Lord Clement-Jones
Main Page: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I have not spoken previously in Committee, but I took part in the Select Committee process and helped to produce the report Building Better Places. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in this amendment because to a very great degree it reflects many of the conclusions of the Select Committee. It is important that as the Housing and Planning Bill goes through this House it reflects a number of the conclusions of that report. The amendment takes quite a number of those issues in a very comprehensive way and puts them in this new clause.
I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Whitaker, who were, in a sense, the prime movers behind the setting up of the Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment, and, of course, to the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, who helped drive the report through. The essence of this amendment is that the National Planning Policy Framework guidance is essentially rather weak about placing a duty on sustainable development, and that is what the committee heavily identified.
This amendment has formidable support across the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, read out a few of the names, but it is extremely comprehensive. The supporters’ view, which I entirely endorse, is that planning plays a key role in shaping decisions for the wider built environment as well as in individual buildings and development. They share a concern that current reforms will make high-quality, accessible, sustainable outcomes harder to achieve. This is partly because the NPPF fails to recognise the long-term social and economic benefits of many planning interventions from accessible design standards to green infrastructure and from biodiversity to adequate play space for children. The committee found that the evidence was overwhelming on health, inclusion, climate and economic efficiency and that good planning creates well-being and lower long-term costs to the public purse. The essence of the report was the Committee’s statement:
“Moves towards deregulation of the planning system, coupled with an intensification of housebuilding, have the potential to exert significant enduring impacts upon the built environment in England. A consistent theme across much of the remainder of this report is the need for quality, as well as quantity, and the need to think about long-term implications for ‘place’, as well as the important and more immediate need for more housing”.
It went on:
“This was a consistent theme throughout much of the evidence that we heard; many witnesses told us that the design, quality and standard of much recent development is simply not good enough. The coordination between different aspects of the built environment is, in places, sadly lacking … We believe that, as a nation, we need to recognise the power of place and to be much more ambitious when planning, designing, constructing and maintaining our built environment. Failure to do so will result in significant long-term costs”.
Those are extremely wise words. One only needs to look at one factor, which is heritage. The report states:
“The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to balance heritage protection and development policies. We believe that it is essential that this balance is sustained, enhanced and delivered. We recommend that planning and development policy and practice should reflect more explicitly the fact that our historic environment is a cultural and economic asset rather than an obstacle to successful future developments”,
and so on. If one took every line of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to which I have put my name, one would find that there are supporting statements in this report.
I very much hope that the Minister and this House will listen to some wise words in this report. We spent many months listening to many witnesses, whose evidence quite overwhelmingly says that we need to amend and make much more of the guidance, whether through a new clause like this or through much tighter guidance, to make sure that place is properly taken into account in our planning system.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I have listened and have been most interested, and I agree with most of what has been said. The only thing I am unhappy about is that phrase “place making”. The noble Lord mentioned heritage, which is very important because we are creating heritage for the future. “Place making”, however, seems a pretty dull phrase, and I hope that by the time we get to Report, noble Lords may come up with something better.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the RIBA. I shall speak to Amendments 94A and 95A, so persuasively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and Amendment 101BA, in my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, who regrets she cannot be here, also supports these important amendments, as does the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. So there is all-party support for amendments which are intended to ensure that, in the radical changes to planning processes envisaged by permission in principle, the all-important role of good design is guaranteed. Why is it all-important? Because good design has a fundamental effect on well-being, environmental quality, and the long-term economic value of buildings and competitiveness of places, and because it is at risk in the new procedure proposed.
We heard in the Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment, which reported on 19 February, powerful evidence that health, employment prospects, access to services and amenities, were all improved by design which respected good place-making. The Minister responsible, Brandon Lewis, said to us that,
“an increased focus on good quality design could help us to deliver more homes, at a quicker pace, which communities can feel proud of”.
Planning authorities are the custodians of their local community’s requirements for the right design for their place. To substitute for their discretion an as-of-right regime is to risk issuing a blank cheque for the design of the development. It means that the all-important factors of height, density, landscape, layout, connections for transport and access, to name but a few, need not be considered from the outset. But it is at the outset that they should be thought about. These are not matters of detail, as the Bill would have us believe, but fundamental development parameters that determine the suitability of the development, both to its place and to the needs and aspirations of communities. This is how the National Planning Policy Framework—a very good achievement by the Government—envisages the role of design, and it is the right one. Without consideration of these matters of place-making, how will communities know how developments impact on surrounding areas, on the environment and on the sense of place? Yet they are being asked to give their approval without due regard to these matters. This is surely a recipe for nimbyism.
These amendments all reinforce the essential consideration to be made right at the beginning of a development process, in accordance with the NPPF, of what sort of place will result. The site-specific guidance need only set out the fundamental design requirements and should be relatively easy and quick to prepare, either by the local authority or by the developer. It can be done for an area as much as for individual sites, but it would be a tremendous advantage. It would be an invaluable way to strengthen the hand of planning authorities now that they have been so hollowed out by local authority cuts in staff and expertise. Our recommendation in the Select Committee report is prefaced by the sentence:
“We are anxious to ensure that moves towards a permission in principle do not undermine the capacity of local authorities to develop, design and integrate key sites in a way that ensures that they function effectively and respond to local needs and aspirations”.
Finally, the implementation of these amendments would make it easier for local communities to accept the development that is necessary to provide the housing we need, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. They can involve public engagement early on in the process as well as provide an opportunity to establish what is important to local people. All the evidence suggests that a little more effort spent establishing the key principles at the start can greatly smooth and shorten the process of planning and development overall. I urge the Minister to respect her Government’s NPPF and accept them.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I rise very briefly as a member of the Select Committee to support Amendments 94A and 95A, so ably spoken to by both the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and simply to draw the Minister’s attention to a couple of paragraphs in the Select Committee report which directly bear on the planning-in-principle point. Paragraph 143 says:
“These proposals have caused some concern. It was suggested that ‘principle’ and ‘detail’ in the planning system were closely related”.
One particular witness is quoted as saying:
“This negates the whole basis of the fact that detail and principle in planning are intimately related. How is it possible to give permission for something in principle, without understanding its detailed design or flood risk mitigation or sustainable urban drainage or proportion of social housing? I could go on. It misunderstands the intellectual process of making planning decisions”.
So the Select Committee came to the conclusion in paragraph 148:
“We are anxious to ensure that moves towards a permission in principle do not undermine the capacity of local authorities to develop, design and integrate key sites in a way that ensures that they function effectively and respond to local needs and aspirations. The relationship between principle and detail is important in the planning system. We recommend that the Government should carefully consider the impact its reforms could have upon this relationship. As a minimum, it is important that the process of granting permission in principle and Technical Details Consent should give due regard to design quality, sustainability, archaeology, heritage and all the other key components of place-making that would normally be required for the granting of planning permission”.
This amendment precisely reflects those concerns and I very much hope the Minister will have due regard to them.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, I would also like to speak to Amendments 94A and 95A. I mentioned the importance of design in my Second Reading speech and I return to the subject in this grouping.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Permitted development: change of use to residential use
Where the Secretary of State, in exercising the powers conferred by sections 59 (development orders), 60 (permission granted by development order), 61 (development orders: supplementary provisions), 74 (directions etc as to method of dealing with applications) or 333(7) (regulations and orders) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, makes a general permitted development in respect of change of use to residential use as dwelling houses, the change must first be subject to prior approval in respect of the impact of neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least one year on the amenity and enjoyment of the prospective residents of the dwelling houses.”
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 100 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Kennedy. I am very much third sub off the bench this evening. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is very disappointed not to be present after waiting for eight sittings of this Committee to move this amendment, but we share a strong interest in the viability of live music venues, so I hope that your Lordships will accept this inadequate substitute.
Some of the concern about the fate of live music venues derives from a report, London’s Grassroots Music Venues Rescue Plan, produced last year by the Mayor of London’s Music Venues Taskforce, which suggested that while London’s music industry is generating billions of pounds for the economy, a vital part of this important cultural as well as economic sector is under threat. The taskforce, set up by the mayor last year and chaired by the Music Venue Trust, undertook an audit of grass-roots music venues and found that from 2007 to 2015 London had seen the number of spaces programming new artists drop from 136 to just 88.
The situation was mirrored more recently in UK Music’s Bristol live music census, published only this month by Bucks New University. It found that 50% of the city’s music venues were affected by development, noise or planning issues. Those issues pose a direct threat to the future of Bristol’s vibrant ecosystem, which generated some £123 million towards the local economy in 2015 and supported 927 full-time equivalent jobs. So it is an important issue in both those localities and not confined to the metropolis.
One problem faced by live music venues arises when residents move in to an area where noise is emanating from long-standing music venues. The residents make complaints about the noise, and, despite the fact that in most cases the volume levels have remained the same for many years, a complaint has to be dealt with by the local authority and often results in additional licensing restrictions. Such restrictions can limit the venue’s ability to generate income and can be extremely costly to put in place, so this is a major issue when new residents move in and are affected by existing venues.
The London rescue plan advocates, among other policies, support for what is called the agent-of-change principle, and this is reflected by these two amendments. The agent-of-change principle puts the responsibility for noise management measures on the agent of change—that is, the incoming individual or business. This could be a resident moving into a flat near an existing music venue, or a developer that is building a new music venue near an existing residential building. The principle has already been adopted elsewhere—for example, in parts of Australia and the United States—and is proving successful. At present, developers have no legal obligation to sound-proof new residences, forcing developers to spend significant amounts fending off noise complaints, abatement notices and planning applications. The Music Venue Trust has warned that the Government’s 2013 amendments to permit offices, car parks and disused buildings across the country to be converted to residences without planning permission have made the potential situation for venues even worse.
The genesis of these amendments to the Bill is that they were tabled in Committee in the Commons. It appears that Ministers were sympathetic to the case being made but did not, at the end, accept the amendments. Amendment 99 would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment when buildings are converted to residential use by virtue of a general permitted development order. Such measures would become the responsibility of the agent of change of the permission. Amendment 100 would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment. Such measures would, again, be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
Things have moved on since the debate in the Commons. A letter dated 10 March was sent by Brandon Lewis, the Minister for Housing and Planning, and his colleague the Minister for Local Growth and the Northern Powerhouse. It indicates that the Government are amending the permitted development right to include a provision to allow the local planning authority to consider noise impacts on new residents from existing businesses in the area. This is a significant change in the current position. I very much welcome the contents of that letter and I believe that the necessary regulation has now been laid. It is worth quoting part of the letter:
“From the 6 April, a developer will be required to seek prior approval from the local planning authority in relation to the noise impacts on new residents before a change of use from office to residential can be carried out under permitted development. It will in effect allow local authorities to take account of national planning policy and guidance on noise, in a similar way to a planning application, as well as any material concerns raised by owners of music venues in relation to noise. This will help to ensure that before residents move into new housing in close proximity to well-established businesses, including music venues, local authorities are able to require the applicant to put in place noise mitigation measures where appropriate”.
That is all very welcome, but there are quite a number of questions about how this is to be interpreted when the new regulations come into effect on 6 April. For example, is there any intention to apply these regulations to situations where new build as opposed to conversion takes place? If not, why not?
Lord True
My Lords, I apologise for having provoked a lengthy debate at this time, but it is Committee and one’s only chance to put a case. I illustrated it largely with examples from Richmond, but in the London Councils brief there are examples of problems in Croydon, Islington, Camden and Lambeth, which I do not think are Conservative authorities but are all citing difficulties.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend, and of course I will gladly take up her offer. I hope that another order will not be laid by her friend at the other end before we can meet, because that was a rather unhelpful prelude to our previous meeting.
Lastly, the Minister can have his bone, because it is the Minister at the other end who is calling the shots, and I can have my bone so that my residents and the residents of Croydon and Lambeth have a bit of security. The order can stand and local authorities can be given the power to opt out within this Bill before Parliament. Everyone can be satisfied; those who want it and those who do not. That is what I put on the table, it is what I will take to my noble friend, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. But if we cannot meet on that, I will bring this back to the House.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I am afraid that even as regards Amendments 99 and 100, the Minister has only a partially satisfied customer. As my noble friend has said, it is important that we look in a rather more granular fashion at some of the points that I have raised, particularly on the retrospective aspects and the difference between guidance and putting this on to the statute book.
I am concerned about precisely the point mentioned by my noble friend, which is the example of the Fleece in Bristol, where the local authority played a perfectly proper role. It took account of the NPPF and so on, but in the end it was the Planning Inspectorate that was the real problem. If the local authority is allowed to consider noise impact and then does so, what is the difference between that and the inspectorate perhaps being free or not to take that into account, and therefore it does not impose the same conditions as the local authority? Would it be different if we had something rather more obligatory on a local authority? Would that impose a higher duty on the Planning Inspectorate in those circumstances, thus avoiding the situation that the Fleece found itself in?
I am rather concerned about how strong this particular guidance is going to be. I recognise that the principle is floating around, but how much of a fix do we have on it in order to make sure that the future of our music venues is protected? I am not going to go any further at this time of night, but I would welcome a fairly detailed letter from the Minister. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.