Housing and Planning Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Thomas]

Again, Mr Gray, I welcome that guidance.

The particular benefit of new clause 19 is to place on anyone who wants to convert offices to other buildings in an area with a music venue nearby the duty to make clear the potential impact of the noise from that music venue. It is in that spirit that new clauses 19 and 20 are tabled—to bring the agent for change principle into UK law. They are entirely sensible provisions, and with that I urge the Committee to support new clauses 19 and 20.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I will be brief. I want simply to point out that one of the key problems with the Government’s extension of the permitted development rights is that they allow change to happen without consideration of local economic impacts.

We know that the cumulative loss of employment space as a consequence of permitted developments rights is a significant concern across London. We also know that there are no safeguards on the quality or the suitability of development. That is illustrated by the potential loss of music venues, which play an important cultural and community role in the locations in which they are situated. This is yet another example of the ways in which the Government are seeking to achieve short-term progress at the expense of longer-term outcomes and the quality and character of our neighbourhoods. I therefore very much support the new clauses.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

The aim of new clauses 19 and 20 is effectively twofold: first, to ensure that, where planning permission is granted for change of use to a residential use, the new residents’ amenity is protected; and secondly, to require that the cost of any mitigation measures needed to protect residents’ amenity, particularly against noise generated, is borne by the developer. I believe that the new clauses are unnecessary. They will impose inflexible requirements on local authorities and others where there are already appropriate protections to address these issues. One of my hon. Friends made that point this morning in our extensive debate.

In fact, the national planning policy framework itself incorporates the agent of change principle. It makes clear that businesses that want to develop should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of nearby changes to land use. Our thriving city centres are successful because they contain a vibrant and diverse mix of uses. It is therefore inevitable that modern city centre living will be co-located alongside other commercial and, as we heard, leisure uses. That is what makes our cities such dynamic places to live, work and, indeed, play.

In the case of planning permission granted by local planning authorities, they must decide the applications in accordance with the local plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Consideration of amenity impacts such as noise and disturbance is already a well established part of decision making, and the NPPF is a material consideration. National planning policy already establishes the principle that local authorities should approve applications for change of use from commercial to residential where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area—one thing that I hope we all agree on is the need for extra housing.

The framework also includes strong protections against pollution. It makes it clear that the planning system should prevent new and existing development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of pollution, including noise. The effects, including cumulative effects of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. In addition, planning decisions should aim to avoid noise which gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

The framework goes further by making it clear that existing businesses that want to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land use since they were established. The planning guidance supporting the framework is clear that the potential effect of the location of a new residential development close to an existing business that gives rise to noise should be carefully considered. The guidance underlines planning’s contribution to avoiding future complaints and risks to local businesses from resulting enforcement action. To avoid such situations, local councils are encouraged to consider appropriate mitigation, including designing the new development to reduce the impact of noise in the local environment and optimising the sound insulation provided by the building envelope.

I am keen to look further at this matter. I have been working with my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, who is arranging for me to sit down and meet some of the music organisations that were mentioned this morning. If a business is working and a nearby building converts to residential housing, that is a good thing; we want more housing. It would be entirely wrong of the people who moved into the residential housing to complain about the business that existed before the residential housing was there. When I was the Minister with responsibility for pubs, I came across examples of residents who complained about a pub that had been there for 150 years two weeks after moving in next door. We need to ensure that those businesses are protected.

In December 2014, we made amendments to the planning guidance to underline planning’s contribution to protecting music venues, but I am interested in looking further at that issue. As I said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy has arranged for me to meet with those organisations shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I support the amendment. We all welcome development and new homes, but I strongly agree that garden cities and corporations, when they are bringing development forward, need to put sustainability and place making at the heart of their plans. That has a particular resonance with something that I am very passionate about, which is climate change and energy efficiency.

New subsection (2B)(e) would ensure that, in building new homes, UDCs would have to ensure that those homes and that development

“contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008”.

We know that homes are central to the UK meeting its climate change targets and that meeting our EU obligations of 15% renewables by 2020 looks ever more precarious; a leaked letter from the Secretary of State only a few weeks back showed that. Homes have a crucial role to play.

The context at the moment for delivering sustainable homes is not great. The Government have scrapped the zero-carbon homes policy that was starting to bear fruit in many areas. The London Mayor has taken a different view and sought to put some of the provisions of that policy back in place through the London plan, and I welcome that. The context for bringing forward environmentally sustainable, high-quality homes has become more precarious and the amendment would go some way, in relation to UDCs, to making sure that sustainable homes are at the heart of what is built. That is important.

It goes back to the debate we had earlier. The hon. Members for Peterborough and for South Norfolk, and others, bemoaned the socialist architecture of the 1950s—I would call it brutalist, though they may not draw such a distinction—when homes and places for people to live were built that have not fared well over the decades. We have an obligation because the cost of retrofitting homes that fall below environmentally sustainable standards far outweighs that of the measures we need to put in place. We want to build homes that last for generations and are fit for people to live in. For that reason I support the amendment.

[Helen Hayes]

I, too, want to speak briefly in support of the amendment. However the planning system is defined, it embodies a set of values and prioritises a series of outcomes. Garden cities of the past were so successful as communities, function so well and are such popular places to live in precisely because of the high aspirations and strong values on which they were founded and the extensive efforts to secure high-quality design and the long-term sustainability of the resourcing of those communities, in all sorts of different ways. That happened because their founders were thinking about long-term success and the values of the communities that they were developing and because they were established on strong principles.

In contrast, some of the early urban development corporations did not embody those same aspirations. The development that took place was, in many cases, far less attractive as a consequence and far less well served with open spaces and amenities. It was often unsustainable or lacking in things such as local school places and good public transport connections. Some of those lessons from the early urban development corporations have informed the way in which development has taken place in the last 10 years or so. We have seen an emphasis on bringing forward community infrastructure early in the development process, so that communities are not left stranded and ill-provided for.

So far, I have seen nothing in the Bill that will ensure that new development under the Bill will be built to a high quality or high standard of sustainability. That is of significant concern. That is what the amendment is seeking to ensure both for urban development corporations and garden cities, which can and should play a significant role in building the homes we need. We must ensure that those homes are built to the highest standards for the long term, that they become part of the heritage of this country and of communities we can be proud of for the long term. We will do that only if we get right the values and the aspirations on which they are founded. That is why I am pleased to support the amendment.

[Peter Dowd]

I, too, support the amendment. It is partly because of my experience of being raised in an urban area where, post-war, many houses, and communities, were knocked down. Those communities were not fantastic all the time, but at their heart they had a community spirit. There was a genuine attempt in the post-war environment to expand and continue with that spirit, which was often difficult to do. Part of that was to ensure that when people left the slums—there should be no beating about the bush, because that is what they were; it was slum clearance—they went to an environment where houses were designed as best they could be and for the best reasons. However, there is a danger in the current proposals that there is a push, a push and a push for growth. Although there is nothing wrong with that, the quality of the housing that arises from that push can get lost in the race. This is an attempt to lay out a protocol for building.

In Merseyside, the village of Port Sunlight, which many people may have been to, was built by Lord Lever. It is a perfect example of a garden city that, to this day, looks virtually no different from the way it did 100 years ago. It is a fantastic place. Many other places in Liverpool have smaller versions of that, such as Norris Green, which won awards in the 1920s and 1930s for the design of its buildings. There is nothing to stop us supporting this proposal and to reify—to put into clear, unambiguous terms—what we expect from some of the garden city developments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the national planning policy framework. It is only 50 pages long, and I am sure that it will entertain him this evening. I suggest that he looks at how local plans work, how neighbourhood plans work, and at consultation more generally. Even the corporations will come from local areas. On garden cities, towns and settlements and new settlements more generally, I am very keen, as are the Government, to work with various developers, but they will come from the area. There will not be the top-down, failed approach of the past.

Sustainable development in itself is hardwired into the planning system. It is absolutely central to the national planning policy framework, and rightly so. The framework provides a clear view of what sustainable development means in practice. It is explicit that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to achieving sustainable development, and that three pillars are key: the environment, society and the economy. They are mutually dependent and cannot and should not be pursued in isolation. We do not need a separate, statutory, tick-box requirement around sustainable development that applies only in a case where an urban development corporation or new town development corporation has been created. It would be quite unhelpful and distorting to have a separate definition of sustainable development outlined that applies only to them.

Nor do I think that we should limit local flexibility. Where local areas decide that an urban development corporation or new town development corporation is the best way to deliver regeneration or, indeed, a new town or settlement, rather than ticking their way through that long list of objectives, they should have the freedom to create strong, sustainable communities in a way that best reflects their local circumstances. It is they who best know their local needs, not us sitting here in Whitehall.

Great place making in and of itself is secured not through detailed central prescription, but through good, strong, clear and transparent local leadership. That applies whether or not the development is led by an urban development corporation, such as in Ebbsfleet. A master plan has been worked through for Ebbsfleet that makes it very clear that the ambition is to see the development of garden city principles. I saw that just yesterday when I went to announce the new Didcot garden town development, which is looking for innovation as well as good-quality development.

We see that where settlements are being developed in areas right around our country, from Northamptonshire right the way through to the south-west and Hampshire. Indeed, we only have to look at the well known example of north-west Bicester, where 6,000-odd high-quality homes are being developed to zero-carbon standards. That is being done without central prescription, highlighting that local areas can be trusted to do the right thing and get the right quality for their local community. The local authority itself or the local development corporation when it is set up can deliver that, and should be empowered to do so without those strictures being put on them by central Government. I hope that that provides the hon. Lady with sufficient confidence to withdraw her amendment.

[Helen Hayes]

Will the Minister clarify whether the homes in Bicester that are being delivered to the zero-carbon homes standard were consented to and the process of their delivery begun prior to the abolition of the zero-carbon homes standard?

[Brandon Lewis]

There has not been a zero-carbon homes standard, and we have decided not to go forward with it. They are continuing it in Bicester anyway, and are in fact going to some quite interesting lengths. I say to the hon. Lady that, when I last visited Bicester, I was shown a really ambitious programme to develop a really sustainable community. In one area, the homes that are being built are provided with electric chargers for the cars, and the developer working with the local authority has negotiated with local car dealers to lend the new home buyers an electric car for a couple of weeks to show them how practical they are and how well they work in order to encourage electric cars. That is locally decided, not working to a tick-box from central Government. That is why it is right that local areas are empowered to do those things. More importantly, we should trust local people to do what is right for them. Time and again when we trust local people, they prove that they get it right. I am happy to continue supporting that, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.