My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, not just for his amendment but for his continued work to ensure that we keep issues of inclusivity at the forefront when considering all aspects of the Bill, particularly planning. Levelling up must relate not just to tackling inequalities between the regions and places in the UK but to ensuring that no group is excluded from opportunities that are open to the rest of us. That is why the amendments in this group are so important.
We absolutely support the principle behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 217 and will definitely support the consideration of observations and advice relating to inclusive design as local authorities go through their plan-making process. But for the sake of practicality, if this amendment is accepted, there may be a need for further guidance about whether local authorities could be exempted on individual developments if they are able to demonstrate adequate reasons for that. I certainly do not suggest that they should be able to do so on many grounds—they would have to be very exceptional
circumstances—but if that was not included, there may be examples, such as where heritage assets are involved in the development or something like that, where there would need to be some consideration of other factors. But it is a very good amendment, as is Amendment 302, which is an unequivocal statement, which we absolutely support, to ensure that inclusive design is enshrined in the Bill.
9 pm
It was very interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talk about the absolute nonsense that was shared space. I remember kicking against it when some developments came forward. Clearly, the key to all this is consulting all users, and all likely users, of a space before designs are finalised so that, as you go through the planning process, you take account of everything that needs to be considered. Building that fundamental principle of inclusivity into the planning process from the outset is an incredibly helpful amendment to the Bill.
On Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we have had extensive discussions in previous groups in Committee about the importance of ensuring that, throughout the Bill, adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, net-zero carbon emissions, nature recovery and biodiversity are at the heart of its purpose and intent. Indeed, levelling up cannot be achieved unless that is the case. Therefore, that must also apply to design codes, so we support the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to the importance of design being not just around physical beauty. That made me think of some examples where we have to be careful—we may come on to this in later discussion on the Bill. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder is, I think, the best phrase to cover it. Often, we are not careful enough about attempts to turn areas into things they never can be. I certainly feel that, having grown up in a new town. Attempts to put Victorian-style canopies on a mid-20th-century town centre are, in my mind, just as bad as plonking down glass and concrete structures in a medieval high street. We must be very careful that we do not let architects—I hope there are none in the Chamber today—run away with themselves with these things.
Presumably, you can design beautiful places which have devastating impacts on the environment, exclude users, and work only for humans, and possibly their pets, and do nothing for biodiversity. I could be mischievous and say that we have had too many decades of that already, so it is time we built into both the planning legislation and the design codes the key principles that buildings must be designed to take account of all the issues that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned and all the principles of inclusivity that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, sets out. I hope that if these amendments are not accepted today, something like them will find their way into the Bill eventually.