Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

My Lords, I apologise for having jumped the gun a moment ago, but all these amendments cover much the same territory. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, moved his amendment very well. While I take second place to no one in my support for the Government in wanting to get planning streamlined and to be able to get ahead with it and so on, it will not work unless people have been properly consulted. It will run into all kinds of problems if people feel that they have been bypassed. I shall speak to Amendments 160, 164, 165 and 168 and, in doing so, I should remind the House that I am president of the Friends of the Lake District and a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks. I shall speak for a little longer than noble Lords have been speaking so far today, but that is because I shall be speaking to all four amendments. On aggregate my time will not exceed four minutes per amendment. We all realise that leaders’ boards will be very important bodies. They will be responsible for the development and sign-off of the regional strategies. The regional strategy under planning law, once approved, becomes part of the development plan covering the national parks and other areas. Amendment 160 seeks to ensure that each leaders’ board has on it representation from each type of authority. There are good reasons for ensuring that all types of authority are represented, but I shall focus on the area that I know best—the national park authorities. The critical question is whether the arrangements will provide adequate representation. There are strong grounds for believing that they will not. The statutory purposes and functions of national park authorities, as set out in Parliament, are unique. Arrangements therefore need to reflect the "national" in national parks. I am well aware of much of the work that the national park authorities are doing to support local communities, as they take it very seriously, but we should not forget that national parks are just that—national—and that local authorities are responsible for their areas and local communities. This significant difference needs to be recognised in the institutional arrangements. It may well be possible for district councils within a region to come together and establish a form of representation, but it would not be possible for local authorities to represent the interests of national parks, because the functions, purposes and audiences are different. Planning is the key to delivering national park purposes, and Parliament has decreed that national park authorities must have spatial planning powers. Indeed, spatial planning is a crucial tool in delivering national park purposes for the nation. The new regional strategies will be pivotal to the region—indeed, they will form part of the development plans of the national parks—and yet if a region wishes to exclude a national park authority from the leaders’ board, with the effect that it does not sign off the regional strategy, it is perfectly entitled to do so under this legislation. The new arrangements would weaken the existing approach. The national park authorities are named authorities under Section 4(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. For this reason, NPAs have a seat on regional assemblies, which enables them to engage with regional partners. What is proposed represents a significant weakening of the current arrangements. As we all know, the NPAs are not party political, yet they provide significant benefits for the nation. This means that they need the support of central government to ensure that their needs are met when new regional arrangements are being established, which itself has been a highly political process. Under the Bill as proposed, national park purposes would probably be undermined. If NPAs are not represented on leaders’ boards, the interests of national parks are unlikely to be addressed and the delivery of the national park purposes would be undermined. For example, the NPAs take seriously the need for affordable housing for local communities, but under the Bill decisions over housing numbers, locations and other infrastructure, which will have a direct bearing on national parks, could very well undermine or erode the special quality of those parks. The NPAs are at pains to balance both considerations in meeting the social need for housing. NPAs are facing considerable development pressures on their doorsteps and will do so more in future. This demands that national park purposes are always reflected in the decisions that ultimately affect them. Where development policies are accepted as essential for the regional strategy but they erode the national park special qualities, it is necessary to have an informed representative on the leaders’ board who can propose counterbalancing or mitigating policies. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, argued, better planning requires less ministerial intervention. Without better planning arrangements, ultimately there will be more ministerial intervention. Ensuring that all parties are involved at an early stage in planning to iron out potential conflicts of policy will help to reduce the need for ministerial intervention. As I understand it, that is exactly what the Government want, but this requires bodies to be involved from the earliest stages. I was heartened by my noble friend’s comments in Committee when she said: ""The National Park authorities are participating authorities responsible for drawing up the scheme for the leaders’ board. We said in the policy document that they can but do not have to be on the board, but they must be part of the board’s membership and its operation and they would be consulted on the draft strategy and Clause 72(3), to be provided in regulations. Again, I am happy to write to the National Parks Authority, setting that out and ensuring that everyone is clear about that, because it is such a critical partner in this".—[Official Report, 24/2/09; col. GC 63]." Surely if it is my noble friend’s sentiment that they must be part of the board’s membership, that needs to be reflected in the Bill. In 1995, Parliament gave the national park authorities independence under the Environment Act. This was in recognition that an arrangement whereby the national park authority, with national purposes, was effectively a sub-committee of a local authority was not appropriate. However, this Bill, if not amended, could lead to national park authorities having to look to local authorities to represent them; they would lose the independence we entrusted to them. My noble friend may point to the participating authority status which national park authorities are said to enjoy. While this is a fluid process, my understanding has generally been that national park authorities have needed to bang on the door to be let into discussions, rather than being invited genuinely to participate. In any case, the participating authority status will mean very little after the Secretary of State has approved the scheme for a leaders’ board in each region. It is a temporary status in this respect. The national parks cover many administrative boundaries within a region. This enables them to take a wider perspective, which is helpful in addressing strategic planning issues such as climate change. It also means that it would prove extremely difficult for the interests of the national parks to be adequately represented by the local authorities sitting on the leaders’ boards. In addition to ensuring that the interests of national parks are addressed, national park authorities can bring significant beneficial expertise to the table; for example, regarding rural areas and sustainable development. This year is the 60th anniversary of the visionary National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. It would be sad if 2009 marked a weakening of the special role of the parks. On Amendment 164, the ground covered by this amendment was first discussed in Committee, when it was examined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. This issue has attracted cross-party interest. It is also regarded as important by the CPRE and by the County Councils Network. The Local Government Association has also expressed concerns. My noble friend’s response on day seven of Committee was that NPAs and the boards would be involved by virtue of being named participating authorities. This status means that the NPAs should be involved in agreeing a scheme for leaders’ boards. It does not mean, however, that the regional planning board needs to seek the advice of a national park authority in preparing a regional strategy, as is the case now. My noble friend said in Committee that she would write to the national park authorities on this point. Whatever the correspondence which has or has not taken place, surely it would be better to have the Bill amended rather than to rely on a letter which could all too easily be ignored by future Ministers. At present, regional planning bodies are to take advice from local authorities and national park authorities in preparing regional strategies. This is set out in Section 4(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Bill would repeal that requirement. Instead the regional planning body would be required to consult national park authorities and local authorities on an already prepared strategy. Why does this matter? National park authorities and local authorities have taken their responsibilities seriously. They are a source of expertise, in the case of NPAs, on issues relating to sustainable development and in particular their application to rural environments. It can help the regional planning body better to understand the implications of different policies and options and to avoid conflicting policies. The existence of the Section 4(4) duty has led to service-level agreements being adopted between national parks and local authorities. It has helped strengthen working relationships at a regional and sub-regional level. My noble friend will be aware that a duty to take advice is very different from a duty to consult. The latter is much weaker. The Government have published the policy document on regional strategies. This document advocates an inclusive approach. The repeal of Section 4(4) would represent a weakening of the current statutory framework. I have been privy to correspondence which my noble friend sent to the director of the English National Parks Authorities Association, Paul Hamlyn, last October. In that letter she says: ""Finally, with regard to the preparation of the regional spatial strategies, I can confirm that National Park Authorities retain their role under Section 4(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004"." The proposal to repeal the entire section seems contrary to that statement. Finally, I suggest that the Government may be worried that what I am arguing is adding to the statute book: it is not. The amendment will simply ensure that existing duties, which Parliament has already approved, are maintained. If my noble friend is still concerned on this point, there is always Amendment 168, which is a simple formulation to achieve the same outcome. On Amendment 165, the Bill includes provisions for a plan for implementing the regional strategy— Clause 77(1). The proposal to strengthen the link between the spatial strategy and decisions over resource allocation is helpful. This lack of linkage has been a problem in the past for regional spatial strategies. The implementation plan will be a key document within the region in setting detailed priorities, public investment decisions and for creating strategic partnerships. The Bill contains no provisions for consultation on the implementation plan. The Government are on record as saying in paragraph 2.37 of Prosperous Places: Taking Forward the Review of Subnational Economic Development Regeneration, published in November 2008: ""The Government is committed to stakeholder engagement as a fundamental feature of the processes for developing and"—" I underline this— ""delivering the regional strategy and there will be a duty on the RDA and Leaders’ Board to consult and engage stakeholders"." The Government’s principle is to apply to both developing the strategy and also to its delivery. Delivery is the role of the implementation plan. This amendment is about agreeing the principle on the face of the Bill, not the detail of how it might be done. That principle is too important to be left to guidance which can be changed at the stroke of a Minister’s pen. Briefly on Amendment 168, this amendment has not been tabled previously in any form. It follows from Amendment 164. It reinforces the point that, instead of new legislation, the aim is simply to ensure that existing duties under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 remain. The amendment therefore seeks to leave out the provisions in this Bill which would repeal Section 4(4) of the 2004 Act and in so doing reduce the ability of national park authorities and local authorities to engage meaningfully in regional planning at an early stage.