My Lords, way back in March, when we had our lengthy discussions on the planning section of the Bill, we explained that although our amendments necessarily covered the detail of the various clauses, there was huge concern in local government about some of the fundamental principles that underlie the proposed changes in the Bill.
We must ensure that local plans, with the input of local people and democratically elected representatives, retain their primacy over anything that is drawn up centrally in Whitehall. Now that we are on Report, I feel that the amendments in this group reflect that these concerns remain and that the issues we raised in Committee have still not been resolved.
The amendment tabled by the Minister, in relation to determining matters under planning law in accordance with the development plan and any national development management policies, taken together, do nothing to reassure those of us whose concern was about how conflict between national and local policy will be resolved. Therefore, we have tabled Amendment 186 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, which asks for consideration of which policy has been most recently adopted, approved and published, what liaison has taken place with local authorities, the importance of adequate housing supply and the protection of the natural environment. In all those areas, it is vital that the latest information and data should take precedence over policies which may be years out of date. I reiterate the ongoing concerns of the Local Government Association in this regard that
“in reality, local plans will be constrained in the event that they conflict with National Development Management Policies, in which case the latter will take precedence. We have previously sought an amendment to reverse this proposal so that local plans will take precedence in the event of conflict. This is critical to ensure that that one of the key principles of the planning reforms—‘a genuinely plan-led system’—is enshrined in the Bill”.
Amendment 188 in my name reflects our continued concern that the relative weight of various key planning documents and guidance, when taken into consideration with the centrally determined NDMPs, is still not clear enough. When we discussed this in Committee, the NPPF was still out for consultation, but that does not alter the fact that the whole sector must have some clarity before the Bill completes its progress.
In the Minister’s explanation in March, in which she gave the rationale to introduce NDMPs, she stated:
“It will help local authorities produce swifter, slimmer plans by removing the need to set out generic issues of national importance”.
She just repeated that statement in the last group. In Committee, she continued:
“It will make those plans more locally relevant and easier for communities and other users to digest and to get involved in developing, through consultation and communications with local communities”.—[Official Report, 22/3/23; col. 1839.]
However, if local authorities do not have the clarity they need about what lies in the hands of their locally elected members working in consultation with the public and what is determined nationally, the whole system could quickly be mired in conflict and litigation.
5.15 pm
The comprehensive Amendment 190, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Carrington, addresses
many of our concerns about NDMPs, which were reflected in the debate in Committee. It sets out clear requirements for consultation and publicity; climate change input; a parliamentary process to scrutinise NDMPs, which is very important; and a clear process for timely and comprehensive review.
In Committee, we expressed enormous concern about the introduction of NDMPs from much of the sector, including key institutions such as the Local Government Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association, the CPRE and the Better Planning Coalition. In its excellent briefing on this amendment, the RTPI sets out the reasons for the amendment’s great strength. It states that there are no other provisions in the Bill that would allow the scope of NDMPs to be properly limited, but a significant degree of ministerial discretion remains, which could be abused in the regulations or by the conduct of current and future Ministers. It also says that planning policies are notoriously difficult to draft and review by parliamentarians and that using the public is the best way to ensure that policies do not create potentially severe unintended consequences, which otherwise might become apparent only when applied in decision-making.
The RTPI also points out that, if written wrongly, NDMPs, which are subordinate to local development management policies, could still present a significant risk to councils and weaken local plans, because of their scope to open up to legal challenge, continuing the detrimental situation we already see with NPPF policies. Even if they are subordinated, NDMPs will continue to encourage councils to apply what the RTPI calls a cookie-cutter approach to policy—rather than to identify, evidence and assess their own needs and respond to them—as we see, unfortunately, under the NPPF. We always talk about resources, and resourcing has caused some of the delays to plan-making that we discussed earlier. More resourcing is needed to help councils deliver innovative local plans, but their local ambition is equally important.
As the RTPI points out, in the long term, NDMPs still represent a fundamental change to England’s planning policy and a system that brings us closer to zonal rather than discretionary plan-making. Whether that consequence is intended or not, it means that, rather than councils drafting their own codes, national government would draft a single zoning code that would allow developers to use urban land that may protect urban amenity without micromanaging councils. A principled defence of local democratic decision-making should make use of every available option to resist that outcome, now and in the future, through continued scrutiny.
The case for explicit parliamentary and public scrutiny is also supported by research conducted by the University of Liverpool and Arup that has been published by the RTPI, which considers the application of national planning policies in other planning jurisdictions. Comparisons with other countries and nations suggest that extensive public consultation has been critical to the success of similar policies in other jurisdictions. I totally support that: public consultation might be difficult to do and painful at times, but involving local communities, in the end, strengthens the local plan
and enables the provisions within it to be carried out by local authorities and all the partners with which they work.
The RTPI also points out that political and parliamentary scrutiny is a common feature of the most successful national policy regimes. Where that is absent, central government’s authority and status on planning policy and guidance has been far less certain.
Although our preference would be to avoid altogether the centralising tendency in planning that NDMPs represent, our view is that Amendment 190 provides a much greater reassurance that they will be properly consulted on and scrutinised before implementation. For that reason, if the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, decides to divide the House on her amendment, she will have our support.