Localism Bill

Lord Judd Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford]

In case the House were to think that my noble friend was in a minority of one, I rise to support his amendment strongly. Frankly, the essence of the planning system is that planning decisions should be made on planning grounds. To attempt to distort those decisions is thoroughly undesirable and totally contrary to the whole basis of what was set up by the party of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when it was in power in 1948. It was one of the great achievements of the Labour Government—the other being the health service. England would not be the country it is if it had not had that planning system.

My noble friend is talking particularly about wind farms, which is quite relevant because of the element of subsidy. However, very undesirable pressures have been put on planning authorities, for example, by supermarkets, which have proposed to build in quite inappropriate places and have threatened expensive public inquiries and local authorities with damages if they presume not to grant the application. My noble friend Lord Reay is absolutely on to the right idea. I strongly advise the Government to think very carefully before they distort the planning system in this sort of way.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I must intervene. I had not intended to do so because much the same ground will come up under some subsequent amendments to which I have put my name. However, I point out to my noble friend Lord Whitty, for whom I have great respect and who I regard as a particularly good personal friend, that there is an issue which comes up under a number of amendments.

What the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has said is very telling. I am very proud of what the post-war Labour Government contributed to civilised values in this country through their planning arrangements and commitment to the countryside. I regard that as one of the most precious assets in the history of our party and do not want to see it lightly cast aside. What worries me about the implications of this part of the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has moved his amendment, and, indeed of subsequent parts, is that all the implicit accumulated evidence, which is becoming increasingly explicit, shows that instead of a prejudice in planning in favour of our rich inheritance of countryside, scenery and the rest, the balance is changing to making economic considerations the priority. We need to get that balance right but I do not want to see the mistakes of the first Industrial Revolution repeated. Our countryside was raped in the first Industrial Revolution, but it could all have been done in a much more civilised way. Do we never learn? The noble Lord, Lord Reay, is absolutely right to be vigilant on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Reay]

My Lords, the present appeal system is unbalanced. Developers have an untrammelled right of appeal against the refusal of any planning application by a local planning authority. The appeal goes to a planning inspector—usually at a public inquiry—who hears the case as if for the first time. He can reverse the local planning authority’s decision on whatever grounds he chooses. Local communities, on the other hand, have no right of appeal. Once a planning permission is given by the local planning authority, that is the end of the story.

Prior to the general election, that was a situation that both the parties now in government recognised was unfair and promised to redress. Open Source Planning, which set out Conservative planning policy, promised to make the system symmetrical both by allowing appeals against local planning decisions from local residents—the broad purpose of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter—and by limiting the grounds on which developers could appeal to, first, where the correct procedure had not been followed, whereby cases were to be dealt with by the Local Government Ombudsman, and, secondly, where the decision contravened the local plan. I believe that Liberal Democrat policies were similar.

Both those policies would have advanced the principle of localism; both have now been abandoned by the Government. The arguments they use are incoherent. In opposing the third-party right of appeal, the Minister said that he wanted fewer appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and more decided locally. In that case, why not limit the developer’s right of appeal?

Planning policy has been captured by the Treasury, which seems to believe that any balance in planning policy threatens economic growth, and the Treasury is no doubt being cheered on by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, desperate to carpet the country with its useless wind farms.

I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Parminter, which seeks to reintroduce a community right of appeal. Such a right of appeal must clearly be circumscribed in some way and, as she explained, the amendment limits those entitled to appeal to local ward councillors and local parish councils.

However, there is one condition that my noble friend has introduced which I question, and I have tabled Amendment 170CCA to remove it—namely, that an appeal can go forward only if the planning officer recommends refusal. In other words, only in cases where the local authority had granted a planning application against the recommendation of the planning officer would the community right of appeal come into play. For the community, everything would hinge on what the planning officer recommended. If the planning officer recommended acceptance, and the local authority endorsed that recommendation, then the community would have no right of appeal.

That seems to me to give too much power to the planning officer. I do not see why it is the unelected planning officer who will in effect be able to decide whether there is any right of appeal against the decision of the local planning authority. If my amendment, and that of my noble friend to which mine is an amendment, were adopted, the effect would be that, whatever the recommendation of the planning officer, the community would have a right of appeal against decisions of the local planning authority. That seems to me to be more democratic.

Amendment 170CF, the other amendment in my name, seeks to deal with the developers’ right of appeal. That was suggested to me by the CPRE. I do not feel committed to it in its present form; indeed, I can see that there are reasons why it might be preferable to have a simpler amendment that would require any appeal to be confined to where the original decision by the local planning authority had contravened the local plan. If the refusal of the local planning authority were in conformity with the local plan, the developer would have no right of appeal. That would put Conservative and perhaps also Liberal Democrat policy back to where it was before the election. It would also chime with what Ministers keep saying about their wish to make the local plan sovereign, as my noble friend has pointed out. Would the Minister be tempted by such an amendment?

On the other hand, if the Government were to persist in their refusal to allow a community right of appeal, and at the same time do nothing whatever to limit the current right of appeal of the developer, so allowing the present unlevel playing field to be maintained, they would have revealed their words about wishing to ensure that fewer decisions go to public inquiry to be much empty waffle. The intentions that they express to give primacy to local concerns would be exposed as insincere, sacrificed to the Treasury's false belief that this is the way to get economic growth going and to the lunacy of the Government’s climate change fanatics.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is nothing if not challenging intellectually. I find myself very much in support of some of the issues which he raises in his amendment, but I do not support one of them. On one point, I strongly disagree with him. The profession of the planning officer is a very honourable and demanding one, and with all the subjective pressures which operate in society—sometimes very crudely with very considerable amounts of money and innuendo about possibilities and non-possibilities—it is very important to have the objectivity of a professional in the middle who can look at the law and at the overall social challenges and get matters right. It seems to me that, if a person has put his profession on the line and made a particular recommendation, that is very important in deciding whether an appeal is appropriate. I am afraid that on that issue I strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Reay.

I certainly do not see my role in this House as helping to put the Conservative or Liberal Democrat policy back on course, but we have a responsibility to try to be objective and to see valid points that are made and, when they are made, to support them. In the middle of this, there are some very important and valid points. I referred to some of them in an intervention on a previous amendment. I am deeply concerned about the trend towards putting commercial economic interests above social, environmental and scenic issues. I strongly support anything that can be done to increase the well-being and dynamism of our economy—of course I want that—but my thinking does not totally coincide with that of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, as I also believe very strongly that wind power has a contribution to make. I put it to the noble Lord that if you have alternative energy, it will always be an aggregate of less dramatic quantities of energy than we have had from some of the methods with which we are familiar.

Therefore, I do not think it is an issue of being on the side of wind power or against it. I am very worried by those who turn anti-wind power positions into a kind of ideological cornerstone. The issue is where you put the wind farms; and the issue is how you take into account the social challenges and social needs, so that you do not end up with the least articulate members of society becoming the waste bin for all projects because everyone else has been able to fight them off. There is a huge social planning job to be done, but planning will succeed only if it carries the sympathy and understanding of the population as a whole. There is of course a great deal to take seriously in the Government’s position, about making democracy as meaningful and relevant as it possibly can be, and as near to the people as possible. Therefore, the position of the communities is crucially significant.

I believe that, if one looks at the Bill as a whole—not just on this issue, but on a lot of the issues that have been so painstakingly debated by colleagues in the course of the Bill—there is a very strange underlying paradox. The name of the Bill, and the cause of the Bill, is localism and enhancing local democracy; the effect of the Bill is an unprecedented concentration of central power. That has to be countered. It seems to me that from that standpoint the noble Lord is right. It is of course a great temptation to have increased authority for the Secretary of State at the centre, and all his civil servants working with him. If I was a civil servant with responsibilities in this area, I would get terribly vexed and frustrated at all this local democracy that was getting in the way of absolute logic; but if we are to have such increased authority at the centre, then it is very important that we make sure that there are firm rules about how that frustration is brought into play.

I think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, does something helpful: it in a sense takes the whole theoretical purpose of the Bill, and says, “Right, if we really mean what we say here, we must have codes by which the Minister is operating in his decisions which override local wishes, and we must make sure that those are limited, and that they are clear, explicit, and understood”. As for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, she is absolutely right: it is a charade, a nonsense and a provocation to talk about a Localism Bill and then deny the community the right to appeal. Of course the community should have that right.

I conclude by making one point again—and I know that the Minister, who has not himself been participating in this debate, has been very good on this issue, and very sympathetic and understanding, as have some of his colleagues. If we talk about the importance of generating a vigorous economy, and giving priority to the measures that are necessary to make our economy strong, why do we want this? It is because we want a decent, civilised place in which to live. We want to have a society worth living in, and such a society needs a strong economy underpinning it. That is the whole point about the issue of balance: how do we ensure that we have strong policies, but at the same time that they are not so unduly, at the price of the quality of the wider dimensions of our society? That is why I repeatedly come back to the point of how previous generations ruined the countryside unnecessarily: we can now see with hindsight that it could all have been done much better. I think that the noble Lord is right, again, to be vigilant on these issues, although I profoundly disagree with him on some of his observations. I hope that the Government will take seriously what he and the noble Baroness have been arguing in their amendments.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we are fundamentally in listening mode on this issue. I would particularly like to listen to the Minister’s explanation as to why his party seems to have reversed its view on third party rights of appeal. If that is not the case, then we would be interested to know. I would also be interested to hear his views on the comments of my noble friend Lord Judd and of the noble Lord, Lord Reay. Each of them in a different way raises concerns about the planning system being bent to issues of growth and commercial development and that balance going astray. The Minister will be aware, if he can think back that far, that right at the start of our deliberations we had debates about getting the issues of the purpose of planning in the Bill, definitions of sustainable development, and the embedding of sustainable development at NPPF level, at local development framework level and at neighbourhood level, as one way of trying to make sure that the concerns that are increasingly being raised could be dealt with effectively.

At the end of the day, that issue comes back to the NPPF—for as long we do not have that and cannot debate it, we are always going to be left with this uncertainty. I think it is an opportune moment to hear directly from the Government as to whether they accept that charge or whether they maintain that the more traditional approach to sustainable development and a balanced approach, as my noble friend Lord Judd enunciated, is still their position.