Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

In moving Amendment 165C, I shall speak also to Amendments 165E, 166B, 177F, 182ZA, 182ZB and 182ZC in this large group. I will not intentionally anticipate the introductions of other Members of the Committee to their amendments. The exchange that we have just had—in particular, the quite extemporary comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the response from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—has already encapsulated some objections to Part 5. Although other Members of the Committee may not think so, they already have made the arguments very effectively for the case that all these clauses stand part. Amendment 165C concerns spatial planning. The objective of Part 5 is to move spatial and economic strategies closer. I am concerned about the diminishing role of spatial planning at a regional or sub-regional level. We have heard that this is intended for the long term, but the 2004 Act was only five years ago and the sections in that Act on spatial strategic planning are to be repealed. In a separate group, we will debate the terms ““sustainable development””, ““sustainable economic growth”” and so on. But I understood regional spatial strategies to have been designed to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in all its aspects and to be the balance to which we always refer. Under Clause 65(2) spatial policies are listed second. Clause 65(2)(b) uses the same terminology as the 2004 Act, so the word ““spatial”” does not appear. Members of the Committee will understand what I mean. ““Sustainable economic growth”” is the first objective under Clause 65(2)(a). Clause 65(6) reverses the order, but it gives no clue as to whether it is intended that only the parts of the regional spatial strategy which promote economic growth are to be retained. Spatial planning concerns matters such as character and identity. I have seen the term ““legibility”” used, as well as the quality of the public realm, the use of movement, diversity and so on. On other occasions, Members of the Committee have talked much of place shaping, which does not stop at the boundary of the principal local authority. Planning and urban policy should facilitate sustainable development through detailed understanding of the characteristics of different places and economic centres within economic regions and the sub-regions. I have tabled this amendment because I would like the Government to justify what I see as a move from the balance inherent in sustainable development to economic growth. I accept that we are not in a good state economically, but I do not believe that that justifies a focus on economic growth, possibly to the exclusion in all practical terms of all other considerations. Does it justify the role that regional development agencies will have in planning, rather than there being a separate regional spatial strategy? Combining the spatial and economic pieces of work carries the danger that the two will be conflated. I do not see that it will be possible to keep them separate, but I am concerned about there being an expectation that economic considerations will override all others. That would be bad in the long term, bad environmentally, bad socially and, indeed, bad economically. Amendment 165E seeks to insert ““development”” instead of ““growth”” on the basis that change for the better is not necessarily growth. Amendments 166B and 182ZB seek to change ““contribute to”” to ““further”” in the context of contributing to the, "““mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change””." We believe that ““further”” is stronger than ““contribute to””. This argument was made in the context of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill—that is running almost exactly concurrently with this Bill—in an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves. This morning I had a look at the Minister’s reply to the group of amendments that proposed this change of terminology. The Government’s resistance to it did not seem justified. The issue was not addressed. The concepts of sustainable development were addressed but not the particular point that was made. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on it in this Bill. Amendment 177F would provide for publication of the work that had been prepared. I assume that if a report of a sustainability appraisal—of the draft revision in this case—is prepared, it will be published. However, I do not really want to assume anything. I have deliberately not tabled amendments seeking to define ““sustainable development””. We all know about the dangers of starting to list items. Further, I think it is better that this legislation is consistent with other legislation. I have avoided detail not least because ““sustainability”” and ““sustainable development”” cover a concept that is continuing to develop. Accepted thinking is gradually changing and growing. Last year, during the passage of the Planning Act, there was some fancy footwork which inserted references to climate change and design. There is a reference to climate change in Clause 65(4), and to design in Clause 78(2). I do not seek to delete the latter reference but I question whether it should be such a particular aspect of sustainable development. Clause 78(2) states that for the purposes of sustainable development authorities, "““must (in particular) have regard to the desirability of achieving good design””." Before somebody challenges me on this, I accept that good design extends beyond the aesthetic and includes, for instance, design which would achieve a low or nil carbon footprint. Nevertheless, to say that it has such a status distorts the whole of the picture. Finally, Amendment 182ZA would insert in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 a sustainable economic development duty. As I have said, thinking moves on, and I would like to see the regional development agencies—if one has to have regional development agencies, as they are not our favourite quango—in line with what is happening and the duties imposed on other organisations. Perhaps I am misguided in this, but what the Government say they are doing in this part of the Bill is undermined. It would certainly leave a very big gap in policy. The role of the RDAs in the Bill and beyond the Bill is important and growing. We do not support these quangos—we do not support quangos generally—but if we are to have them, they should apply sustainability to economic development and should have wider considerations than what is relevant to their own different areas. That is in the third paragraph of my amendment. More than 10 years ago, we debated the phrase, ““where it is relevant to its area to do so”” and we were told that there had to be a limit on what RDAs should take into consideration. There, thinking has moved on as well. Each RDA should be thinking outside its own boundaries as well as within them. I beg to move.