Localism Bill

My Lords, my Amendment 204C relates to the central issue of the Bill—the purpose of the planning system. I want, therefore, to put it in an historical and political context. I have always thought that the two great achievements of the post-war Attlee Government were the creation of a National Health Service in 1947 and the introduction, in 1948, of the planning system to protect the beauty of England. Both of these are hugely sensitive political issues. If a Government get either of them wrong, they will pay a heavy price at the polling booths. It is, perhaps, a coincidence that we have been discussing both these issues here today. The House has already expressed today its confidence in the intention of the Government to adjust its policy on the National Health Service in whatever way is necessary to get the right answer. At the moment, I am afraid I am less confident that the Government are prepared to improve this Bill. Indeed, I was disappointed by the pathetic reply that I received from my noble friend Lord Shutt in relation to my earlier amendment this week, on the need to keep Britain tidy. It is bad enough that officials should give Ministers briefs containing poor arguments, but what is quite unacceptable is that Ministers should parrot those same arguments from the Dispatch Box. I suggest that some Ministers need to take a lesson from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on how to tear up the departmental line when standing at the Dispatch Box. Let me say at once that I am sure that comment in no way applies to my noble friend Lady Hanham, for whom I have the highest praise and regard. The creation of our planning system really goes back to 1928. That was the year that the great architect and conservationist Clough Williams-Ellis produced a polemical book called England and the Octopus, in which, in the words of Jonathan Dimbleby: "““He waged war on the ugliness, selfishness and short-sightedness and the catastrophic consequences of these human frailties on the precious quality of rural England””." In 1928, the CPRE, of which in 1996 Jonathan Dimbleby was president and I was chairman, was in its infancy; but Clough Williams-Ellis and the other founding fathers such as Patrick Abercrombie used it to create the pressure from which, 20 years later, we got our planning system. That the planning system needs reform, I hope none of us would contest; but the rather ill-informed and ill-prepared zest with which the Government launched this Bill and the draft NPPF provoked and indeed alarmed a large section of the huge community that cherishes the English countryside. Amendment 204C, which is being promoted by the CPRE, and is also supported by the National Trust and the Heritage Alliance, seeks to ensure that, when they are preparing local development plans, local planning authorities give due consideration to the need to protect and enhance the countryside, in the words of the late Nicholas Ridley—who was a tough Treasury minister and a true Tory—““for its own sake””. One of the central tenets of the post-war planning system in England is that by guiding appropriate development to sustainable locations in the countryside, the countryside itself should be protected from unnecessary and irreversible damage, and the regeneration of our towns and cities promoted. This principle is currently upheld by a series of policies contained in national planning policy statements, including policy EC6 in Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, that the countryside should be protected, "““for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty””." Critically, this protection is not just conferred on high-profile designated areas of countryside, such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and heritage coasts, but on the ordinary countryside which is enjoyed by and which improves the quality of life of rural and urban dwellers all over England. However, the Government's planning reforms, being implemented by both the Localism Bill and the draft NPPF, as currently drafted, stand to remove the existing protection for the wider, ordinary countryside. I should emphasise that undesignated countryside makes up well over half of all countryside in England. In addition, the NPPF introduces a, "““presumption in favour of sustainable development””," a material consideration which my right honourable friend the Chancellor, in his 2011 Budget speech, summarised as meaning that, "““the default answer to development is yes.””—[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/11; col. 956.]" Understandably, the Government have been reluctant to define the term ““sustainable”” but, as my noble friend Lord Deben says, in a sense we all know what we mean by sustainable. It is common sense and it is localism at its most intense. As Amendment 204D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, draws attention to, the draft NPPF also does not contain a presumption that previously developed land should be developed first—the brownfield first policy—and it does not require planning authorities to have policies on housing density. We should remember two points. First, developers will always go for green land rather than brown, if they have the choice as it is so much cheaper to build on. Secondly, in general, the lack of housebuilding, particularly now, is probably more due to the economy than to a shortage of land. Housebuilders will not build houses if they cannot sell them. Taken together, these changes will have serious and potentially devastating implications for the future of the countryside. They will create pressure on undesignated countryside, drastically limit the ability of local authorities to contain urban sprawl, to promote sustainable patterns of development and, therefore, to maintain a distinction between town and country and to plan for a high-quality and sustainable built environment. It is not at all clear how, in the absence of national policy that promotes the protection and enhancement of the wider countryside, the Government intend to ensure that the countryside is protected from unnecessary and irreversible damage under the terms of its planning reforms. My amendment would create a legal requirement that development plans should not be deemed sound unless they have had due regard to the protection and enhancement of the countryside. In their natural environment White Paper, published earlier this year, the Government declared their ambition for, "““this to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than it inherited””." This document, significantly, also recognises the intrinsic value of the natural environment, and explicitly includes the open countryside in its definition of natural environment. In May 2008, the present Prime Minister told CPRE: "““The beauty of our landscape, the particular cultures and traditions which rural life sustains, these are national treasures to be cherished and protected for everyone's benefit. It is not enough for politicians just to say that - we need leaders who really understand it and feel it in their bones. I do."" I hope my noble friend can say amen to that. Just last week, the Prime Minister recognised the importance of the countryside, stating in his speech to the Conservative Party conference: "““I love our countryside and there's nothing I would do to put it at risk””." Also in Manchester, the Communities Secretary, my right honourable friend Eric Pickles, said: "““Our countryside is one of the best things that makes Britain great, and we will protect it””." These are welcome commitments, but the planning system is the key means we have of protecting the natural environment, and these commitments will amount to nothing if we do not get the detail right. Perhaps in her response the Minister will say that the NPPF, rather than the Bill, is the right place to deal with these concerns, but she will be aware that very many people who care about the countryside, whether they live in urban or rural areas, have looked at the draft of that document and are extremely concerned about its contents. I hope that today she can give me an unequivocal assurance that the planning system will continue to protect the countryside for its own sake. If this is to be done in the NPPF, rather than the Bill, before Third Reading, the Government must provide the House with detailed wording of how this will be done. Simon Cairns, the highly experienced and entirely non-political director of the Suffolk Preservation Society, of which I am president, sent me an e-mail last week in which he said: "““I am frankly amazed that a Conservative Administration is proposing to remove the national policy presumption against development in the open countryside. This would undermine the very cornerstone of our national planning system””." There will be an audience, well beyond the Palace of Westminster, for my noble friend's reply today. I pray that she will not disappoint them.