areas. If I am correct that that might occur, the outcome will be somewhat complicated.

Frankly, I do not expect the Minister to be able to give an answer off the cuff, although she may do, in which case I will nominate her for a Nobel prize for understanding daft legislation. I would be very grateful if she could indicate that she will write to me and perhaps place a copy of the letter in the Library afterwards.