Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 407: 407: Clause 171, page 91, line 3, at end insert— ““( ) Notwithstanding any arrangements made under subsection (1), the RPB retains the final authority and responsibility for the preparation of all regional planning documents.”” The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I believe that I am reflecting significant concern that exists out there in the real communities about delegating any of the functions of the regional planning body wholly to the regional development agencies. The clause as it stands seeks to give RPBs the ability to make arrangements to delegate to the RDAs the exercise of any of its functions. I shall focus on the specific function of the production of the regional spatial strategy, a key regional planning document. Other noble Lords have identified other functions that give them similar cause for concern. RDAs, unlike the RPBs, lack democratic accountability. Their decision-making boards are composed only of appointed members, and this delegation could well herald a move to a fundamentally less broadly based inclusive approach to planning, something that is likely to foster cynicism about our commitment to the spirit of democratic accountability at all. RDAs have as their most significant task the promotion of economic growth within their regions. I endorse that priority without hesitation. However, as currently constituted, RPBs take into account social and environmental factors, especially through their social, economic and environmental partner arrangements. That is vital, because it is the RPB that brings to bear on planning and other regional spatial issues the necessary wider democratic input as well as environmental and social factors, all of which are crucial to reaching balanced decisions that have wide support, especially in the communities affected by those decisions. The RPB also gives clear democratic representation to local authorities and to the voluntary and community sectors, significantly reducing the risk that the entire process will be disproportionately influenced in favour of economic development alone, with those seeking a more balanced approach reflecting environmental factors automatically at a disadvantage. The clause seems possibly to pre-empt the outcome of the sub-national review of economic development and regeneration that the Government currently have under consideration. While I realise that the Government’s most recent consultation document, Prosperous Places, also proposes that planning functions are transferred to RDAs, many key parts of civil society have strongly opposed that in their responses. It is perhaps not for this discussion, but it is worth noting that an alternative approach—the creation of regional sustainable development agencies—has been put forward by some of the critics. As proposed, these agencies would have a wider remit, giving proper weight to both environmental and economic issues, as well as incorporating democratically accountable membership. We must unquestionably have a strong economy, but a strong economy for what? Surely the qualitative dimensions of society are central to sustaining civilisation itself. I do not believe that that is to overstate the case. I suggest that it is not appropriate, therefore, that the Planning Bill should seek to build upon a draft proposal which has met with such significant opposition and may subsequently change. I take this opportunity to say, yet again, how much I appreciate the very full way in which my noble friend tries to clarify in correspondence points that may be at issue. I have noted the reassurance in her letter to me that this clause only enables the delegations of functions. She also points out that the ultimate responsibility remains with the RPB. But my noble friend knows, as I know—and I suspect most noble Lords know—that in reality, all too easily, delegation becomes transfer of powers unless a robust determination that it should not do so is on the face of the Bill. My noble friend also makes the important point that under existing planning legislation, the RPBs can delegate regional planning functions to local authorities. I have no issue with this, because local authorities are rightly subject to the democratic checks and balances, including objective consideration of social and environmental factors, which do not apply to RDAs. Frankly, I am not reassured by the duty laid on those exercising the regional planning function that they have to do so with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. This somewhat nebulous and often misused term might well allow RDAs to regard a healthy economy as the sole indicator of whether development can be regarded as sustainable and still be compliant with the legislation. My amendment is intended to strengthen this part of the Bill—I say again how much I welcome the Bill—by making it absolutely clear, which I consider it is not as the clause is drafted, that the responsibility and accountability remain with the RPB. Planning is obviously central to the well-being of us all. This surely demands that the maximum number of people and the widest possible cross-section of the community should identify with what is being done. I beg to move.