Earl Attlee
Main Page: Earl Attlee (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)Department Debates - View all Earl Attlee's debates with the Department for Transport
Localism Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, it is unfortunate that a raft of technical amendments have come forward very late in the day, and seemingly in an environment where the promised engagement in Committee was not fully realised. That is not the best way for us to deal with these hugely important matters. It means that we are stacking up yet another issue to deal with at Third Reading. Whether we get through Third Reading in one day remains to be seen.
I hope that we all agree that, in relation to infrastructure, we want an efficient and effective system of dealing with planning. We have heard arguments about a one-stop shop and the extent to which we are some way from that. We have heard about the issues around the extent to which there should be a parliamentary process now that the Secretary of State is the ultimate decision-maker. I say to my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd and to my noble friend Lord Berkeley that I would need a bit of convincing to step aside from a parliamentary procedure just because the Secretary of State is making the final decision. We have debated the Bill in some detail and the issue of the powers of the Secretary of State has been a running sore in our deliberations, but I remain to be convinced on that.
Certainly I agree with and support the importance of having a one-stop shop on the raft of consents that apparently are still needed. However, the clock is ticking on Third Reading. This is an opportunity to sort out some issues, but we do not have much time in which to do it. It may be, as my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd said, that the EU could overtake us on this matter. We have a couple of weeks before Third Reading and there are very serious issues that have been raised tonight by all three noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also raised new points that we had not touched on before about who can make these qualifying requests, as well as issues around pre-application consultation. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a full response on these issues. Generally, I find that we are in an unsatisfactory position on a hugely important issue for this country.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. On the point about meetings, I cannot understand what has gone wrong. I would never resist meetings, not least because I find them so valuable. It is my responsibility to call a meeting. On the other hand, if it looks as though the meeting is not going to happen, a reminder would be helpful—and I do enjoy the meetings that I have with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
We are very short on time. The amendments in this group seek to change the Planning Act 2008. Although they are technical in nature, they are none the less important, so I shall respond to each in turn. Amendments 223AA and 223AB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, seek to limit the circumstances in which a qualifying request for a direction under Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by Clause 120 of the Localism Bill, may be made. The amendments would restrict those who can make a qualifying request to the proposed applicant and the authority in question. Amendment 223AB would prevent a qualifying request from being made after an application is made to the relevant authority.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his work in this area. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, I have really considered this matter only in respect of railways but I think that noble Lords will find my answers satisfactory. The noble Lord and I did indeed have a meeting on this—ironically, I turned up a few minutes late.
Amendment 223A would amend the provisions of the 2008 Act which relate to railway projects. The amendment seeks to introduce two new powers. The first relates to a case where a railway project contains both development for which consent is required under the 2008 Act and development for which permitted development rights exist. In this case, the amendment seeks—on application from the promoter—to permit the Secretary of State for Transport to direct that the permitted development should be dealt with under the Planning Act along with the development for which consent is required under the Act. I confirm that Section 35 of the Act already provides a power of direction capable of achieving this. A new power is not necessary. The second relates to a situation where development consent is required for a railway project under the 2008 Act. In response to a qualifying request, if the Secretary of State for Transport thinks that the project is not of national significance, he may direct that the development should be treated as development for which consent under the Planning Act is not required.
My DCLG officials have discussed this matter with the Department for Transport and Network Rail, and have agreed that a carefully considered threshold would be preferable to such a power, as it would provide greater clarity on what should be considered major infrastructure. We have therefore agreed that secondary legislation should be brought forward under Section 14 of the Planning Act to set a suitable threshold for rail projects, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. This will be taken forward by the Department for Transport. With this assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that very positive response. Perhaps I could tell my noble friend Lord McKenzie that it applies only to railways because in other major project areas under the Planning Act there is always a minimum threshold. For some reason, one was not done at the time for railways—everybody thought that railways were big ones, and nobody picked it up. I suppose I should ask the Minister when the regulations will be tabled, but I am sure that he recognises the importance of that for certain projects. If it would help in drafting these things I am happy to meet with him, along with people from Network Rail and other infrastructure managers if they are interested. However, that seems to be a very good way forward and I am very grateful to him. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, if I understand my noble friend’s proposition, it is that the hydraulic fracturing of underground rock will be brought within the national infrastructure projects regime, the planning regime that deals with major projects. I think that is central to what my noble friend is moving. We have had a wider debate about the potential importance of shale gas, what that might mean and the risks associated with it. It seems to me that we need a broader regime that encompasses all those issues: licensing regimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, not only to deal with exploration, but with exploitation as well. If there is to be no national infrastructure projects approach to this, then planning, presumably, is a matter for local planning authorities and, indeed, neighbourhood planning. That does not seem to me to fit well with something that is potentially of huge national significance, with potentially huge risks and uncertainties attached to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that this issue is worthy of a further debate. Perhaps when we have debated the NPPF to death we might turn our attention to it. I am a novice on this, but it is a fascinating and hugely important issue. I can remember when North Sea oil first opened up. It was a project on which I worked in my former life and I know some of the debate that went on around that. However, if I understand it correctly, my noble friend’s proposition about the environment within which the planning ought to be considered is a straightforward one, and he makes a good case.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 223B seeks to require the Secretary of State, by order, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to add hydraulic fracturing of underground rock, commonly known as “fracking”, to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects in Section 14(1) of the 2008 Act.
The first exploration for shale gas in the UK has begun only recently. Fracturing has so far been used on one shale gas drill site in Lancashire but is currently suspended pending a geomechanical study into seismic activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised some wider planning issues, but fracking is no more difficult or technical than other mineral extraction methods, and my noble friend Lord Lucas said as much. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, covered some of the regulatory issues, and I shall not go over that ground again. My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to a small earthquake. Of course he was actually referring to a seismic event, which is slightly different.
The amendment would require hydraulic fracturing to be added to the types of activity that are considered nationally significant. It is not necessary, however, to use this Bill for that purpose; a secondary power exists to achieve this. I am happy to undertake that this issue will be raised with my colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change and, if it appears appropriate to the purposes of the Bill to add this type of activity to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects, we will use the secondary power. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, there has been a great deal of discussion previously about thresholds and nationally significant infrastructure projects. Does the Minister agree that the question of thresholds may also be relevant in this case?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change will take all relevant matters into consideration.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It has been a good debate in which a number of different views have been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made a good point about thresholds. As I raised it in a previous amendment in respect of railway projects, I think it is relevant to learn from something that possibly went wrong before.
I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to speak to his ministerial colleagues and, if appropriate, to bring this matter forward by secondary legislation. I am therefore pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we are in total agreement with the amendment; indeed we should have added our name to it. I apologise for not having done that. One of the issues that was raised previously was about regulation, and if you have a new regulation then something has got to go. I would urge the Government not only to take on board this proposition but to look and see what might be gained by trying to streamline other notification procedures, particularly in relation to building regulations and notifications in respect of the community infrastructure levy. Why can these not potentially be combined into one notification procedure? So you have got two out, and only one in, on that basis. That notwithstanding, it does seem a very sensible proposition which we support.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 223C is, as he has said, a simpler, more permissive version of the one he tabled in Committee. However, I regret to say that it still does not overcome the Government’s concerns that this would add yet a further element of complexity and box-ticking to the application process for both the applicant and the local planning authorities and yet yield no practical benefit for local planning authorities.
In the March 2011 Plan for Growth, the Government clearly cited the problem of the cumulative additional cost to business of new regulations introduced since 1998. It is essential that reforms continue to reduce costs, delays and bureaucracy in the planning system and support the Government’s collective approach to driving sustainable economic growth. Local planning authorities can, and do, ask for notification of commencement of development when and where they think it necessary. A developer failing to notify the local authority that the works had commenced would not be a good start to the relationship between them.
My noble friend may argue that an administrative scheme has no teeth if the developer does not return the form but the Government’s view is that new Section 106D, to be inserted by the amendment, would have no teeth either. Making the commencement of development without giving notice a breach of planning control implies that enforcement action could be taken. However, the point of enforcement action is to remedy breaches of planning control. Once development has started it will no longer be possible to give prior notice, so the breach could not technically be remedied and enforcement action would be ineffective. If it turns out that the developer has failed to comply with pre-commencement conditions as well as not giving notice, then the local planning authority can take such action as it sees fit, perhaps by serving a breach of condition notice.
The Government’s view is that this amendment will inject additional complexity into the planning process yet provide little practical benefit. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
I do not know whether the Minister incites me to call a Division but I will not do so at this time of night. I can see my Chief Whip in his place, who might not be very pleased by that and I do not want to fall out with him.
The Minister made some good points. On reflection, the amendment could be further simplified, particularly by the removal of the last four lines. There is a problem. The Minister wants to reduce the amount of bureaucracy on the part of local planning authorities. At the moment, particularly on major developments where there is concern about whether the development has started, the authority sends people round to find out and look on site or ring people up. That takes time and effort.
It is really six of one and half a dozen of the other. On the local planning authority side, this would not make much difference at all. However, I am sorry that the Government will not accept this. They will not accept everything that I put forward in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“(5) The amendments made by this section do not alter—
(a) whether under subsection (2) of section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regard is to be had to any particular consideration, or(b) the weight to be given to any consideration to which regard is had under that subsection.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, your Lordships will recall our helpful debate in Committee on this clause, when we dealt with an array of issues. I shall give a brief reminder of the key points before moving on to the amendments now tabled and the issues that I understand still worry some noble Lords.
I start by reiterating the Government’s purpose here. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee noted in Committee, the issue of local finance incentives and planning decisions was made topical by the new homes bonus, or NHB. When we consulted on that scheme, uncertainty was expressed about its relationship with planning. The CPRE was concerned enough to seek a legal opinion, which implied that the scheme might taint the planning decision-making process. The supposition was that the scheme might encourage local planning authorities to take non-material considerations into account when determining planning applications for new homes.
The CPRE is right to keep a keen eye on this issue but in some instances its press releases and briefings have unnecessarily added to the sector’s confusion and alarm. It has raised fears that that NHB will undermine the planning system and result in,
“hugely damaging consequences for local communities and the environment”,
and result in any local decision in which a local finance consideration were taken into account being,
“legally ‘tainted’ and open to question”.
The clause itself, which the Government prepared in an attempt to ensure that local finance consideration would not be taken into account in inappropriate circumstances—in other words, to address the CPRE’s core concern—has been branded as,
“a brazen attempt to legalise cash for sprawl”,
and as a temptation for local planning authorities to,
“fill shrinking coffers by permitting any development, regardless of its environmental impact or the views of local communities”.
All such claims, though doubtless borne of genuine concern, are based on a false premise about the effect of the clause. As such they are rather misleading. To be clear, the clause simply restates the existing legal position, confirming for the avoidance of doubt that, like any other consideration, a matter such as the NHB or CIL must be taken into account if they are material to the planning application under consideration.
Inevitably, the CPRE activity on this issue has not helped the confusion already apparent in the sector, evidenced, for example, by the London Borough of Islington which, in its response to the NHB consultation, said:
“The government should make it clear whether NHB can be taken into account as a material consideration when determining planning applications”.
It was precisely to address this confusion and to give a clear and lasting reminder that local finance considerations should be taken into account only where they are material in the long-understood sense—in line with case law—that Clause 130 was prepared.
It is clearly untenable to allow confusion to linger, particularly within the bodies responsible for making planning decisions. As I said in Committee, this would undermine the planning system’s integrity and affect public confidence. Making the legal position more clear should reduce the risk of local planning authorities being accused of letting financial incentives improperly influence their decisions and so facing legal challenges to their decisions.
In Committee, my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked why the necessary clarification could not be given in guidance. As I indicated at the time, we thought carefully about the option. However, the Government concluded that with confusion on this legal and technical issue so prevalent, the only responsible option was to bring the desperately needed clarity to the fore by using the Localism Bill.
Given the significant accusations the CPRE was asserting, the consequent confusion that local planning authorities were faced with, and the grave risk which that confusion posed to the proper operation of the planning system, we felt it essential to clarify the position and clear up the confusion in law. Using the Localism Bill presented the most immediate and visible way to set the record straight on this important message. As the confusion concerned the legal position it made sense to use legislation to clarify the point and provide councils with reassurance on what they should and should not legitimately do.
It may be helpful if I remind the House of the tests for a material consideration. I know some noble Lords remain uncertain as to the circumstances in which the NHB or the community infrastructure levy might be material to a particular planning decision. Current statute confirms that in determining planning applications regard must be had to the development plan so far as it is material to the application and to any other material considerations. Statute does not define what a material consideration is but clear tests for materiality have been developed through case law.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I feel slightly disappointed that I have not managed to convince all noble Lords of my position. However, I do not feel in the slightest that I am in a hole. I am entirely comfortable with Clause 130 and the Government’s position. It was mentioned that this was introduced as an incidental matter in the House of Commons. Your Lordships are quite used to matters being sneaked into a Bill in the other place and then coming to your Lordships' House for detailed scrutiny, which is exactly what we are here for.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, discussed my assertion that the Bill does not change the law, but my contention is that the clause is essential. On my point that it does no harm, the harm has been done by opinions that have muddied the waters in the past with regard to the NHB, and therefore it was necessary to introduce Clause 130. My noble friend Lord Greaves raised the issue that we need to be sure that the money will be tied to a project. In his expert case study, he described a situation in which the political landscape could change. The CIL-charging authority will need to be sure that it will spend the money in the way anticipated at the planning decision stage. If not, and things change, it may be challenged on the grounds of legitimate expectation. The local planning authority and the CIL authority will need to be sure that the money will be spent in the way anticipated.
I gave the House a very detailed exposition of my position and we have had an excellent, thorough and useful debate on this clause. I must thank my noble friend Lord Greaves in particular for highlighting the scope for the clause to be made clearer on the point of weight. In light of what I have said, the House can be confident that the clause poses no threat to the fair and proper operation of the planning system. I hope your Lordships are now happy, if a little reluctant, to support Clause 130 and the important elucidation it brings to the question of when local finance considerations can be taken into account in planning decisions. With the further refinements made by the Government’s amendments, it is not clear to me that there is any problem left to solve. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lady Parminter will feel able to withdraw her amendment at the appropriate point and support the Government’s amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the issue of green belt is one of those matters which has caused great consternation. Obviously, we will have to await the final version of the NPPF. Of course, it is not for me to defend the NPPF in its current form, but as currently drafted it seems to address what the noble Baroness is in part seeking. The NPPF states that:
“A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites”.
That is envisaged within the NPPF as I understand it.
In terms of the infrastructure, it is not always right that the services and infrastructure exist before, rather than being provided as a consequence or as part of, the development. I understood that it might be implicit in the noble Baroness’s amendment that it needed to be there before, rather than arising as an alternative. Therefore, I struggle to support the amendment in its current form. But the issues around development in the green belt are very important. We need to track what is going to happen and what the final version of the NPPF will be.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment seeks to allow infilling on green belt land if,
“sufficient infrastructure and services exist as to make the development reasonable”.
This test is not related to green belt policy, which is about preserving openness, preventing the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas and preventing the merger of towns. You could well have land with sufficient infrastructure, but allowing development on it would put at risk the key principles of the green belt policy. In any case, the law already requires determinations under the Planning Acts to be made in accordance with the development plan,
“unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.
Infrastructure is one of the material considerations routinely taken into account by decision-makers in planning cases.
As observed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the draft national planning policy framework contains the Government’s proposed policies on planning, including the green belt. It includes exceptions, set out in a similar way as current green belt policy, for certain categories of development. For example, it allows for the re-use of buildings, and the extension or replacement of dwellings. It also provides for the infilling or redevelopment of previously developed sites. I believe that these policies provide the flexibility to achieve the outcomes which my noble friend is seeking.
Given that current national policy has delivered a strong level of protection, I do not think it appropriate to make changes to green belt policy through legislative means. If changes are required to green belt policy, they should be carefully considered as part of the ongoing consultation and, if appropriate, taken forward through the framework. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, it seems to me that the policy has always existed about being able to use infill sites. The real debate is: what is an infill? I remember the case of Little Paddock in Pinner from when I was on the Greater London Council. There were huge rows which went on for a period of a year or so about whether it was an infill. I do not know how it was eventually decided other than that eventually someone was allowed to build on it. Whereas in other cases I have met, people have been told, “Oh, well this has been a little smallholding, so if you put a barn on it, and you make it possible to live in the barn, you’ll be able progressively to convert it”, in the way that the Minister has just said, saying that you can rebuild and change things slightly. That seemed to be such a false way of allowing it, to have a creeping development into this infill site.
As I said, I have known some that were described as not being infills being definitely described as green belt even though there were huge conference centres adjoining them. It is a question of this definition of infill, which I hope can be clarified in due course. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for moving his amendment again as the matter has moved on a little. Amendment 232 would provide regulation-making powers to allow commons registration authorities to decline new greens applications if there was insufficient evidence that they could meet the necessary criteria, or if they were frivolous or vexatious, and to award costs. It would also prevent applications for the registration of land on which use for sports and pastimes ceased before 6 April 2007 if the land was subject to planning permission.
The Government share the concerns lying behind the amendment about the way in which the new greens registration system is being used in some cases to hinder legitimate development. I said in Committee on 14 July that the Government hoped to make an announcement on town and village greens shortly. On 25 July, we published a consultation document proposing reforms to the new town and village greens registration system. Coincidentally, that consultation closes this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked what can be done through regulation. Through regulation, we can consider streamlining the process for registering greens and setting the fees. The consultation includes a proposal to rule out applications for land which is subject to a planning application or planning permission. This would address the purpose of subsection (5) of the amendment. It also includes a proposal to rule out applications for land which has been identified for development or protected by the local green spaces designation in a local or neighbourhood plan. There is also a proposal to introduce fees for applications.
Commons registration authorities already have the power to reject new town and village green applications that are incomplete or lack the requisite evidence for registration. However, a specific power to deal expeditiously with such matters will provide an increased level of confidence to authorities. For that reason, we have proposed to streamline the sifting process. My noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord know that we are still consulting on our proposed reforms, though the deadline fast approaches—in fact, it is tonight. I am sure that they will appreciate how those who have responded to the consultation would feel if we were to legislate now in the manner suggested, without, it would seem, hearing their views on the options we have set out.
I have made it clear that the Government share the concerns of my noble friend and the noble Lord. As the Minister for the Natural Environment and Fisheries said in his introduction to the Government’s consultation, we plan to announce our conclusions early in the new year. We will want to work with my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and with others with an interest in taking these conclusions forward. In the mean time, I would prefer not to second-guess what those conclusions will be without having first carefully digested the response to the consultation.
Lord Best
My Lords, I think there is some helpful material within that. There are still 58 minutes in which people can give their responses to the consultation document. I am grateful for that response. We will be able to look at it at our leisure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 232AB and will speak to Amendments 232AC to 232AR. I have a short speech and a very short speech. The sense of the House is rather for the latter. Amendments 232AB to 232AR amend Clause 218, which reforms the planning assumptions for compulsory purchase compensation. Amendments in this group extend the application of Clause 218 to Wales as well as England following a legislative consent Motion before the National Assembly. The other amendments, particularly Amendments 232AE and 232AR, make technical drafting changes so that the provisions work as intended. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, briefly, Clause 218 was put in without any debate in Committee. I simply thank the Government for having looked at the issue, bringing forward Clause 218 and then engaging with the Compulsory Purchase Association to discuss the amendments that are now being moved by the Government. I very much welcome this. Part 8 is an important part of the new Bill. I thank noble Lords for their time.
Earl Attlee
“14 Taking account of actual or prospective planning permission”
Earl Attlee
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham