Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Public Bill Committee, 14 July 2022.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.

Clause 84 - National development management policies: meaning

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 84, page 92, line 9, leave out lines 9 to 16 and insert—

“(2) Before designating a policy as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of that policy.

(3) A policy may be designated as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act only if the consultation and publicity requirements set out in clause 38ZB, and the parliamentary requirements set out in clause 38ZC, have been complied with in relation to it, and—

(a) the consideration period for the policy has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the statement should not be proceeded with, or

(b) the policy has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—

(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZC, and

(ii) before the end of the consideration period.

(4) In subsection (3) ‘the consideration period’, in relation to a policy, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the statement is laid before Parliament under section 38ZC, and here ‘sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons sits.

(5) A policy may not be designated a national development management policy unless—

(a) it contains explanations of the reasons for the policy, and

(b) in particular, includes an explanation of how the policy set out takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

(6) The Secretary of State must arrange for the publication of a national policy statement.

(1) This section sets out the consultation and publicity requirements referred to in sections 38ZA(3) and 38ZD(7).

(2) The Secretary of State must carry out such consultation, and arrange for such publicity, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in relation to the proposal. This is subject to subsections (4) and (5).

(3) In this section ‘the proposal’ means—

(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act or

(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment (see section 38ZD).

(4) The Secretary of State must consult such persons, and such descriptions of persons, as may be prescribed.

(5) If the policy set out in the proposal identifies one or more locations as suitable (or potentially suitable) for a specified description of development, the Secretary of State must ensure that appropriate steps are taken to publicise the proposal.

(6) The Secretary of State must have regard to the responses to the consultation and publicity in deciding whether to proceed with the proposal.

(1) This section sets out the parliamentary requirements referred to in sections 38ZA(3) and 38ZD(7).

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.

(3) In this section ‘the proposal’ means—

(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act or

(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment (see section 38ZD).

(4) Subsection (5) applies if, during the relevant period—

(a) either House of Parliament makes a resolution with regard to the proposal, or

(b) a committee of either House of Parliament makes recommendations with regard to the proposal.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State's response to the resolution or recommendations.

(6) The relevant period is the period specified by the Secretary of State in relation to the proposal.

(7) The Secretary of State must specify the relevant period in relation to the proposal on or before the day on which the proposal is laid before Parliament under subsection (2).

(8) After the end of the relevant period, but not before the Secretary of State complies with subsection (5) if it applies, the Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.

(1) The Secretary of State must review a national development management policy whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.

(2) A review may relate to all or part of a national development management policy.

(3) In deciding when to review a national development management policy the Secretary of State must consider whether—

(a) since the time when the policy was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the statement was decided,

(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and

(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out would have been materially different.

(4) In deciding when to review part of a national development management policy (‘the relevant part’) the Secretary of State must consider whether—

(a) since the time when the relevant part was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the relevant part was decided,

(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and

(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out in the relevant part would have been materially different.

(5) After completing a review of all or part of a national development management policy the Secretary of State must do one of the following—

(a) amend the policy;

(b) withdraw the policy's designation as a national development management policy;

(c) leave the policy as it is.

(6) Before amending a national development management policy the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the policy set out in the proposed amendment.

(7) The Secretary of State may amend a national development management policy only if the consultation and publicity requirements set out in section 38ZB, and the parliamentary requirements set out in section 38ZC, have been complied with in relation to the proposed amendment, and—

(a) the consideration period for the amendment has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the amendment should not be proceeded with, or

(b) the amendment has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—

(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZA, and

(ii) before the end of the consideration period.

(8) In subsection (7) ‘the consideration period’, in relation to an amendment, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the amendment is laid before Parliament, and here ‘sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons sits.

(9) If the Secretary of State amends a national development management policy, the Secretary of State must—

(a) arrange for the amendment, or the policy as amended, to be published, and

(b) lay the amendment, or the policy as amended, before Parliament.”

This amendment stipulates the process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny based on processes set out in the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) for designating National Policy Statements.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We had an extensive debate on Tuesday about the powers provided by clause 83 and the fact that they represent, in our view, an unacceptable centralisation of development management policy and a downgrading of the status and remit of local planning. Clause 84 is important, and the provisions in it relate directly to the previous debate, because it sets out what constitutes a national development management policy and provides the statutory basis for such policies and their operation.

As hon Members will note, the clause provides an extremely broad definition of what a national development management policy is, with proposed new subsection 38ZA(1) clarifying that an NDMP can be anything relating to development or use of land in England that the Secretary of State, by direction, designates as such a policy. Proposed new subsection 38ZA(2) provides for powers that allow the Secretary of State to modify or revoke a national development management policy, and proposed new subsection 38ZA(3) makes it clear that they have to consult about any modification or revocation only if they believe it is appropriate to do so. Given the fact that, as we spent a lengthy period of time considering in the last sitting, it is the Government’s intention that national development management policies will override local development plans in the event of any conflict between the two, we are strongly of the view that the powers clause 84 provides the Secretary of State with are unacceptably broad.

I ask Government Members to look up from their digital devices for a moment and to consider precisely what the Government are proposing here and the future implications of that for their constituencies and the individual communities they represent. These powers would allow a future Minister, of whatever political allegiance, to develop an NDMP that could encompass literally any policy designated by them as relating to development or use of land in England; to determine not to consult on the development of that policy or its modification if they saw fit; and then to use that policy to overrule any local or neighbourhood plan in conflict with it at the stroke of a pen. No one who values localism and the role of effective local and neighbourhood plans in enabling communities to develop a shared vision for their area should feel comfortable with the provisions in the clause.

Amendment 87 simply seeks to impose a degree of transparency and accountability when it comes to the use of the powers, by clarifying the process by which the Secretary of State must designate and review a national development management policy, stipulating, first, that it must include minimum public consultation requirements, just as there are intensive consultation requirements for local plan policies, and secondly, that it must be subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as is currently the case for designating national policy statements, as set out in the Planning Act 2008. It cannot be right that national policies that will have a far greater impact on local communities than any existing national policy statement and that the Government intend will trump local development plans in the event of a conflict can be developed without any public consultation or parliamentary approval process.

If the clause is left unamended, the danger is twofold. First, we fear that the use of the powers will be viewed by the public as yet another means of disempowering communities and hoarding more control at the centre, with all the implications that has for public engagement in a planning system that already suffers from low levels of trust and confidence, with people feeling that their concerns are overlooked and their interests subordinated to other priorities.

Secondly, without a minimum of public consultation or parliamentary oversight in designing NDMPs the Government are far more likely to get it wrong, because they will be developing and designating national policy without appropriate input from communities and their representatives about how the needs and aspirations of their areas are best served. If the Government are determined to force through a suite of NDMPs covering the broad range of policies that, to repeat the test set out in the policy paper, “apply in most areas” and to render local development plans subordinate to them in the event of a conflict, the least they can concede is that the Secretary of State be directed to consult with institutions, authorities and other bodies before making, revoking or modifying NDMPs—not just the initial suite of NDMPs, but any that follow in future years—and to ensure that appropriate parliamentary oversight takes place.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his amendment and the speech he has just made. This is the pivotal part of the whole Bill. It is about ensuring that there is a full and proper process—one that should eliminate risk and maximise the representation of local interest.

We had a really helpful discussion on Tuesday that explored why the amendment was needed in the first place, and I am sure the Minister soon recognised the democratic deficit the Bill would create. The Government have left a hole in the Bill, because it defines the process for establishing a national development management strategy but not the extent to which the strategy could apply, and it also fails to take forward the considerations of our communities. This provision does not belong in primary legislation, and the Minister should reflect today and over the summer on what his Government are trying to do.

The Minister said that he will be developing more detail over the summer, but we are considering the Bill line by line today. As my hon. Friend outlined, his amendment has done the work on how to govern the process for the Minister. First, on designation, there must be an in-depth consultation and any issue must come before Parliament. If an issue is of such magnitude that it requires Government to say that they need to override a local plan, surely there has to be a proper process. After all, planning does not just suddenly occur. I was scratching my head about what would constitute a national emergency that required planning permission. The only thing I could think of—the Minister may correct me—would be a war, but then we would have separate legislation to address that. On Tuesday, the Minister himself struggled to articulate where the thresholds would be and exactly what would constitute such a situation.

I have been thinking further about how our planning process is devised and the importance of co-production within our planning process. Why would this national development management strategy override a process of local planning? There could be no reason. If we think about unpopular things that the Government want to force through, such as mining hydrocarbons, fracking and so on, they should not be happening, because our planet cannot sustain their use. The same applies to building road infrastructure, but then again there are processes and national policy statements that can be made for those things.

High Speed 2 or an airport are perhaps the only other examples. We cannot sustain more air travel because of the climate crisis, and HS2 had a national policy statement —again, it has had its own legislation and processes. I really cannot imagine what is in the Government’s mind that is of such magnitude that it should require the overriding of a local plan and the hopes and aspirations of our local communities. Certainly in my community, local people have not had their aspirations heard in the planning process, because we have not had a local plan. There has been imposition by developers, using the powers they have, and it has just run into conflict, gridlock and pain. I cannot see why a Government would want to excite that in a community.

I am sure the Minister will give serious consideration to this matter, if not today, then through the summer. Opposition Members have made it clear that these clauses are an unnecessary development, but I am sure the Minister will hear that point even louder from Government Members.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance today, Mr Hollobone. This proposal from the Government feels rather tin-eared, and the amendment—or something like it, at the very least—seems appropriate. It is good that the official Opposition have put forward a route that the Government could choose to go down.

It seems odd that there is not a worked-out process for properly scrutinising and consulting on national policy statements that could have huge ramifications for every part of this country. This is a very diverse country: we have four nations, and communities that are rural, urban and suburban. National planning policy could have many different ramifications on different communities.

I think of my own community, with 67 parish councils and the need for them to be involved and to understand the issues. Further north in Cumbria, we have the very live issue of Britain’s first new coalmine in 30 years potentially being given permission later this summer—we will wait and see about that. It will be hugely significant for the community it could impact directly, but it will also have a national impact. For us not to have a level of scrutiny and consultation for national plans—something that a local authority would be slaughtered for not doing with its own local plans—seems to be very wrong and, as I say, somewhat tin-eared.

It goes back to a theme that I have tried to develop throughout debates on this Bill, which is about trying to understand the motivation. It could be that the Government are just being tin-eared and have not thought this through properly. That is entirely possible—Governments do that. The question is, who is this for? Is this devolution? Is this empowering local communities? That is what the Government claim it is. Or is it just for the convenience of central Government? If there are national plans and a national planning framework allowing Government to take forward their central agenda without proper consultation of local communities—be they rural or urban or in any part of this country—that will meet with huge opposition, including in the constituencies of Opposition Members.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

It is a pleasure and an honour, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling this amendment. The national development management policies are an important change to the system, and I understand the desire to ensure that they are properly considered.

The amendment has three elements: consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and policy review. I will deal with each in turn. On consultation, the existing clause already imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that such consultation and participation as are considered appropriate take place. The previous Secretary of State was clear in his comments to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee that consultation on the national development management policies will indeed be carried out. The consultation specified by the amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Moreover, we need to bear in mind the possibility that circumstances may occasionally arise in which the Government need to make urgent change. I heard what the hon. Member for York Central said earlier, and I would like to give her an example that became apparent during the pandemic of when we had to act quickly. Hon. Members will recall, during the first part of the pandemic, the significant issue with food supply. One of the decisions that was therefore made at a national level was to disapply planning conditions relating to the hours during which supermarkets could be served by delivery vehicles. Because of the way supply chains were at that point, it was extremely important to get food through to the stores. In those circumstances, it may not be feasible to do everything that the amendment seeks to do, for reasons that I hope she understands.

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

In relation to consultation, the Minister just said that it depends on what the Secretary of State thinks is appropriate. Is there anywhere else in our legislation where things are left to the whim of a particular Secretary of State in that way? I cannot believe that the Minister thinks that is an acceptable way to conduct planning.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Member for her question. We need to look at what is being put forward today. Clearly, the passage of the Bill has some time to run, and we have to look at this issue in the context of the national planning policy prospectus that is being put out later this year so that hon. Members get a wider understanding, and I hope they will be able to respond to that.

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

I thank the Minister for giving way again. Surely the prospectus should come first, before we consider implementing this legislation. It seems like things are being done in a completely back-to-front way, and I do not understand why. This is not a good way to make legislation.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I understand what the hon. Member says, but clearly this process will take some time. There are other parts of the process that follow today’s proceedings and Committee stage. By the time we get to that point, I am sure hon. Members will have been able to see the national planning policy prospectus and understand it more fully.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am grateful that the Minister was able to produce an example of where a national planning decision would override a local plan, but he talked about logistics, which does not come into the local planning process. That example was operational—it was not actually to do with planning. Can he drill down to say when a national development management policy would override a local plan?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Clearly, the example I gave follows from national policy and the conditions that can be placed on planning decisions. That necessity came forward when the Secretary of State had to take a view in what was, at the time, a national emergency.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Further to that point, is the Minister seriously saying that a logistical issue about the opening times of supermarkets is the type of policy that will be covered by an NDMP?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

What I am explaining is an example of where powers need to be taken, sometimes at short notice, in the national interest.

To move on, let me turn to parliamentary scrutiny. I have listened to the debate with interest, and I appreciate the points that have been made. The existing provisions for scrutiny of national policy statements, on which I believe the amendment has been modelled, play a particular role, given the way that those statements provide a framework for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, which are decided by Ministers.

National development management policies will serve a broader purpose and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans as the starting points for considering the suitability of development proposals. They will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions. The sort of things that we envisage them covering are standard policies—for example, avoiding inappropriate development in a green belt and areas at significant risk of flooding or coastal erosion; protecting nationally important habitats and heritage, and assets such as listed buildings; and ensuring that access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities or reduced mobility is taken into account when assessing development proposals.

As I have said, we have committed to consulting on national development management policies, and this is the first step in the process. The prospectus, which we will publish shortly, will set out more of our initial thinking on the scope of the policies, and the principles for their production. I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will read that document with interest when it comes out, and I hope that it will provide further reassurance on our commitment to transparency and full engagement as we develop the policies.

As the national development management policies will be public, parliamentarians and the public may still hold the Government to account, in the usual way, for the content of those policies. The nature of national development management policies differs from national policy statements, so we believe that the clause strikes the right balance.

We will continue to keep national policies under review by listening closely to colleagues, to the public and to the evidence presented to us, as Governments of all complexions do as a matter of course. It is not clear to me that the amendment would necessarily fit into that context. I have listened to the strength of feeling during the debate, and I hope that the national planning policy framework prospectus, when published, and my response to the three major issues that have been raised in discussing the amendment, will reassure Members. I will continue to reflect on the issues that have been raised, particularly in relation to responses to the prospectus. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was right to use the phrase “tin-eared”. That is what the Minister’s response was, and I hope he will reconsider.

The amendment and the clause go to the heart of the problem with the Bill. Is it a vehicle to empower communities and their representatives, or to override them when the Government of the day think that is the appropriate thing to do? Where the Government fall on that question is clear from the Minister’s answer. Let me reiterate that the level of scrutiny that we are asking for is not excessive or inappropriate; it is a minimum public consultation requirement in the way that currently applies to local planning policies, and the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as for designated national policy statements.

The Minister’s response was very telling. He said: “Well, the Secretary of State”—the previous Secretary of State now—“has committed to consultation.” That is all well and good, and I hope the prospectus will come in the summer, but it is not about that or about what the previous Secretary of State said; it is about what the Bill says. The Bill says that a Secretary of State needs to consult on an NDMPs if he or she considers it “appropriate”. If a Secretary of State in a future Labour Government brings forward an NDMP, does not consult on it, and uses it to override a local development plan in a constituency of one of the Members now on the Government side of this Committee, those Members would be the first to cry foul the use of such powers. The clause guarantees only that a Secretary of State needs to consult if he considers it appropriate.

On parliamentary scrutiny, the Minister said that NDMPs are different from national policy statements because they have a broader purpose. If they have a broader purpose, surely there is all the more need for basic parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, in the way that currently applies to such statements under the Planning Act 2008.

I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response, as he can tell. I hope that he will go back and reconsider this issue and those that we raised in the debate on clause 83, because we will certainly discuss these matters again, if not on Report in this place, then in the other place. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I urge him to reconsider. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Clause 84 provides the statutory basis for national development management policies in England. As they will play an important part in the planning process, the clause puts a necessary safeguard in place: they must be designated by the Secretary of State so that their status is clear, they must relate to the development or use of land and, most importantly, they must be subject to appropriate consultation before they can have effect.

The clause is necessarily broad in scope so that national policies can address the various planning considerations that apply across the country, from basic policies for protecting the green belt to those for avoiding areas of high flood risk. That will free up local plans to focus on matters of local importance.

We intend to consult fully on the scope and content of these policies before they are first introduced to ensure we have heard a wide range of views before deciding what is best set out at a national level, and before deciding what the policies themselves will say. Alongside clauses 83 and 84, they will be instrumental in making it easier to prepare local plans that reflect communities’ priorities for their areas while providing a sound basis to address the general planning considerations that apply across the country. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 85 - Contents of the spatial development strategy

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 85, page 92, leave out lines 26 and 27.

This amendment would remove an additional legal test within London’s Spatial Development Strategy that could preclude the insertion of policies which contribute to the effective strategic planning of Greater London but would also apply to other urban areas or are not specific to Greater London.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 94, in clause 85, page 92, line 27, at end insert—

“(c) supporting policies within the Spatial Development Strategy that achieve objectives for the benefit of strategic planning of Greater London.”

This amendment would enable the Mayor of London can include policies in a Spatial Development Strategy that contribute to the effective strategic planning of Greater London.

Amendment 95, in clause 85, page 93, line 5, at end insert—

“(2DA) The determination of whether a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough for the purposes of subsection (2D) lies solely with the Mayor of London.”

This amendment is intended to remove ambiguity about whose opinion is relevant in relation to whether or not a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough.

Amendment 96, in clause 85, page 93, line 9, at end insert—

“(2F) The spatial development strategy must include statements dealing with the general spatial development aspects of—

(a) such of the other strategies prepared and published, or to be prepared and published, under the enactments mentioned in section 41(1) above as involve considerations of spatial development, and

(b) such of the Mayor of London’s other policies or proposals as involve such considerations, whether or not the strategy, policy or proposal relates to the development or use of land.”

This amendment would retain provisions relating to the Mayor of London’s Spatial Development Strategy which relate to the spatial development aspects of the other Mayoral strategies.

Amendment 97, in clause 85, page 93, leave out lines 13 to 19.

This amendment would remove inserted subsection (10), which would place constraints on the Mayor of London’s Spatial Development Strategy relating to national development management policies.

Amendment 91, in schedule 7, page 241, line 16, leave out “with respect to design”.

Amendment 92, in schedule 7, page 241, line 18, after “met” insert

“in support of plan-making or”.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Clauses 85 and 86 relate to the spatial development strategy in London. I hazard a guess that the subject is not likely to set Government Members’ pulses racing, but it is important none the less, and I feel duty bound to do it justice as the only Member present who represents our glorious capital city.

On the surface, clause 85 appears relatively innocuous. It would seem that it is simply a matter of bringing the London plan in line with other spatial development strategies and providing greater clarity on the matters that can and cannot be covered by a spatial development strategy. However, once one digs into the detail, as I have, it quickly becomes apparent that taken together with two proposed changes set out in schedule 7—proposed new section 15CC, on supplementary plans—it is far more insidious. It amounts, in effect, to the rolling back of London’s strategic planning powers in important ways.

Let me say a little at the outset about why curtailing the strategic planning powers that Greater London enjoys would be harmful. London’s devolved strategic planning powers have been a huge success story over the past two decades under successive mayoral administrations. Since the first draft London plan was published in 2002, successive plans have facilitated a step change in the planning of our country’s only global city. London has been able to lead the way in planning policy approaches in a wide range of areas, whether focused on tackling climate change, addressing biodiversity loss, improving fire safety, addressing poor air quality or increasing the supply of affordable housing and the pace of its delivery.

The results speak for themselves: since the creation of the Greater London Authority, annual net housing supply has doubled and new homes in London lead the country in design, quality and energy efficiency. Indeed, the co-ordinated strategic planning approach that London has adopted has been so successful that the Government are proposing, through this Bill, to allow the new combined county authorities essentially to adopt it.

Despite the tacit recognition of the success of London’s strategic planning powers that the provision of the new power to CCAs implies, clause 85 and parts of schedule 7 explicitly curtail their effective use by putting in place significant additional restrictions on the preparation of future iterations of the London plan. They do so in four ways: first, proposed new subsection (2A)(b) states that policies can be included in a future London plan only if they are designed to achieve objectives that relate to the

“particular characteristics or circumstances of Greater London”.

We believe that is unnecessarily restrictive. There are many objectives that the London plan should appropriately be working toward that are not specific to the characteristics or circumstances of London, whether that is climate change, biodiversity and green infrastructure, supporting town centres and high streets, or parking and suburban housing development.

The purpose of strategic planning in London is not to constrain itself purely to matters that are demonstrably only relevant to that city, but to provide a strong statutory framework for the constructive and co-ordinated planning of our capital. Our amendment 93 would remove the additional legal test, thereby allowing the inclusion of policies within a future London plan to achieve objectives that may not be solely applicable to our capital.

Secondly, proposed new subsection (2D)(b) states that policies can be included in the London plan only if they are strategically important to more than one London borough. It is not clear why that qualification is necessary, given what is set out in subsection (2D)(a), which precedes it, and it risks inhibiting strategic planning in relation to issues that are clearly of strategic importance but that fall within the boundaries of a single borough.

To use a case that I am familiar with in my constituency, the boundaries of the Maritime Greenwich world heritage site lie solely within the Royal Borough of Greenwich, but of course it is of strategic importance to London, just as the Charlton riverside opportunity area in my constituency is of strategic importance to London’s housing market. Our amendment 94 would resolve the problem by clarifying that it is for the Mayor of London to determine what is of strategic importance to more than one London borough.

Thirdly, clause 85(3) removes the link between London’s spatial development strategy and other mayoral strategies by replacing the relevant parts of section 334 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. That is problematic because it would mean that the London plan is no longer required to set out spatial policy for those strategies, despite the fact that the planning system is an incredibly important means of delivering on a number of policy objectives, at least in so far as they relate to the built environment.

Let us consider health inequalities in London. The planning system clearly has the ability to promote and support public health measures through access to open space, sports facilities and a range of healthy food choices, including allotments. The London plan currently requires an assessment of the impacts of new development on health, as well as the mitigation of those impacts.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to London plan policies that deliver against the Mayor’s environment and transport strategies. The implementation of those strategies is profoundly affected by the built environment: from a building’s energy performance to prioritising brownfield sites with good transport accessibility and design that reduces air pollution and increases active travel.

We believe that the explicit duty that exists for the Mayor to address via the London plan the spatial elements of other mayoral strategies should remain so that strategic planning can continue to help secure positive change in the environmental, economic and social spheres, rather than leaving other mayoral strategies as nothing more than a wish list that cannot be effectively implemented. Our amendment 96 would restore the link between the two in the Bill.

Fourthly, although the Bill provides new powers for the creation of mayoral supplementary plans in London, the powers to produce them as set out in schedule 7 are far narrower than the powers provided to local authorities to produce their own. Line 16 on page 241 states that a supplementary plan produced by the Mayor

“may include requirements with respect to design”,

thereby excluding, for example, detailed guidance about non-design matters such as affordable housing.

Line 18 on the same page specifies that supplementary plans can be used only for guidance about how to determine a planning application, rather than about how to do plan making, thereby preventing a mayoral supplementary plan from providing advice to London boroughs in preparing their own local plans so that there is general conformity with the London plan. Our amendments 91 and 92 resolve those two issues.

London is as exposed as any other part of the country to the Government’s determination to give primacy to national planning policy through national development management policies, as set out in clauses 82 to 84, and it would be damaged by them in the same way if the Government determined to use NDMPs to impose inappropriate national policies on our capital city.

However, the additional ways in which the Bill curtails the effective use of London’s strategic planning powers by putting in place the significant additional restrictions I have set out will add further complexity to the plan-making process in our capital and impact on London’s ability to meet the future challenges it faces, whether in co-ordinating the delivery of housing or optimising investment in transport and other infrastructure.

I urge the Minister to think again about what is actually proposed in clause 85 and the parts of schedule 7 that I have referenced, and about the impact that those unnecessary restrictions will have on our capital, and to accept this group of amendments.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am very concerned about this part of the Bill. If we ask people in England which part of our country has the most autonomy and sovereignty and is listened to the most, most of them will say London—and they would be broadly right. It is really concerning to any person in this country who cares about genuine devolution and the empowerment of local communities that the part of England with the most powers devolved to it is having many of those powers curtailed, qualified and restricted by the clause, and the amendments are important because they put a spotlight on that issue.

Some of the language around levelling up may in fact be divisive, because it is about setting ourselves against one another. Rural communities are the poorest and most needy in England, but there is much that binds us all together. We need to consider ourselves as a United Kingdom and to make common endeavour, but we can do that only if we trust one another, give communities genuine sovereignty and power, and trust them.

Again, there is a theme with the Bill: it is about levelling up and devolution in name, but in reality it is about a lack of trust in the local electorate, local communities and local leaders—in this case, the Mayor of London. Anybody in this country—in England at least—who is concerned about their autonomy, their sovereignty and the devolution they want for their community should be deeply concerned about this proposal and should stand in solidarity with communities in London, who seem to be having theirs curtailed in the Bill. That is the opposite of levelling up and the opposite of devolution, and it increasingly sounds not like devolution but like delegation.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Clause 85 reaffirms the vital role of the London plan in setting strategic policy for the capital. However, the London plan is intended, and was originally designed, to deal only with matters of strategic importance in London. Those are limits to which the London plan has not always strictly adhered, and it now often touches on matters that no one would consider as strategic in nature, but rather as instances of applying the strategy.

Let me give an example of where the Mayor of London has overstepped that strategic objective. Policy H16 in the London plan refers to laundry, bedding and linen services, which do not seem overly strategic. The inclusion of non-strategic matters means that the London plan is far lengthier and more detailed than it needs to be—the current London plan is over 500 pages long. Not only does that increase the time taken to produce it, but it makes it more complicated for the people of London to work out what policies apply in their area and how those interact.

One of our most important objectives in reforming the planning system is to give a distinct and clearly defined role to each part of the development plan. By clearly specifying that the London plan must cover matters of strategic importance to London, we are making the plan’s role and its relationship to individual local plans easier to understand.

The text that amendment 93 proposes to remove also underlines that policies should relate to the particular characteristics or circumstances of London. During the preparation of the London plan, there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent the Mayor of London from considering matters that affect London but relate to areas outside Greater London. However, I hope we can agree that the policies themselves should relate to the area for which the Mayor has jurisdiction. Likewise, on amendment 94, it seems entirely reasonable that any policy included at the level of the London plan should have more than a local impact. Otherwise, it would be properly a matter for the appropriate local planning authority’s local or supplementary plans.

On that subject, under the provisions in the Bill, the Mayor of London may prepare a supplementary plan relating to design matters for the whole of Greater London, and amendments 91 and 92 concern that new power. I agree entirely with the intention behind amendment 92, but the amendment is needed to achieve that aim, because the Mayor’s supplementary plans will be part of the development plan, and schedule 7 inserts proposed new sections 15CA(5)(g) and 15CC(8), which provide that, in preparing local and supplementary plans, London boroughs—as local planning authorities—must have regard to the development plan.

Turning to amendment 91, supplementary plans provide local planning authorities with the flexibility to bring forward policies for specific sites, or groups of sites, quickly—for example, in response to a new opportunity that had not been identified in the local plan, or to set design standards too detailed for the local plan itself. They are not intended to supplant the primacy of the local plan or to circumvent the fuller process to which local plans will be subject. Supplementary plans are therefore primarily intended as a tool for local planning authorities to set more granular policies. Allowing the Mayor to set such policies would be contrary to the strategic—rather than locally specific—role of the Mayor. The Mayor’s role should be in setting design standards on a London-wide basis.

That is what the Mayor’s supplementary plan power provides for, while not precluding the Mayor from producing guidance on particular planning matters—a tool that I understand he has made good use of. However, the Mayor of London does not allocate sites in the London plan. Therefore, the ability to produce site-specific supplementary plans is not necessary. In the same way, in the current system, the Mayor does not produce supplementary planning documents.

That leads on to the effect of amendment 97. The London plan has never been able to allocate specific sites. It will retain its ability to identify broad locations for development, which will inform site allocations in individual local plans produced by London boroughs. Local plan making is the correct level at which to allocate individual sites for development, as boroughs work closely with their communities to identify the most suitable sites.

The Mayor should therefore not be able to allocate sites for development through either a supplementary plan or the London plan itself. That preserves the defined roles for strategic planning relative to the local plan. For that reason, it would be inappropriate for the Mayor alone, as suggested by amendment 95, to determine what should constitute “strategic” across more than one borough. That is not to say that the Mayor’s opinion on what constitutes a strategic matter is not essential. However, it is legitimate for other organisations and people, including the boroughs and those examining the London plan, to take a view on the issue.

In addition—although I do not think we need to repeat our earlier debate on this point—we have included the requirement not to be inconsistent with, or to repeat, any national development management policy, to ensure that the whole planning system, from national to local level, is consistent. That allows those matters that are best dealt with at the national level to have status, without requiring repetition in the development plan, potentially at both the strategic and local plan level.

Finally, on amendment 96, we want to remove unnecessary obligations from plan makers. Removing the requirement for the Mayor to include statements on general spatial development aspects of their other strategies and policies does not bar the Mayor from so doing. It merely allows the Mayor to judge how far it would be helpful to do so. I hope we can agree that that is a more sensible position.

I am aware that I have spoken at some length on these points, but I hope that has been helpful for the Committee. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I must confess that I am slightly disappointed with that answer. I appreciate that, in reading his remarks, the Minister has addressed each of the amendments in this group, but I do not think he has provided a convincing defence of why the Bill as it stands needs to be that way or of how restricting the Mayor’s powers in the way the Bill intends will not lead to harmful impacts of the kind I set out. I do not intend to press the amendments, but I very much hope that the Minister will continue to engage in dialogue with the Greater London Authority about these specific points. In one way or another, I think we will come back to these issues; if not, I expect that the noble Lords in the other place will do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 86 stand part.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

The Localism Act 2011 abolished regional spatial strategies, which acted as strategic plans for the regions of England. The exception was London, where the Mayor has retained the power to produce a spatial development strategy, better known as the London plan.

The London plan acts as the strategic plan for the capital, and local plans produced by London boroughs must be in general conformity with it. It sets out the planning framework for the capital, which includes the setting of a London-wide housing target broken down into individual housing targets for boroughs. It cannot allocate sites, but it can identify broad locations for development, the details of which are established in subsequent local plans. Local plans require closer consultation between plan makers and the people they represent, making them better placed to identify specific sites for development.

Since 2011, the power to produce an SDS has been extended through devolution deals to three mayoral combined authorities—Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region and West of England—with the intention to give the equivalent power to West Yorkshire in the future. The Bill will expand the power to produce an SDS to all local planning authorities in England outside of Greater London and the mayoral combined authorities I have mentioned. Groups of authorities will be able to use the powers on a voluntary basis when they feel that they would benefit from such a plan.

Spatial development strategies are prepared by an elected Mayor or a combined authority to provide the strategic policies for the development and use of land in the area they cover. The Government wants the development plan system to be clear and efficient. By setting out clearly what a spatial development strategy can and cannot do, clause 85 will be instrumental in achieving a system that is easier to engage with.

Spatial development strategies enable a co-ordinated approach to planning across multiple local authorities and are an effective mechanism for resolving cross-boundary issues. The London plan has broadly been seen as a useful plan at that spatial scale, with each newly elected Mayor choosing to commence work on a new London plan shortly after entering office. It provides a clear and accountable mechanism for setting planning policy across London boroughs and for redistributing housing need across the city.

The London plan is intended to deal only with matters of strategic importance to London. However, that intention has not been strictly adhered to, as I mentioned earlier, and increasingly the London plan has included detailed development management policies on a range of issues that are not usually considered to be of a strategic nature. That increases the length and detail of the plan and the amount of time taken to produce it. It also means that the London plan encroaches on aspects of policy that should be dealt with at either local plan level or national level, which creates overlap between several types of plans and makes plans longer than they need to be.

The amendments made by clause 85 will ensure that the distinction between spatial development strategies and local plans remains clear. The clause will amend the provisions of section 334 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to update the permissible content of a spatial development strategy and will ensure that the purpose and scope of this type of development plan is clear.

In particular, at proposed new subsection (9), it is clear that a spatial development strategy must not be site specific, and nor can it be inconsistent with or repeat national policy. Proposed new subsection (9) also prohibits spatial development strategies from identifying particular sites, preserving that level of detail for the local plan, where such specificity is more appropriate. Unfortunately, only one member of this Committee is from London, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich would accept that his particular local authority knows local people on a more granular level than the Mayor does, because the Mayor works at a strategic level. Therefore it is a far better principle for the local authority to identify sites and make decisions on them.

The amendments made by the clause will mark a change to the current scope of the London plan and mean that it needs to be consistent with national development management policies. Proposed new subsection (2D)(b) introduces a new and additional requirement for strategic matters to be of strategic importance to more than one London borough. The clause deliberately uses the same wording as proposed new section 15AA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by schedule 7 to the Bill, which applies to the content of a joint spatial development strategy. The strategy can be prepared by partnerships of other local planning authorities around the country outside of combined authority areas, meaning that a spatial development strategy will have the same effect whichever system it is produced under. Again, that will help to clarify and demystify the planning system.

London plan policies would, in future, need to avoid conflict with national development management policies, which the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to prepare, and to be of strategic importance to more than one borough. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will not affect how the Mayor consults on or gains approval for the London plan or the role of either the Mayor or the Secretary of State in relation to it.

Clause 87 - Plan making

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

The clause introduces schedule 7, which will replace the majority of part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, namely sections 15 to 37. Schedule 7 contains new provisions relating to different elements of the development plan—specifically joint spatial development strategies, local plans, minerals and waste plans, and supplementary plans. The details of those provisions will be debated throughout these sessions.

In summary, the proposed changes will ensure that plans are faster for local authorities to produce, easier for communities to navigate, engage with and understand, and more focused on things that matter locally. The reforms will support local planning authorities to produce local plans and keep them up to date—something that has proven challenging for many under the existing system. Local planning authorities and communities invest considerable time and effort in preparing local plans, but many plans take too long to produce. The average plan takes seven years, and plans are frequently out of date and can be difficult to understand.

Decisions on planning applications are meant to be plan-led, but in practice local plans cannot always be relied on for guiding decisions, especially when they are not up to date or do not set clear standards for development to follow. To make the system more responsive and flexible, local authorities will be given new powers to collaborate voluntarily with each other on joint spatial development strategies. They will also be able to introduce new policy at pace through supplementary plans.

There are two specific elements of the current plan-making system that the Government are not looking to retain. The first is the requirement for local planning authorities to produce a statement of community involvement. Such statements do little to drive meaningful dialogue with communities during plan production. Instead, the Secretary of State will produce guidance setting out much clearer expectations around how local planning authorities should engage people in the planning process.

Secondly, we do not propose to retain the duty to co-operate. The duty has been widely criticised as inflexible and burdensome, causing significant delays to the production of local plans. It will be replaced with a more flexible policy-based approach to addressing strategic issues that cut across authorities. That will be set out in a revised national planning policy framework in due course.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Just to check that I understood the Minister correctly, is he saying that the new flexible alignment test, which is to follow in the Bill, will come in only at the point that the NPPF is finalised in 2025? Is he saying that that is when we should expect this new test to appear?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Clearly we will need to ensure that the new test is workable. We will have to consider that very carefully, and we will no doubt consult on it. I will need to come back to the hon. Gentleman about the timeframe in order to provide him with that information. However, given the important changes that this clause enables us to introduce, I commend it to the Committee.

Schedule 7 - Plan making

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 7, page 224, line 14, after “authorities” insert “or county councils”.

This amendment and amendment 113 would enable county councils to prepare joint spatial development plans.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 113, in schedule 7, page 224, line 16, after “authority” insert “or county council”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 112.

Amendment 103, in schedule 7, page 224, leave out lines 19 to 22.

This amendment would leave out inserted section 15A(2)(b) and make combined authorities eligible for a joint spatial development strategy.

Amendment 102 in schedule 7, page 233, line 41, at end insert—

(1) This section applies in any area in which a joint spatial development strategy is not operative.

(2) Each person who is—

(a) a local planning authority,

(b) a county council in England that is not a local planning authority, or

(c) a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description, must co-operate with every other person who is within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) or subsection (10) in maximising the effectiveness with which activities within subsection (3) are undertaken.

(3) In particular, the duty imposed on a person by subsection (2) requires the person—

(a) to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in any process by means of which activities within subsection (4) are undertaken, and

(b) to have regard to activities of a person within subsection (10) so far as they are relevant to activities within subsection (4).

(4) The activities within this subsection are—

(a) the preparation of a joint spatial development strategy,

(b) the preparation of development plan documents,

(c) the preparation of other local development documents,

(d) the preparation of marine plans under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for the English inshore region, the English offshore region or any part of either of those regions,

(e) activities that can reasonably be considered to prepare the way for activities within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) that are, or could be, contemplated, and

(f) activities that support activities within any of paragraphs (a) to (d), so far as relating to a strategic matter.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), each of the following is a ‘strategic matter’—

(a) sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and

(b) sustainable development or use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use—

(i) is a county matter, or

(ii) has or would have a significant impact on a county matter.

(6) In subsection (5)—

‘county matter’ has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the principal Act (ignoring sub-paragraph 1(1)(i)),

‘planning area’ means—

(a) the area of—

(i) a district council (including a metropolitan district council),

(ii) a London borough council, or

(iii) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council,

but only so far as that area is neither in a National Park nor in the Broads,

(b) a National Park,

(c) the Broads,

(d) the English inshore region, or

(e) the English offshore region, and

‘two-tier area’ means an area—

(a) for which there is a county council and a district council, but

(b) which is not in a National Park.

(7) The engagement required of a person by subsection (3)(a) includes, in particular—

(a) considering whether to consult on and prepare, and enter into and publish, agreements on joint approaches to the undertaking of activities within subsection (3), and

(b) if the person is a local planning authority, considering whether to agree under section 28 to prepare joint local development documents.

(8) A person subject to the duty under subsection (2) must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about how the duty is to be complied with.

(9) A person, or description of persons, may be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) only if the person, or persons of that description, exercise functions for the purposes of an enactment.

(10) A person is within this subsection if the person is a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description.

(11) In this section—

‘the English inshore region’ and ‘the English offshore region’ have the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and

‘land’ includes the waters within those regions and the bed and subsoil of those waters.”

This amendment would require local authorities and other public bodies to co-operate on local planning measures in the absence of an operative joint spatial development strategy on the lines of section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This duty would encompass co-operation by all relevant local authorities on preparation for such a strategy.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Schedule 7 is 40 pages long and it contains a very wide range of provisions on plan making, many of which are complex. The amendments in this group relate to the provisions concerning joint spatial development strategies.

We support the new power in proposed new section 15A that allows two or more local planning authorities to work together to create one of these strategies. If done well, we believe they that will provide a high-level investment framework, more choice of where to direct development, greater opportunity to deliver sustainable growth and a means of translating national policy priorities, from levelling up to net zero, on a place-based basis.

In our view, joint spatial development strategies are likely to provide a much more attractive and deliverable strategic planning model than provided for by existing joint strategic plans, which have proved problematic, given that they are prepared and tested by means of an arrangement essentially designed for detailed local plans. Allowing groups of authorities to come together and collaborate to prepare and test strategic planning policies in relation to matters that cross local boundaries, whether that be infrastructure or affordable housing, by means of a joint spatial development strategy, is clearly a good thing, and it is crucial that more authorities do that.

At the end of the day, we cannot ignore the economic, social and environmental geography of England if we want to meet the challenges our nation faces and secure its long-term prosperity. To take just one example of why more cross-boundary strategic planning is essential, the Environment Agency’s climate change allowances analysis estimates that 32 district authorities, from the Humber to the Thames, are at risk of up to 1.5 metre sea level rises over the next 80 years. Clearly, no one district authority can deal with an existential threat of that magnitude on its own, so we must have better frameworks for enabling co-operation on that and other types of cross-boundary challenge, with effective accountability baked into them. However, we believe that there are three distinct weaknesses with the concept of joint spatial development strategies, as set out in proposed new sections 15A to 15AI of schedule 7, and the four amendments seek to address them.

First, and I am happy to be corrected by the Minister if this is not the case, given the complicated patchwork of powers resulting from devolution, it is our understanding that joint spatial development strategies cannot be prepared where there is an existing mayoral combined authority or combined authority, even in instances where an MCA or CA does not currently have the powers to prepare a spatial development strategy, as is the case with the North East Combined Authority, the North of Tyne Combined Authority, the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the West Midlands Combined Authority, or has chosen not to enact the existing powers, as is the case with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. If that is the case, it would appear effectively to rule out swathes of urban England that the Government rightly consider to be priority areas for levelling up.

We believe it would be sensible to enable and encourage existing mayoral combined authorities and combined authorities to come together to create joint spatial development strategies. If the Government feel that option is too expansive, they could consider instead enabling MCAs and CAs to create joint spatial development strategies, but prohibit from doing so those that have existing powers to develop them. I concede that amendment 103 is not the most elegantly drafted amendment, but it is designed to probe the Government on that point. It would remove proposed new section 15A(2)(b) from page 224, thereby rendering combined authorities eligible for the new power to create a joint spatial development strategy.

Secondly, the Bill provides for joint spatial development strategies to be solely the responsibility of local planning authorities. That means that in two-tier areas, which as we have discussed in previous debates cover 80% of England, county councils will have no statutory duty to support the preparation of a spatial development strategy and will play no role in decision making relating to them. That strikes us as odd given that county councils have responsibilities in a range of significant areas that impact on spatial decisions and priorities, including statutory responsibilities for transport and other strategic infrastructure. They are lead flood, public health and minerals and waste authorities, and they have responsibility for the new local nature recovery strategies.

We believe that excluding county councils from involvement in joint spatial development strategies is problematic in terms of who owns the strategies and of accountability and the provision of resources to sustain them. We believe that there is a case for giving county councils a voice, alongside local planning authorities, when it comes to preparing a joint spatial development strategy—something that could be achieved with some small changes to schedule 7 to make it clear that all relevant authorities within a given area, whether they are district or unitary authorities or county councils, have responsibility for and should be involved in preparing one of these strategies. Amendments 112 and 113 would make that possible by specifying that county councils also have access to the new powers, allowing them to participate in the creation of one of these strategies.

Thirdly, and most importantly, as the Minister said, the Bill specifies that joint spatial development strategies are entirely voluntary. They therefore rely on the willingness of local planning authorities to agree to work together to tackle major cross-boundary challenges in relation to issues such as the spatial distribution of development or the provision of strategic infrastructure. Not only that, but schedule 7 replaces section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, thereby abolishing the duty to co-operate, as the Minister said.

As such, if the schedule is not amended, in a given geographic area where authorities do not come together to use the new powers provided by the Bill to create a joint spatial development strategy there will be no statutory arrangement to encourage them to work together on strategic planning other than the new flexible alignment test that is to be set out in national policy in due course. Yet as we consider the clause, we have absolutely no idea what that flexible alignment test will look like and how it will apply. The Minister said he will write to me with more details, and I very much appreciate that. At the moment, we are legislating blindfolded as to how the flexible alignment test will operate.

Even once the Government’s flexible alignment test has been set out, however, it will not provide a statutory arrangement for strategic planning in the way the duty to co-operate does. We fully recognise that the duty to co-operate has not been uniformly successful—I put that as diplomatically as I can. Although there are examples of it making a positive difference, such as the joint work being done by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Hull City Council, in the main it has not been effective. The West of England’s recent experience is perhaps the most well-publicised example of its failings. We would argue that that is because it was a mechanism introduced primarily to prevent non-strategic planning in the context of local plans and the distribution of new housing following the scrapping of regional spatial strategies and regional development agencies, rather than one designed to foster the kind of deep strategic co-operation that enables areas to meet their cross-border challenges and the sharing of unmet local need to adjacent authorities.

In the absence of any provision for democratic and accountable regional and sub-regional planning, however, the duty to co-operate at least provides a minimum standard for cross-border strategic planning. By scrapping it and determining to replace it with only a discretionary new power, our fear is that the Bill risks resulting in even less cross-border strategic planning co-operation, because the incentive structure is not right. That flaw in the Bill could be addressed in a number of ways. The Royal Town Planning Institute has suggested various ways of incentivising authorities to participate in new joint spatial development strategies, whether that is by integrating them with devolution deals or providing tangible rewards such as funding or infrastructure provision.

Amendment 102 merely probes the Government on the issue by coming at the problem from the other way and reinserting the duty to co-operate in the Bill, ensuring that it would continue to apply to any authorities that determined not to voluntarily enter into a joint spatial development strategy. In that way, it seeks to provide a clear incentive for authorities to use the new power provided for by proposed new section 15A, but ensures that if they do not, there is not a complete absence of any statutory arrangement designed to foster cross-border strategic planning.

I trust that the Minister understands the points that I have made. I hope that in responding to these four amendments, he will indicate whether the Government will consider making combined authorities eligible for the new power, whether they will allow all tiers of authorities in a given area to participate in the creation of joint spatial development strategies and whether they will give some consideration to how best authorities might be incentivised to make use of the new power to create them.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

This is an important part of the Bill. I am comfortable with much of the direction that the Government seek to go in, but if we are to offer the power to develop joint spatial development strategies, it should be to everybody. I will make particular reference to national parks in England and the duty to consult with them.

It is worth bearing in mind that national parks are quasi-local authorities. In many ways, they have the functions of a local authority, particularly when it comes to planning and some other associated issues. They do not have council tax-raising powers and they are not directly elected in any shape or form in England or Wales. In Scotland, there is an element of direct election to the national parks.

I will make two suggestions. First, the needs of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are significant. They are parts of the country that we have collectively decided are so important that they need to be protected for environmental reasons, to provide education and enlightenment about our heritage and our culture, and to protect the communities within them. I am especially concerned about that latter point.

In national parks, decisions are made about housing, planning and development that have a huge impact on the lives of the people who live within them. The Lake District national park has between 40,000 and 50,000 full-time residents, a not inconsiderable number of people whose lives are affected by an unelected authority. By the way, the national parks do a great job—I have a lot of time and praise for what the Lake District national park and the Yorkshire Dales national park in my constituency do—but it is not true to say that they make their decisions entirely democratically.

When we are consulting and imposing a duty to consult, we must have a duty to consult the national parks. They must not be considered things to be overlooked, and communities must not be overlooked. We need to remember that decisions made about affordable housing and allowing farmers to do something on their farms that might enable them to diversify and to provide a home for agricultural workers, or a home for a farmer to retire into so that a young farmer can come and take their place, are often decided by people who do not live in the national park and who are not elected by the local community.

It would be interesting if the Minister could reflect on the extent to which the Government might consider learning from the Scottish example, whereby a number of members of national park authorities are directly elected. When we place a duty to consult, which means that we bring in the national parks, we should consult people who are there representatively, who are democratically elected and who are there to speak on behalf of the community. If we do not do that, the national parks will continue to be considered simply places for people to visit, not places for people to live. It is essential that we consider the living, vibrant communities of our national parks, as well as the fact that they are huge assets for the nation as a whole.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Although I understand the reasons for the amendments, our intention is for the reformed planning system to be district-led. As we have discussed previously, we do not want to see planning or any other powers being drawn upwards as a result of our reforms. As such, joint spatial development strategies need to be driven by the authorities closest to their communities.

We agree that county councils should play an important role in the plan-making process. They will have significant influence over the development of a joint spatial development strategy, and we envisage that they will be closely involved with its day-to-day production. To make sure that happens, we are giving them the formal status of statutory consultee so that they can bring their experience and expertise in a range of issues, particularly highways, transport, flood mitigation, education and the rules on waste, to the creation of a joint spatial development strategy. Planning inspectors examining the joint spatial development strategy will want to see evidence of work on those key issues and to make sure that any views expressed by the county council have been properly taken into consideration.

The approach that we are proposing strikes a balance between ensuring that joint spatial development strategies are developed at the right level and ensuring that the views and expertise of county councils are part of the process. Likewise, in areas with an elected Mayor, we believe it is vital that the Mayor is formally involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, in order to provide clear and accountable leadership for it. That is why combined authorities should not be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In such cases, the Mayor, with the support of all the member authorities, can approach the Government to ask for spatial development strategy powers to be conferred on them as part of their devolution deal.

I hope that was the response that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was looking for. His amendments seem to view spatial development strategies as a co-ordinating layer in the planning system. Amendment 102 seeks to resuscitate the duty to co-operate, which is widely agreed—most Conservative Members would agree, at least—to have been an ineffective mechanism, criticised as inflexible, bureaucratic and slow. That is why the Bill abolishes it. We can all agree that it is vital for local planning authorities to work together to make sure that cross-boundary issues are properly addressed. We expect them to plan for, and deliver, the housing and infrastructure our communities need. The planning system provides a number of mechanisms to assist them in doing so to which we are adding.

We intend to replace the duty with more flexible policy within the revised national planning policy framework, upon which we will consult. This will enable local planning authorities to address any issues of alignment during the preparation of a plan. At present, if an authority fails the duty its local plan must be withdrawn. The Bill also introduces a new requirement to assist with plan making, which we will consider more fully in due course. That will ensure the involvement of those who are vital to production of plans, including the delivery and planning of infrastructure. As such, joint spatial development strategies should not be seen as a co-ordinating function, replacing the duty to co-operate. I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will agree to not to press the amendments to a vote.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. On the issue of mayoral combined authorities and combined authorities, I cannot say that I am entirely convinced. However, I note the detailed response he gave me to the amendment, and I will give it further consideration. On the issue of county councils, the Minister says that they will be closely involved. I remain concerned that not giving them equality of status will be harmful. I am aware that the Department is concerned that if we do not get county councils to bring resources to the table for the new joint spatial development strategies, it may have effects that the Government do not want.

On the issue of the duty to co-operate and the voluntary nature of those new powers, I remain concerned about what happens and how that impacts on the Government’s wider policy objectives in areas where authorities do not make use of the power when we have removed the only statutory arrangement to enable them to co-operate. I urge the Minister to go away and give that some thought. If the Minister is not comfortable reintroducing the duty for those who have not taken up those powers, will he at least think again about whether the incentive structure might be tweaked to ensure that the majority of areas make use of the powers? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

(Afternoon)

Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)

Because it is so hot, I am happy for Members to remove their jackets, if they so wish.

Schedule 7 - Plan making

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 121, in schedule 7, page 227, line 15, at end insert—

“(e) other community organisations representing members of that community”

This amendment would extend the group of determining bodies to include community groups.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. Given that planning has to be about our local communities, I find it astounding how little agency communities, community groups and residents have in the process. As we heard this morning, it seems that their voices will be diminished by the Bill, rather than expanded. Therefore, I believe that my amendment would help give communities some agency within the planning process.

The Opposition really value civil society, and we value individual residents and their different views. We value businesses and our community groups, and I believe that their knowledge and passion for the local area is irreplaceable. They know the challenges, the investment that is needed, and the people. They should be the drivers of development, and they should be seen as central participants in any planning process or development. The amendment is designed to ensure that copies of reports are received by local communities, whose voices seem diminished in the Bill, because Labour wants to amplify the voices of the people most affected by planning.

In my constituency, there are just too many groups to mention. However, if we are looking at the planning process for transport, I think about the York Bus Forum, Walk York and the York Cycle Campaign, which provide the best analysis of the current and future transport needs of our city. York Civic Trust has just undertaken a piece of deliberative democracy to establish a future transport strategy, and it would want to receive a report in order to reflect on the findings and to ensure that it can fully participate in the planning process.

In York, we have a city full of historians and archaeologists who understand the value of place making; we have a university full of housing specialists; and we have York Central Co-Owned, or YoCo, which has been engaging residents in dialogue on future developments. York Disability Rights Forum can highlight issues of access. Our local enterprise partnership, universities and colleges, and business partners are working on York’s future economy. They, too, would want to be engaged in the planning process, yet community groups seem so absent and do not even receive reports of strategies in order to be able to take planning forward and to be part of the consultation on the future of what they spend 24 hours a day working for.

We have resident groups that are actively looking at planning. We all have such groups in our constituencies, and I am sure that all hon. Members will recognise their strength. We are proud of them because of their dedication and attention to detail, and the inclusion of the community is urgently needed in the planning and consultation process. My amendment would build on that expectation and stop communities being locked out of planning, because our planning system is all the poorer without them. I will shortly go on to explain why their prominence must change but, for now, I believe that the first step is to involve communities in consultations by sending over copies of strategies, which is something that the Minister should not block.

If we have such expertise in our communities, let us bring it into the heart of the planning process so that we get the very best housing, economic space and environment, and so that the people who know their area best—the local residents and other stakeholders—have greater agency in planning processes. I have tabled a number of amendments to stimulate the Government into working through how residents can have a greater say over the future of their communities.

York Central is a classic example. Right from the start of the process, the community have been told that they will have a voice in the project at the next stage. As we go through each stage and are told that their time will come, my conclusion is that they may get to choose the colour of the spring bulbs, but nothing significant. At every step of the process there is no opportunity for real community engagement. The promised voice never comes. Residents have organised into community groups with the hope that their collective voice will be heard, yet it is not.

Whether for York Central or the York local plan, the very people who should have the greatest voice have the least. In both scenarios, political expediency of the ruling council parties has placed political self-interest over the interests of the city. In York Central, the partners’ agenda is to secure the opening of the National Railway Museum by 2025—we all understand the importance of that. Network Rail getting a capital receipt has further blocked and locked out local people’s voices. The contempt is staggering.

The Minister would weep at the conduct of his own party, not to mention the Lib Dems and Greens, in the political process of planning in York. I will talk more about the solution in my next set of amendments. I urge Government to think more about the brilliance that will come from more community inclusion in the consultation processes, engaging our community groups by ensuring that they are included in the information and are sent a copy of the strategy. Surely that is the first stage.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on this sensible amendment, which I am very supportive of. It simply specifies, as she so clearly articulated, that local community groups be included in the list of bodies that are sent a copy of any joint spatial development strategy adopted.

The Government have extolled the virtues of this legislation in part on the basis that it will demonstrably improve local engagement in the planning process. It surely follows that Ministers would welcome the engagement of community organisations when it comes to the new strategies that schedule 7 provides for. Given that all the amendment does is to ensure that a copy of any such strategy created and adopted is sent to the representative community organisations, I cannot for the life of me think of a convincing reason why the Government would not accept it.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mrs Murray. I am also keen to support the sentiment behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central. Confidence in the planning process is at an all-time low. In any of the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members, confidence in communities in the planning process will not be great. In mine, land is of such enormous value around national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

To have an amendment to the Bill that allows us to formalise a greater level of consultation and involvement of local communities seems very wise. If we can get the consent of local communities and have communities shape how they are developed in the years to come, the chance of people having confidence in the decision-making process and local democracy of the planning process is that much higher.

I am very lucky to have a constituency where every square inch is parished—there is not a single part of my community without a parish council. We have a default consultee on behalf of the community in every single town, village and valley in Westmorland and Lonsdale, and throughout much of the rest of Cumbria as well. There are community groups that ought to be formally involved in that process, so that the right decisions are made. People feel so frustrated.

In our community, we are the opposite: we want houses to be built. We see the decimation of our local communities—I can talk elsewhere about the evaporation of the housing market to second home owners and holiday lets. We desperately need homes that are affordable and available for local people. We do not get people saying, “Not in my backyard”; they are saying, “In my backyard now.” But we want houses that are useful to us: affordable, social rented and guaranteed for a local working population and those who are retired.

People are frustrated by a lack of adequate provision when it comes to drainage, flood prevention, sewerage, school places—all those sorts of things. If the community were properly involved, it would give its consent and approval to schemes that would otherwise get opposition.

We also see an imbalance in the process—the developer can appeal and the community cannot—which adds to the general sense that planning is a process by which things happen to communities, not by which communities decide what happens to them. The sentiments behind this amendment are good, and I really hope the Government will take it into account.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. Although I understand the reasons for the amendment, the list of bodies in proposed new section 15AB(3), to which participating authorities should consider sending a draft joint spatial development strategy, is already comprehensive and can reasonably be assumed to include most community organisations. That includes voluntary groups, bodies representing religious groups and bodies representing the interests of racial, ethnic and national groups. However, it is not exhaustive, and authorities are free to send drafts to whichever organisations they feel necessary.

Our approach strikes the right balance between ensuring wide consultation while not putting unreasonable burdens on participating authorities and making the process unnecessarily onerous. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for York Central will withdraw her amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I appreciate the debate that we have had on amendment 121. The parish system is incredibly good at engaging people because it is so local. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale highlighted its establishment in the rural environment, but it is less prevalent in more urban environments, so we need to look at how to encourage the growth of parish councils across the country. They can be of real value and can get people to engage in their communities. Indeed, they are a first step for many in politics, as they are a less political environment in which to make decisions about their local community. There is some real strength in that. We will talk about neighbourhood plans, and it is important that we look at their inclusion as we work through the Bill.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his comments about the importance of putting people at the heart of planning; they often seem very much at the periphery. I looked very carefully at the Bill before drafting the amendment, and there is a bit of a vacuum in it, so it could be strengthened. Later this afternoon I will talk a little more about the importance of agency and voice, because they are absent.

I hear what the Minister says about the other organisations that are included, and his comments are helpful. If community groups feel excluded from the process, the Minister’s words highlighted that the clauses do not exclude them. Therefore, if they are unable to get hold of a copy of a report, I am sure those words will be very valuable in raising a challenge in the planning system to ensure that people get access to data. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I will be returning to the scene very shortly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 88, in schedule 7, page 228, leave out line 5.

This amendment, along with Amendment 89, would explicitly ensure that people would have a right to be heard at an examination in public in relation to the Joint Spatial Development Plan part of the development plan.

Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 89, in schedule 7, page 228, line 9, at end insert—

“(8) Any person who makes representations in relation to the strategy must (if that person so requests) be invited to appear before and be heard by the examiner.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 88.

Amendment 90, in schedule 7, page 246, line 29, leave out lines 29 and 30.

This amendment would prevent the general rule for hearings for supplementary plans taking the form of written representations and would instead enable the examiner to determine the form of the examination.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As I mentioned this morning, this is an incredibly technical schedule. It covers measures as diverse as powers to intervene in local plan making, a duty to prepare local design codes, neighbourhood priority statements and many other things. The three amendments relate to the important issue of public participation in the two new constituent parts of local development plans that the schedule introduces—namely, joint spatial development strategies, which we have already discussed; and supplementary plans.

It depends whether a local planning authority is in Greater London or subject to other devolutions deals, but in the main it is local and neighbourhood plans that presently constitute the development plan for most parts of England. Clause 82(3) expands the list of what can be included in a development plan to include spatial development strategies and supplementary plans, both of which will have the same legal status as a development plan in decision making, ironically taking us back to a situation where development plans are comprised of a suite of documents, not unlike what was introduced in the 2004 reforms and scrapped in 2011 on the basis that it was all too complicated.

There are obvious cost implications of Planning Inspectorate examinations, but in general terms we do not take issue with the creation of these two new documents, which will respectively provide an opportunity for multiple local planning authorities to achieve joint strategic objectives and for individual planning authorities to produce documents concerning site-specific needs or opportunities that have a clear weight and status in the way that supplementary planning documents currently do not.

However, when it comes to these two new documents, which I repeat will have the same legal status as a development plan in decision making, schedule 7 does not provide an automatic right for communities to be heard in the way they must be in relation to local and neighbourhood plans. In relation to joint spatial development strategies, new section 15AC in schedule 7 explicitly denies the right of residents to be heard, subsection 6 specifying:

“No person is to have the right to be heard at an examination in public”.

In relation to supplementary plans, new section 15DB in schedule 7 prescribes that “the general rule” is that submissions to independent examination

“take the form of written representations.”

Objecting to the respective denial and qualification of the automatic right for communities to be heard in relation to these two new documents may seem like a relatively trivial matter. After all, how many people are ever likely to attend a public examination to comment on a joint spatial development strategy or to press for a chance to share their views in person about a supplementary plan at an independent examination? But there is an important principle at stake here.

There are very few civil rights afforded to members of the public within the English planning system. For example, there is no legal right to be heard in relation to individual planning applications and appeal rights are only available to applicants as opposed to objectors. Virtually the only right that members of the public have within the system is that of objecting to and subsequently being heard in person at the examination of a local development plan.

The exercise of that right is not just a theoretical good. It has tangible benefits in terms of good plan making being regularly utilised effectively in relation to local plans to challenge the quality of evidence submitted in support of them, to question witnesses, to allow for the introduction of local knowledge, and to gauge the level of community support or opposition for specific policies within a proposed plan.

As I have mentioned, the Bill is explicit that new joint spatial development strategies and supplementary plans are to have the same weight and legal power over local decision making as the local plan. As such, they will become a core component of the development plan in many local areas. We believe that the public should therefore enjoy the same right to be heard in relation to these new documents as they do in respect of local and neighbourhood plans.

In not explicitly providing them with that right, the Bill will give communities no direct say over important strategic decisions or site-specific design requirements. The public may have greater access to information about these matters as a result of the planning data requirements in chapter 1 of part 3, but no meaningful way of interrogating the quality or content of them because they will have been shut out of the key decision-making forum that is the examination. That cannot be right.

We feel that the denial of the right to be heard when it comes to spatial development strategies and supplementary plans is likely to have very real implications for local plans themselves, and therefore for trust and confidence in the planning system, because it will filter through the system.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he is saying and I want to give an example to add some context to his comments. York is due a local transport plan and is behind on the timetable for delivering that, so York Civic Trust set up a process of deliberative democracy and engaged city stakeholders. They have created a plan for the future of our city, which is gaining a lot of interest. That demonstrates that if local people are involved, the plan will be robust and address some of the major challenges that slow down local authorities from engaging in that process. I thought that example would be a useful addition to my hon. Friend’s comments.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which is a useful illustration of what local people and local community groups can add to the plan-making process.

Our specific concern is that the denial of the right to be heard on the two new documents means that, in important ways, the process of formulating a local plan could be constrained. Let me illustrate what I mean. It should be remembered that these documents are designed to resolve issues such as the local planning authorities’ approach to the green belt or strategic infrastructure. Once set, local plans will need to be in conformity with these strategies, but it will be impossible to make use of the right to be heard vis-à-vis a local plan on important issues affecting a community, because it will be in effect impossible to challenge a decision that has already been resolved by means of a spatial development strategy, in relation to which no right to be heard will exist.

The Minister will no doubt be briefed to say that rights to be heard do not apply to other strategic plans, such as the London plan or the now abolished regional plans. That is true, but the justification for the abolition of regional plans was that they were not accountable or trusted by communities. If the aim is to increase participation, why not grant these important safeguards?

On Second Reading, both the previous Secretary of State and the previous Minister championed this legislation in part because they argued that it would tangibly improve local engagement. Why, then, are the Government content to consciously and deliberately shut down the opportunity for such engagement when it comes to new joint spatial development strategies and supplementary plans?

Amendments 88 to 90 would resolve this glaring contradiction in the legislation. Taken together, amendments 88 and 89 would enshrine in the Bill the right to be heard at an examination in public in relation to a joint spatial development strategy, while amendment 90

“would prevent the general rule for hearings for supplementary plans taking the form of written representations and would instead enable the examiner to determine the form of the examination”

as they saw fit. We believe that these amount to simple but appropriate changes to schedule 7 that would restore the right to be heard and thus enable communities to engage fully at every stage of the development plan formulation process. If the Government are genuinely open to further honing and refining the Bill before it is given Royal Assent, as previous Ministers always maintained, they should accept these amendments, and I hope to hear that this Minister is content to do so.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

It is worth observing that a previous Government ripped up completely the spatial development strategy process, largely because of the sense that the populations of this country felt that it was utterly disconnected from the plans, desires and priorities of their communities.

If we are to go down this route and not enable a formalised process by which communities can have their voices heard when it comes to spatial development plans, we are just setting ourselves up for the same mistake that the previous Government made. If we want people to feel confident in these plans and believe that they are in their interests and right for the future of their communities, children and grandchildren, we need to give them the chance to have their voices heard and to have their say. The amendments seem entirely sensible to me.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

As we discussed in relation to digital reforms of the planning system, we absolutely share the objective of improving community engagement in all parts of the planning system. It is, however, appropriate to allow different procedures for that engagement, based on the role of the plan or strategy in question.

The current procedure for the examination of spatial development strategies is now well established. It is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right to appear in person. However, we are confident that the current arrangements are fair, proportionate and effective. Experience shows that planning inspectors go to great lengths to ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations for spatial development strategies. The Committee may like to know that the most recent spatial development strategy examination, for the London plan in 2019, took place over 12 weeks and the list of participants ran to 27 pages.

The fundamental difference between spatial development strategies and local plans is that they do not designate or allocate specific land for development; that remains the role of the local plan. It should also be remembered that written and oral evidence carry equal weight at examination, and there is no limit on the submission of written evidence.

That brings me to amendment 90. We intend supplementary plans to replace supplementary planning documents, and, once they have successfully passed through consultation and independent examination, to be afforded the same weight as a local plan and other parts of the development plan. We are committed to a fair examination process, which is why we have based it on the arrangements for neighbourhood development plans.

The Bill sets out that, as a general rule, the independent examination of a supplementary plan is to take the form of written representations. That is expected to be more appropriate to their role in setting more specific policies for smaller areas than the local plan. The examiner must, however, hold a hearing if they think that is necessary by virtue of the issues raised or to ensure fairness. We expect there to be a need for guidance to support the independent examination of supplementary plans in general. We have been clear that we will work closely with the sector to refine our implementation plans, and we will be keen to hear views on whether further clarification on the matter of public hearings is necessary.

We have also committed to producing new guidance on community engagement in planning, which will describe the different ways in which communities can get involved and will highlight best practice. The guidance will cover supplementary plans. Given that the processes for both joint spatial development strategies and supplementary plans build on proven existing processes that have been designed to reflect their intended role, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As the Minister would expect, I am disappointed by his response. He said that improving community engagement was an objective of the Bill. I do not see how he can reconcile that with the decision to deny the right to be heard when it comes to the two new documents, which have the same legal status as a development plan in decision making, and, as I have argued, will constrain the local plan in many cases because they will effectively filter what local residents can have a say on in that local plan by already setting out the parameters in, for example, a joint spatial development strategy.

I am not minded to push these amendments to a vote at the moment, but we will come back to the issue. I just say to the Minister that anyone watching our proceedings who is interested in planning from a local perspective will see a pattern here of the Government constraining the ability of residents and community groups to engage, and—this is the most damaging aspect—further undermining trust and confidence in a system where trust and confidence are already at rock bottom. I urge him to reconsider over the summer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 122, in schedule 7, page 234, line 27, at end insert—

“(j) the timescale for the deliberative democracy process as set out in section [Deliberative democracy: local planning].”

This amendment along with Amendments 124 and 125 and NC42 will introduce a deliberative democracy process to the local plan timetable.

Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 124, in schedule 7, page 238, line 31, at end insert—

“(3A) Prior to establishing a local plan, the local authority must carry out a deliberative democracy process as set out in section [Deliberative democracy: local planning].”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 122.

Amendment 125, in schedule 7, page 239, line 14, at end insert—

“(ha) the deliberative democracy process as set out in section [Deliberative democracy: local planning].”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 122.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

We have started the conversation and we need to take it to the next level, to strengthen the voice and agency of people in our communities—not just residents but all stakeholders, including businesses, community groups and people working in our public services.

We know from the pilots run by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that deliberative democracy is a way of addressing challenging issues with a broad spectrum of the community and drawing out conclusions. The outcomes are more robust, consensus can be built, and challenging proposals can be brought into a place of understanding. People from all parts of the community engage, so we get true agency from different people in it. We want a modern and effective form of democratic engagement. We want to ensure that the planning process is not only robust and refreshing, but will resolve significant issues. That can be brought about by deliberative democracy.

This afternoon, I ask the Minister to open his mind to exploring amendment 122. I am going to do so through the prism of what is happening York, which is not only an important case study, but an opportunity—I am sure that York would want to pilot such a measure. As Members have heard, York has not had a local plan since 1956: for 76 years. It has become embroiled in a battle based on political grounds. Councillors in York Outer want to push more developments into York Central. York Outer, which traditionally votes Conservative, voted Lib Dem at the last local elections due to the Brexit dividend. The villages and suburbs are mainly settled with house ownership, and the voters do not want expansion near them.

Development is therefore rammed into York Central, which is nearly solidly Labour, and where there are significant levels of deprivation and residents are in the midst of a serious housing crisis. York Central is where the social housing is—or was—and where Airbnbs are expanding at such a rate. It is where developers are exploiting every opportunity to use our precious land to build their profits.

Rather than looking for solutions, the Lib Dems—now in power, propped up by the Greens, who just want green belt, despite our dire housing crisis—are trying to deliver the vast majority of the Government’s housing targets in our urban centre. They are breaking the tradition of our city, which was to use flats sparingly, and instead building high-rises in our city for its future.

Everyone knows the history of housing in York. It is where the Rowntrees developed social housing. The Housing Act 1930, the first Housing Act, came from meetings held in York. York is where New Earswick was built by the Rowntrees as a model of what housing should be. It remains that model today. York is where Tang Hall grew out and cleared the suburbs and where social plans were put at the heart of housing, making vast improvements to people’s quality of life. If people do not know the story, I advise them strongly to do so—I am happy to talk to them about it. It is wonderful and shows what can be done with the creativity of planning and progress.

High-density housing in the middle of York, however, is running roughshod over that story. Land is at such a premium there that it is unaffordable; people are talking about prices higher than Manchester’s and getting close to London’s. The housing being developed is completely unaffordable. The people affected by the housing crisis in York cannot access it, so gross inequality is occurring. It is a sheer abuse. If the Minister and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale thought about what their parties are doing—abusing the situation and locking my people, my constituents, out of housing for their future—they would be ashamed, as I am.

The voice of the whole community has not come together to solve the housing situation, enable real agency in the housing process and enable people to wrestle over the difficult issues and find the right solution. That will be no surprise to anyone in the Committee, because we all know that the people in all our communities who live in the greatest deprivation have the least agency in any process. A process of deliberative democracy would draw people together from all sections of our community, enabling them to work together to find the right solutions. They would listen to one another and work out how to solve the difficult and delicate questions that everyone is asking.

Our housing situation in York now is completely out of control. My casework has gone through the roof. Section 21 notices are being issued by the day. We are seeing family homes turned overnight into Airbnbs. I am sure that you will identify with that, Mrs Murray, coming from Cornwall, because it is a big issue in the south-west. However, I am sure that all Members will recognise that holiday destinations and such places are now extracting the housing and the opportunities from our communities.

Housing then extends poverty and people have become homeless. Young couples cannot afford to purchase housing, and they are pushed out of their city. I could weep—I do weep—over what is happening in the name of political expediency. It is so unjust. It is because of that injustice that we desperately need to find fairness in our planning system. We desperately need people from our communities to have the agency and opportunity to set the direction for the future, and we know that with the power of deliberative democracy that can be achieved and make such a difference. Instead of being pawns in the game, people will be setting the rules and deciding the direction. Instead of their lives being ruined and their mental health being destroyed through a rotten planning system that continues to ignore them, and where they have no voice, no say, no agency and no hope, they will be given a voice and dignity. Instead of contempt and the process being an utter disgrace, it could give them an opportunity and a future.

I beg the Committee to change the planning process. I want the poorest people I look after in York to have a voice in the whole planning process. I trust them. I believe they will make sound decisions, and the same applies to such people wherever they are in the country. As I have engaged with residents, community groups and even businesses, as well as people who deal with so many of our services, they have been saying that they need a voice because without it they will not have a home in the future.

Parents worry about their children, grandparents about their grandchildren and people about their families. That is breaking our city and our hearts. I have been sent to this place to change that and I am here to do that today. I plead with the Minister to end the situation by placing trust back in the hands of the people we are here to represent and ensuring that their power and voice are returned, so they can be involved in shaping their future, homes and communities, and be given real hope.

If York Central, or the local plan in York, goes ahead in its current format, it will be the ruin of our city and crush people’s dreams. Opportunities will be taken away for a generation. If we change course, it could be so much more. Having fought on every platform and having seen my community spurned by those who hold power, I believe the only way through is to establish a process of deliberative democracy and planning. It would be refreshing and world leading. It could work through issues, such as housing shortages, and build accessible and intergenerational family-friendly places. It would make it safe for women to walk our streets and give their children places to play. Local people will conserve our environment and ensure that good jobs come to our city and good homes are built for all—not class-based housing where the poorer someone is, the poorer the quality of their home.

If we look at Derwenthorpe, where again there was good community engagement—another Rowntree development—we see the integration. If we look at New Earswick, we cannot differentiate between social housing and housing that is owned. It is integrated and our communities are integrated, not divided. A process of deliberative democracy would produce a report that would be the basis for the future plans. Instead of a future designed for the rich and those set to extract wealth at every opportunity from my community, the people will be put at the heart of our planning system and we will invest in their future.

Please, Minister: this is where politics can make a difference. I am sure we will talk some more about York and its challenges, but today I trust that the Minister will accept that we need to look closely at new clause 42 and my amendments 122, 124 and 125.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank my hon. Friend for tabling this group of amendments, which raise an incredibly important issue that the Bill is silent on.

Debates about whether and how to formalise arrangements for deliberative democracy within the planning system have occupied those engaged in planning policy and practice for some time. I do not intend to try to do justice to those debates or to set out the case for considering amending the Bill to introduce a deliberative democracy process within the local plan timetable—my hon. Friend has admirably made the case for the benefits that deliberative democracy can bring.

All I will say is that we support this group of amendments because we think it is right that we look to do more to encourage public participation in the planning process beyond the existing right to be heard that applies to the examination of a local development plan, if not to the new spatial development strategies and supplementary plans that this schedule gives effect to.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

The hon. Member for York Central will forgive me if I do not get into the internal politics of York city, but all the same I think her proposals have real merit.

It seems that the housing market—in York, in the lakes and dales, elsewhere in Cumbria and in other parts of the country as well—has got into such a ludicrous situation that our planning law is just not able to keep up with it or to provide local communities with any kind of protection or agency when it comes to challenging that spiralling, out-of-control housing market.

Fairness in the planning system is essential. It is utterly frustrating—in fact, it is absolutely heartbreaking, as the hon. Member said—when communities see the desperate need for affordable homes for families who either are local or who will become local and for those working in social care, hospitality and tourism, schools and every other part of our economy, but the planning system permits us to build for demand and not for need. Communities must have that power and that agency.

Structured fairness in the planning system is essential, but it will require resourcing because the better planning decisions are those made with the community fully involved and with the planners getting out of their offices and meeting developers and communities semi-formally on site long before a proposal has been put in, so that we end up with a proposal that is, effectively, agreed on almost in advance.

When communities feel they are having things done to them, and when whole neighbourhoods are evicted and expelled through section 21 evictions, which the Government are yet to do anything about, those communities are bound to be desperate to have control and agency, to make sure that we make the best use of the resources and powers we have. What a slap in the face it would be for communities if we went down the deliberative route and then found at the end that communities do not have any power to enforce 100% affordability on any development or the permanent occupancy of houses that are developed.

We need to give communities that proper engagement and involvement, and we need there need to be enough planners, with enough resources, so that they can get out of the office and help to communicate with the community and indeed with developers in a consensual and pragmatic way. However, if we do not have the powers and the control at local planning level, we will find people who have been consulted but who still feel completely and utterly powerless.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Member for York Central for tabling the amendments and the new clause, because they provide us with an opportunity to talk about community engagement.

The English planning system already gives communities a key role, so that they can take an active part in shaping their areas and, in doing so, build local pride and a sense of belonging. We are strengthening that role through the Bill. Communities must be consulted on local plans and on individual planning applications. However, we know that current levels of engagement do not match our ambition of community involvement. That is why, through the Bill, we will increase opportunities for the community to get involved in planning for its area, to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for local people.

The Bill reforms the process for producing local plans so that it is simpler, faster and easier for communities to engage with, and a number of measures in the Bill will create wholly new opportunities to engage. Neighbourhood priority statements will make it easier and quicker for local communities to determine priorities for their area, which will need to be taken into account in preparing local plans. Mandatory design codes will ensure that communities are directly involved in making rules on how they want developments to look and feel. Finally, street votes will provide a new way for residents to permit the additional development they want on their streets.

We intend to set out in regulations the minimum consultation periods on local plans, of eight and six weeks respectively, before a plan can be submitted for independent examination, which is longer than the current statutory requirements.

As we have discussed, our measures to digitise the planning system will transform the way that information about plans, planning applications and the evidence underpinning them is made available. We are also accelerating the adoption of digital engagement tools and services by local authorities across the country to pilot how those solutions can be scaled across a variety of planning contexts.

We have funded 41 pilots, including in councils that have some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country, to demonstrate how digital approaches to engagement can make the planning system more accountable, democratic and inclusive. We are already seeing the impact of that intervention compared with traditional methods. For example, Watford Borough Council has developed a QR code system for residents, allowing them to view an interactive map and to access planning information. The London Borough of Hounslow has created an online 3D map, helping residents to visualise and comment on proposals.

We have also committed to produce, with sector experts, new guidance on community engagement in planning, which will show the different ways in which communities and industry can get involved. The guidance will highlight best practice, including the opportunities that digital technology offers. It will act as a tool to help authorities and developers deliver meaningful engagement. It will also give communities clear information on when and how they can engage.

As an example of innovation and good practice, I highlight how the Liverpool city region is dealing with its spatial development strategy. It has had two rounds of informal engagement, most recently targeting under-represented groups. Of the 2,500 respondents to that engagement, more than 42% were young, which I think we would all agree is a good thing—younger people very rarely get involved in planning processes—and half were from the 10% of most deprived neighbourhoods, a point on which the hon. Member for York Central noted her concerns. That work won a planning award and—although the SDS is still being drafted and has not yet been examined—it shows what can be done. It is a good example that other areas, including not just combined authority and city region areas, but many other local authorities, can take on board.

I do not want to prejudge the contents of the new guidance on community engagement today. We want to prepare it collaboratively.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I will respond more fully shortly, but I just wonder whether the Minister could set out the timescale for the guidance.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I will come back to the hon. Member with the exact timescale on the guidance. We expect it to work in conjunction with the measures in the Bill. As we have discussed, we are keen to see more community engagement. The guidance may well recommend that some of the approaches set out in the amendment are the right things to do. However, it is critical that we ensure that authorities have the flexibility to respond to the needs of their area, and the amendment would impose a top-down structure that might suit some areas but not others. In the light of that and the steps that, as I have set out, we are already taking within and beyond the Bill, I hope the hon. Member will be minded to withdraw her amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am grateful for the debate we have just had. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his comments, which highlighted the importance that Labour places on community engagement and agency in the planning process.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made the point for me, when he said that he did not want to engage with the politics. This process should not be about the politics. That is the challenge: this should be about addressing the need that is clearly there in many of our communities. Where we have significant demand and need, we should be able to address that. Ensuring that the resourcing is there is, of course, a challenge for all local authorities at the moment, and we need to ensure that planning gets the injection of resourcing that it needs. We are also losing skills, so we need to ensure that we get them coming through for the future.

I thank the Minister for the consideration he has given to my amendments and new clause. He set out the things that he will bring forward through the planning system, but I still believe we are on the old track, as opposed to looking at new opportunities, so I will look at this guidance with great interest when it is published.

Quickening the process and improving some of the consultation times is of course welcome, but I am talking about a period of 76 years and trying something different after that amount of time. There is still real conflict and pain in York over what is happening with the planning system. We absolutely want to come to a good decision in the future, looking at new opportunities, particularly after all the work that DCMS did. The pilots were successful and did bring people together. It is delightful to hear about the work Steve Rotheram has been doing in Liverpool. He is really putting young people at the heart of his agenda and ensuring that people from the most deprived communities have real agency and voice. I would expect nothing less of the Metro Mayor in Liverpool, because I know his passion for that great city.

However, there needs to be more from the Minister. There needs to be more in our planning system. There needs to be opportunity and a voice for the people we represent. The Minister said it in his own words: the levels of engagement are still so low. We are engaging in digital and we see the opportunities there, but we also see the barriers to digital. The Minister spoke about QR codes in Watford and 3D models, which are great— they help people like myself, who are more visual, to be able to identify things. I understand all of that. However, it is ultimately about the voice, knowledge and emotion, which we do not often see in planning. That is what actually makes the difference. That is what people bring. We need people to be able to determine and shape their future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, we need to have those reports heard, engaged with and included in the planning system.

Although I will not press my amendments and new clause today, it is my intention to bring this issue back on Report. If the Minister were willing to meet me in the interim to talk about some of the challenges we have and some of the opportunities we want to build for my city of York, I would be happy to do that.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I am sure the hon. Member has not finished her comments just yet. I would of course be willing to meet her to discuss the issues she is talking about. I do not know whether we will be able to squeeze that in before the recess, but the offer is certainly there.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I will close now, and I thank the Minister for that offer. I very much hope he will still be in his position—I appreciate that other events might take over. We may have a 24-hour period in September when we are able to meet. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 123, in schedule 7, page 238, line 6, at insert—

“(4A) A local plan may provide that the local planning authority may review and change any outline planning permissions in place prior to the establishment of a local plan, including on sites where work has already commenced, to bring those permissions in line with requirements set out in the plan.”

This amendment will allow Local Planning Authorities to require Outline Planning Applications to be adjusted where they conflict with Local Plans.

In my own mind, I have dubbed this the York Central amendment. I am sorry that I am going to talk about a real case study again. It highlights how planning that has been wrongly advanced due to the wrong motivations can be changed. If planning is going to be ruinous for an area, there must be an opportunity for proposals to be reworked.

Stakeholders across my city very much want Government to be able to assist in this matter. There are a number of developments that I can name in York that have been a complete disaster, and the features are all the same. Examples include the proposals for the old gas works, Hungate and the old Terry’s site. Developers extract what they can for what they want, and do not provide what people need in my city.

York Central is the largest brownfield development site in the country. It is vast. The development is threatening to take premium, valuable economic space next to the station, and it will choke off future economic opportunities —not only for the city of York and North Yorkshire, but for the gateway to the north.

The site is estimated to provide just 6,500 jobs. If we compare this to the Curzon Street, Toton or Crewe developments, those involved have understood the value of sites adjacent to stations of major connectivity. They have understood the opportunity to invest in the jobs that will provide people in my city with a good income in the future. We are a very low-wage economy in York because of the hospitality and tourism sectors. Not only do we want to level up York, but the north too.

I am so excited by the potential of the site, and yet the disaster of placing high-density housing for the super-rich in my low-income city is choking off the opportunity for York to level up or for the Treasury ever to reap its return. With the pace of capital receipt, 2,500 properties, mainly flats, are going to be built on the site. People in York want a home and garden, and 80% of the need is for family housing. However, luxury apartments across the city are going to be for investment, not residential purposes. My residents cannot afford to buy those places. York Central will be far worse, as the land value is higher. Just yesterday, a colleague in this place told me how their acquaintance had purchased seven of these luxury apartments and is turning them into Airbnbs. Is this really what development is meant to be all about?

This is what is really happening, and the Government need to get on top of it. Instead of the site being economically valuable and bringing investment in good jobs for the people of York, it will let property investors extract what they can out of our city. Empty units such as the ones we are seeing across our city, as well as second homes and Airbnbs, are not helping a single resident of York. Worse, they are heating up York’s housing market, so that it moves further away from my constituents’ dream. House prices are going up, and rent is going up. We have the extraction of housing, wealth and hope. It is a disaster. There are no additional homes in my community, and space is being taken up. High-value jobs will be lost for generations. Instead of my community being levelled up, it is spiralling down into even deeper debt and despair. I say to the Minister, this case study shows what is really happening right now.

We have to be able to work through things if they are wrong and if wrong decisions have been made, even if those decisions were made for political expediency, which they were. It is catastrophic. Even Homes England has said that York Central will become an Airbnb city, yet the Government have ploughed millions of pounds of taxpayer’s money into this site. I am not going to talk again about the transport challenges the site will bring as it gridlocks the city and turns it into a car park.

There must be a mechanism to stop disastrous developments. When mistakes have been made, we cannot just keep going on the treadmill, saying that the next stage is coming, when all it will do is cause more harm. This development could be stopped now, and the Minister should stop it—my amendment would give him that power. If he tells me that he already has those powers, then I earnestly ask why he has not used them. My city and my whole community want to know. Between us, we could fix this. This development could become a badge of pride, not just for my city but for the nation. York Central is a nightmare. I want it to turn into people’s dreams. We need to ensure that where poor planning decisions have been made, it is never too late to see change.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

The amendment is very helpful. I mentioned last week a decision taken recently by the Yorkshire Dales national park authority to ensure that 100% of all new developments will be for permanent occupancy. Although I would like to be wrong, I am pretty sure that it will not be able to enforce that condition. The amendment suggests how the Government might allow planning authorities, be they national parks or local councils, to have that kind of power.

In a community like mine if we build it, they will come. There is no problem meeting demand. If we build a three, four or five-bedroom property anywhere in the lakes, the dales or elsewhere in Cumbria, there will be a person who will pay top dollar for it. It will probably not even be their first home. Meeting demand will always be an answer that developers put forward; the properties will not stand empty—or at least they will not stand unowned. However, we have a planning regime that does not allow communities the agency and control to ensure that we build not for demand but for need.

One of the many blessings of having two national parks in a constituency is that we can compare them and try to encourage one to learn from the other. The Lake district does a great job, but the Yorkshire Dales national park authority has been far-sighted in saying, “These are the houses we need in our community. We don’t need more half-a-million, three-quarters-of-a-million or million-pound barn conversions. We need affordable homes for local families—or for those who will become local families.”

We are welcoming to offcomers from anywhere if they put down roots and contribute to our community. If the local plan could overrule outline planning permission, so that we can ensure that we deliver the homes, properties and business developments that we actually need rather than those that happen to have a place in the market, that would be a real power for communities like mine. I encourage the Minister to take the amendment seriously.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Member for York Central for the amendment. I thought she was almost tempting me to work with her during part of her speech. I could not quite understand why she seems to want me gone so quickly from this role.

It is good to have the opportunity to debate the amendment, which seeks to allow local plans to amend the details of existing outlined planning permissions so that they are in accordance with the local plan adopted after the grant of those permissions. Our planning reforms seek to ensure that local plans have a greater influence over individual planning decisions to ensure that development reflects what local communities want. In particular, our new decision-making framework under clause 82, which the Committee has debated, will lead to a more plan-led system, providing greater certainty to all.

I must say to the hon. Member for York Central that I cannot accept the amendment. To enable local plans to alter existing outline planning permissions, even when development has already started, runs counter to the long-standing position that the grant for planning permission is a development right. That right provides the certainty that developers need to raise finance and implement the permission. Allowing local plans to effectively rewrite permissions, even when they had already started, would create unnecessary uncertainty, and could see developers, especially small and medium-sized builders, faced with significant wasted costs and delays at a time when we need to support them.

Local planning authorities already have channels to revoke or modify existing planning permissions under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Importantly, those powers cannot affect works previously carried out and require the local planning authority—this is an important point—to pay compensation in respect of expenditure, loss or damage, so their use should be considered only as a last resort.

Furthermore, as developers often seek in practice to amend outline planning permissions, local planning authorities already have the opportunity to take account of new local plan policies when considering section 73 applications to vary planning conditions. That will also be the case under our new route to make minor variations to planning permissions, as set out in clause 98. For those reasons, I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for York Central that we will not be able to accept the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am grateful for the opportunity to set out why the amendment is so important. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for highlighting the actions taken in national parks.

The amendment is important because sometimes decisions are wrong. If, as is the case in York Central, the spade has not gone in the ground yet, it seems ludicrous to continue with something that will be ruinous to our city and will lead to 2,000 Airbnbs suddenly landing in it. That is not our tradition, it will not help anyone and it will ruin a beautiful city that should be a world heritage site. We are deeply concerned and disturbed by what is being done by developers that have control over our city. I am deeply worried about what is happening, and we need to find a way through it. There will be constant conflict as more and more people become disengaged and disenfranchised in York. The anger will build in our communities, but the Government have the opportunity to do something.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

The hon. Lady has returned to the subject of local plans in her area many times during our deliberations over the past couple of days, but do not elected councillors in any area—I am not talking about York—have the responsibility to sort themselves out, get things together and create a local plan in consultation with local people that stops the type of situation she describes?

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

If the Minister could have a word with his party’s councillors in York, that might help to move things forward.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Clearly, I am not completely au fait with the political situation in the hon. Lady’s city, but my perception from having looked at it quickly is that the Conservatives have not controlled the council since 1980. There have been several short periods over the years in which the Conservatives have had the leader in a minority administration, but it seems squarely down to the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens over a number of years—particularly the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

We are not here to talk about politics—well, maybe we are. Before the last election it was a Conservative-led administration with the Lib Dems’ support. The Minister is right that the Lib Dems and the Greens are in charge of the administration. Labour has not had control for a significant time, although there are elections next year, so we will see.

The key point is that when there is poor planning, as there is for the site I am thinking of, and we are in a deadlock situation that will be ruinous for the future of the community, we need a resolution and tools that can be deployed to find a solution. As I have described, the site is not providing the housing that our city needs. It will block off the economic opportunity for something that is so valuable for the levelling-up agenda not just for York and North Yorkshire but for the north. We need to find some solutions and stop the exploitation of land on that site.

I thank the Minister for his comments. I will not press this amendment to a vote, but I will consider how we will come back to the issue because it is important that we get it right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 99, in schedule 7, page 238, leave out lines 16 and 17.

This amendment removes the requirement in inserted section 15C(7)(b) that a local development plan must be consistent with national policies at the development plan formulation stage.

Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 100, in schedule 7, page 239, line 19, at end insert—

“(but may not require a local plan to be consistent with any national demand management policy)”

This amendment would provide that regulations made under inserted section 15C could not require local plans to conform with national policies.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The amendments relate to a matter that we have already considered at length. As such, I do not intend to detain the Committee for long in speaking to them. Their purpose is simply to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that there are two aspects of the issues that we debated in relation to clause 83, which concerned the Government’s intention to accord primacy to national planning policy in the form of NDMPs and, as a result, to provide for a large measure of central control over local development plans.

In stating that any conflict between local development plans and national development management policies should be resolved in favour of the latter, clause 83 relates specifically to the point in time at which any planning application is determined. Proposed new subsection (5A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes it clear that proposed new subsections (5B) and (5C) are

“for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts”.

They therefore do not relate to the point at which the local development plan is put together.

In schedule 7, proposed new sections 15C and 15CA of the PCPA 2004 specify that local plans must be formulated in accordance with national development management policies. That matters, because even if we had been successful in convincing the Minister to leave out proposed new subsection (5C) in section 38 of the PCPA, proposed new sections 15C and 15CA would constrain the resulting local flexibility that we would have secured at the point that a planning application is determined, because they provide for a large measure of central control over what can be in a local or neighbourhood plan in the first place.

Amendments 99 and 100 seek to address the issue by removing the provisions in proposed new sections 15C and 15CA of the PCPA that local plans should be consistent with NDMPs. In the same way that amendment 86 to clause 83 sought to give precedence to local plans when a planning application is determined, the amendments seek to ensure that local and neighbourhood plans can have a degree of flexibility within a nationally set planning policy framework at the point that they are developed, rather than the content of local and neighbourhood plans being dictated in large part by central Government.

I know the response that the Minister will give me but I again urge him to reconsider according national planning policy in the form of NDMPs precedence over local development plans—in this instance, in relation to the point in time at which local plans are developed, rather than when planning applications are determined.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Member for his amendment to the plan preparation provisions in schedule 7 that prevent inconsistency with national development management policies. I feel this is almost like groundhog day on this particular point.

National development management policies would sit alongside those in local plans when certain planning decisions are made, and have clear statutory weight. National development management policies will primarily be nationally important policies used for making decisions, such as green belt protection. At present, local plans take too much time to produce and are too long, and they are often hard to digest. Notably, there can be a lot of overlap with policies in the national planning policy framework of common importance, such as flood protection and the green belt, where the protections are rightly uniform throughout the country.

A critical objective of our proposed changes to the planning system is to reduce the time it takes for local plans to be produced. Reducing the need to repeat common policies on nationally important matters in local plans removes an unnecessary burden on local authorities while underpinning key national policy protections with statutory weight such as policies for controlling development in the green belt, which I have mentioned several times.

Preventing plans from being inconsistent with national development management policies will also allow local plans to focus on the issues that matter to local communities, which will be enabled to focus on crafting local policies that are tailored to local circumstances. We have heard about one set of local circumstances at some length; clearly we want to make sure that local people and their representatives can craft local polices that are tailored to local circumstances.

At the same time, our approach will strengthen the power of common nationally important policies, such as protecting the green belt, so that they cannot be challenged by developers through the local plan process. That is particularly crucial because we wish to use national policy to drive higher standards, especially on the environment and to tackle climate change. We intend to seek views on what national development management policies could cover in the prospectus that we intend to publish this summer—I am sure I will hear about that again before the end of Committee proceedings. I hope that, although he is slightly sceptical, the hon. Gentleman will, with those reassurances, withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As I said, I expected that answer. The Minister said our exchanges feel somewhat like groundhog day; it will start to feel like that, because we will return to this issue. We all know how the film “Groundhog Day” ends: when the main character, Phil Connors, reforms his ways. I hope the Minister can find it in his heart to change and to shift on this issue. I will not press the amendment to a vote but we will return to this issue, at the root of which is the status and scope of local plans, on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 126, in schedule 7, page 239, line 14, at end insert—

“(ha) Environmental Outcomes Reports,”.

This amendment would require local planning authority to have regard to Environmental Outcomes Reports in preparing a local plan.

I will be brief because we are going to say more about this issue when we deal with the environmental outcomes reports later in the Bill. If the amendment is not made, too little consideration will be given to the assessment of environmental impact. Nothing can be more important than to look at what is happening with the climate challenge. On Monday, many of us had the privilege to listen to top scientists talk about the climate risk and sketch out the profoundly troubling outcomes. We have struggled to get through this week because of the heat and people we know in our neighbourhoods are dying because of it.

We have to ensure that all outcomes seriously consider how we mitigate the climate catastrophe that we are living through. The planning process has a central role to play in that, whether in respect of transport, home heating, housing design or the industrial impacts that are having a great effect. As we all know, the current situation is not sustainable, and the Government have to focus on that at every turn. We have flooding and droughts side by side. I have tabled amendments for further discussion later in the Bill. Clause 116(2) sets out why this amendment is so important and why we must protect and restore our natural environment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the amendment which, as she has set out, seeks to ensure that the Bill makes it clear that local planning authorities should have regard to environmental outcomes reports in preparing their local plans. We support any practical revisions to the Bill that are aimed at strengthening and enhancing the delivery of environmental outcomes. If the Government will not accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, I hope to hear from the Minister not only a convincing argument as to why but an explanation of how the Government believe the new EOR regime that is set out part 5 will interact with the preparation of local plans.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

The Government are clear that environmental outcomes reports will form part of the consideration of whether a local plan is adopted. The Bill already includes provisions in clauses 118 and 117 to define which plans will require assessment and how such plans should be taken into account. Although the list of plans that require assessment will be set out in secondary legislation, our commitment to the non-regression of environmental protection makes it clear that the relevant local planning authorities will need to produce an environmental outcomes report as part of their local plan adoption process. The reports will ensure that environmental outcomes are taken into account during the preparation and adoption of local plans.

The regulations will set out which projects and plans will require the preparation of an environmental outcomes report. The exact list of projects and plans that will require assessment will be worked out through consultation with the sector and relevant stakeholders. That will ensure that we can capture and use expert feedback in the design of the system.

In writing the regulations, we will be constrained by our commitment to non-regression on environmental protections. In line with that commitment, local plans will require environmental assessment, as they do in the existing system. Setting out the exact list in regulations, rather than in primary legislation, will allow flexibility, which is key, given the type of changes we see. Flexibility will mean that we can take into account new situations and the emergence of new technologies or development types. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his comments, and for his pertinent questions to the Minister. This issue is central not just to planning, but to the future of our planet. The climate crisis is at a point where non-regression is not enough. I appreciate that the Minister is new in his role, but I very much hope that he is brought up to speed quickly. Our climate is changing with such rapidity that we will have to do much more than not regress if the next generation, let alone future generations, are to have a place on this planet.

This is a deeply troubling time, and I am glad to hear that the EORs will have a role in local planning, but that role and the relationship need to be strengthened. I very much hope that the Minister and his officials can find ways to achieve that, and to do much more. We simply do not have time to do only what the Minister said. We will certainly return to the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 127, in schedule 7, page 241, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) To have effect a supplementary plan must be agreed within 5 years of the commencement of preparation of the local plan to which it relates.”.

This amendment requires supplementary plans under inserted section 15CC to be agreed within 5 years of the commencement of the local plan process.

I will try not to dominate the afternoon’s proceedings, but I have tabled a number of amendments. This amendment is similar to a previous one. It seeks to ensure that supplementary plans are agreed within five years, so that we have the up-to-date data that is necessary for shaping local plans. The theory is obvious: something as important as a local plan needs to be built on rock-solid, up-to-date evidence and data. I am staggered that the planning process does not necessarily embrace that theory.

For example, on Tuesday, I referred to transport planning in York, and detailed how data from 13 years ago was determining how our local plan should be developed for the future. I have raised that point with the inspectors in York again this week. We cannot depend on something so out of date. Data must be up to date, whether it is mineral and waste plans, reports from the Environment Agency, local transport plans or any number of other reports.

We have just had a census, which has set out the demographic changes in our constituencies. We need to draw on up-to-date data to understand the rhythm of what is happening in planning and in our communities, and to ensure that they are in sync. The first stage of that is supplementary plans, on which local plans are built. They need to be secure and timely.

The amendment would ensure that, within existing constraints, supplementary plans remain relevant and up to date. In York, they simply are not, and I am sure that is the case in many other places, too. When local plans are put together, the opportunity should be taken to bring in wider considerations. For instance, right now, we need another hospital in York, but there is no facility to even think about how we can sequence that into the planning system. These things do not happen immediately; we need to plan in a timely way for the future. We must not lock out opportunities as we create green belts and everything else, important though they are. We must think our way through this. We should think about the structure of supplementary plans, ensure the data is up to date, and ensure their relevance. That should feed into the local planning process, and strengthen local plans and the planning process. My amendment 127 seeks to achieve that.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

This is one of many really helpful amendments being put forward today. I hope the Minister will seriously consider it.

In communities such as mine, there is a housing catastrophe—“crisis” is not an adequate word for it. There is a huge change in the demographic, as well as in the nature and the usage of the housing stock; I am sure that the situation is similar in your constituency, Mrs Murray. The nature of rural and holiday-destination communities has put us in a desperate state, so there is a need for urgent action.

One of the reasons why I am delighted to be a member of this Bill Committee is that it gives us the opportunity to talk about policies that could lead to urgent change. We do not have the time to be deliberative, and to take forever over all this; the crisis is happening now. The horses are leaving the stables at a canter. We need to shut the stable door at the very least, and then put some more horses in, if hon. Members do not mind me flogging a dead horse of a metaphor.

We need to think about this very seriously because so much has changed in the last few years. The timeliness of local plans is critical. We would make poor decisions if we used demographics on housing tenure and demand from 10 years ago; actually, we would probably make poor decisions if we made them on the basis of the way things were three years ago.

The recent census results show that in my community, there has been a 30% rise in the proportion of people who are retired—brilliant! But there is a drop in the number of people in the working-age population. It is therefore unsurprising that we face an absolute care crisis. We cannot find staff to provide support for people in their older age, or at other points in their life when they need care or support. Likewise, there would be 60,000 people working in the hospitality and tourism industry, which is utterly fundamental and the biggest employer in Cumbria, if we could fill the vacancies.

There has been a clear and very quick change in the nature of our demographic, with whole clearances of the working-age population. Long-term rentals are collapsing, and at least 50% of those properties are moving into the short-term Airbnb sector. We need to ensure that plans for development in our communities are based on live, current data. That is essential, so I hope the Minister will take this amendment seriously.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

In the new planning system, supplementary plans will replace supplementary planning documents. Once they have successfully passed through consultation and independent examination, they will be afforded the same weight as a local plan under the parts of the development plan.

Supplementary plans will provide local planning authorities with the flexibility to make policies for specific sites, or groups of sites, quickly. That could help to address urgent site-specific matters, for example in response to a new regeneration opportunity that had not been identified through the local plan, or to set out design policies outside the normal local plan process. We envisage a connection between local and supplementary plans in some cases—for example, where a local plan allocates a site-specific plan, and the supplementary plan sets out a design code for that site.

However, imposing an arbitrary tie between local and supplementary plans, as proposed by this amendment, could fetter the ability of authorities to use supplementary plans to respond positively to changes in their area at pace in the way that was intended. We have made clear our intention to bring forward in regulations a requirement for all local plans to be updated at least every five years. It is therefore not necessary to require supplementary plans to be made within five years of a local plan being adopted.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am conscious that some local transport plans date back 10 years. The local plan process may move forward at a different pace from supplementary plans. That is why I think that the Minister’s point strengthens the argument for the amendment.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but this plan is there to provide local planning authorities with the flexibility to bring forward policies for sites or groups of sites quickly. That is different from the example that she gave. Again, requiring supplementary plans to be made every five years after a local plan is adopted is not necessary. I hope that my assurances will enable the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am grateful once again for the opportunity to debate this issue, and to hear the Minister’s arguments. A theme is starting to emerge: the question of how to do planning in a timely way. We all recognise that: the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale set out clearly how rapidly our communities can change—demographic, housing and transport changes. We want to ensure that we keep up with that. As we become more digitised, technology can, in many respects, ensure that we stay current in setting local plans. That is another theme running through the Bill, which I would like to consider as it progresses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 139, in schedule 7, page 250, line 15, at end insert—

“(8) For a period of 6 months following a local election, a local planning authority may review a local plan that has already been adopted and submit a proposal to an examiner to change or adjust their plan.”

This amendment would allow newly elected Councils to amend local plans following an election.

Briefly, I understand that the whole point of a local plan is to create stability, and to ensure, based on evidence, that a plan delivers for a community. However, a plan adopted by a previous administration could strangulate an incoming administration, and prevent it from delivering economic or housing opportunities for their community. Their hands could be tied for the whole period of the administration.

A local plan should not be discarded. As I have said before, we should start thinking about planning as being about evolution rather than revolution; plans should be updated and should move forward rapidly. A new administration, whether in Government or local government, want to make a difference for their community, and to demonstrate that they can respond to need. We have talked so much—and will do so again—about the rise of Airbnbs and the many new and growing challenges. We need a rapid change in direction.

I want to give new authorities, of whatever colour, the opportunity to consider new structures and mechanisms for delivering for communities. Being able to look at a local plan at that moment could be a powerful intervention.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I welcome the amendment, because it probes the Government on an intriguing, if not uncontroversial, issue of whether a formal mechanism should be put in place to ensure that local plans can be revised in line with the local electoral cycle. She made the case that that would give us the flexibility to adjust to new political priorities. Also, one of the potential benefits of allowing for a six-month review period following a local election would be that political parties in a given local authority area would at least have an incentive to raise the issue of the local development plan as part of the democratic process, thereby raising public awareness of and engagement with it.

Given the steps being taken to ensure that every local plan is reviewed at least once every five years—the Minister spoke to that—the electoral cycle as a period of time is not too out of alignment with the time period we are talking about for the review. On that basis, I welcome the amendment as a way of probing the Government on the issue, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the case that my hon. Friend made.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Government’s proposals to get more up-to-date local plans in place. Paragraph 15GA in schedule 7 already enables a local planning authority to revise its plan at any time once it has come into force, irrespective of whether the authority has recently changed political control. My concern, however, is that by explicitly making a link between local elections and planning, the amendment risks turning a local plan into a political football. The hon. Member for York Central has told us all about what she thinks was a political football situation in her area.

For authorities that have elections in thirds, rewriting plans on the basis of election results could lead to updates three times every four years. That could lead to a constant change of direction. It would leave communities and other interested parties in a permanent state of uncertainty about what development should take place and where. Our reforms will provide welcome predictability in the local plan-making process; there will be a requirement for plans to be prepared within 30 months, and updated every five years. We think that is the right balance. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurances for the hon. Member for York Central, and that she will withdraw her amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am grateful for the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. We have heard from both sides about the positives of more engagement with local planning, but also about the politicisation of local planning. Ultimately, we want something that is robust, flexible and fit for purpose. I thank the Minister for pointing out that in schedule 7, paragraph 15GA, local authorities have flexibility of review. I am therefore happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 140, in schedule 7, page 252, line 24, at end insert—

“(c) consult with relevant stakeholders, including residents, via a deliberative process.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local stakeholders on the local plan.

Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 141, in schedule 7, page 262, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) A neighbourhood priorities statement must be prepared with the input of local stakeholders and community groups.”

This amendment would ensure that community groups and stakeholders are involved with the development of a neighbourhood priorities statement.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I have gone into detail on why the Government should consider deliberative democracy. I will not repeat myself, but there is a real opportunity to enable deadlocks to be broken and to move forward with a process of engagement, so that we have a strong voice in setting neighbourhood priorities and can strengthen community voices in the planning process. I will say no more on that now, but I will return to the subject on Report. I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue again.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Briefly, I have made it clear on previous occasions that we support any measures in the Bill that increase local democratic control over engagement with the planning process, principally as a means of restoring trust and confidence in the planning system. Although the Bill requires a body preparing a neighbourhood priority statement to publish the proposal in draft so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood to which it relates can comment on it, I appreciate that the thrust of the amendments is to ensure that a degree of proactive consultation takes place at the point when the proposal is being put together, rather than providing the opportunity to comment on it once it is finalised. On that basis, we are happy to support the amendments, which would ensure that local stakeholders and community groups were treated as statutory consultees in the preparation of those statements.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

It is of course vital that communities are given every opportunity to have their say on draft local plans and supplementary plans. The English planning system already gives communities a key role, so that they can play an active part in shaping their areas and, in doing so, build local pride and belonging. In the Bill, we are not changing that; in fact, we are strengthening it. I have set out elsewhere how that will be achieved.

The powers we are discussing have been used only sparingly in the past. That is expected to remain the case under the reformed plan-making system. However, they act as an important safety net to ensure that all areas can benefit from having up-to-date plans in place. I provide reassurance that were the Secretary of State or a local plan commissioner ever to take over plan preparation using the powers in the Bill, the plan would need to undergo public consultation, like any other plan. Like other procedural requirements, that will continue to be set out in secondary legislation, akin to the existing Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, using powers set out elsewhere in the Bill. Incorporating the amendment into proposed new section 15HA is therefore unnecessary.

The hon. Member for York Central raises the important issue of engagement with the community on the preparation of neighbourhood priority statements. I hope that I can reassure her that the amendment is not necessary. The purpose of neighbourhood priority statements is to provide communities with a simpler and more accessible way to set out their priorities and preferences for the local area, including in relation to the use and development of land, housing, the economy, the environment, public spaces and local facilities.

Proposed new section 15K(6) under the schedule gives the Secretary of State powers to set out in regulations the procedures that neighbourhood planning groups must follow when preparing their neighbourhood priority statements. The Government’s intention is to use the power to set out the requirements that neighbourhood planning groups must meet in order to ensure that they engage widely. We are testing different approaches to community engagement through our simpler approach to neighbourhood planning pilot, which got under way earlier in the year.

I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurances for the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I think that we have to part ways on the issue of the planning process. I am not satisfied that it gives residents their rightful voice. I will not press the Committee to a Division, but giving our communities the opportunity to have a real say will be a major theme on Report. The Government are taking away their voices, but we want to empower them. After all, when people said, “Give us back control”, it was these very issues—their lives, communities and neighbourhoods—that people wanted control over. The Government have not heard that message, whereas we clearly want to respond. Even though my amendment would have enabled us to address why plans run into difficulty and fail to progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 7, page 262, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) A local planning authority must have regard to the content of any relevant neighbourhood priorities statement in the exercise of its planning functions.”

As we have just discussed, proposed new section 15K introduces a new neighbourhood planning tool, the neighbourhood priorities statement. According to the Bill’s explanatory notes, these statements will allow communities to identify key priorities for their local area, including their preferences in relation to development, with the intention of providing a simpler and more accessible way for communities to participate in neighbourhood planning.

The provision is clearly a response to the fact that the vast majority of the 1,061 neighbourhood plans made to date have emanated from more affluent parts of the country, where people have the time and the resources to prepare and implement them, rather than from less affluent areas and more complex urban environments. We very much welcome the fact that the Government are engaging with this real problem.

However, although we certainly welcome the intent, providing community groups with the power to make these neighbourhood priority statements raises a host of questions. For example, how much flexibility will community groups have in formulating neighbourhood priority statements, given that proposed new section 15LE makes it clear that regulations

“may provide for the form or content”

of them

“to be determined by the Secretary of State”?

Alternatively, are these statements seen as a replacement for a neighbourhood plan where the creation of one is unlikely to take place, or are they seen as a precursor to the development of a full neighbourhood plan?

To my mind, the most important question is this: what is the status of neighbourhood priority statements? Will they be documents that community groups can put together but that a local planning authority can ignore entirely if it wishes to do so, or will local planning authorities have to treat them seriously as a material consideration?

The policy paper that accompanies the Bill says of neighbourhood priority statements that

“the local authority will be obliged to take into account when preparing its local plan.”

What does “take into account” mean in these circumstances and in practice? What is the impact of any neighbourhood priority statement in an area that already has a local plan?

The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I can see nothing in the Bill that indicates what the status of these new statements will be or that clarifies how local planning authorities must take them into account. Will he therefore tell the Committee—and I would like an answer to this question—the precise extent to which these statements should be considered in plan making, and what level of material weight will they have in development management decisions on applications? For example, will they have the same weight as the NPPF?

As a means of probing the Government’s intent further, amendment 109 would insert into proposed new section 15K the stipulation:

“A local planning authority must have regard to the content of any relevant neighbourhood priority statement in the exercise of its planning functions.”

I look forward to hearing whether the Minister feels that the Government can accept this amendment. If not, as I expect will be the case, I would like to know why and for him to explain what refusing to insist that local authorities must have regard to neighbourhood priority statements implies about their status.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

This is a wise amendment and I hope that the Minister will take it seriously. I mentioned earlier the fact that fewer than 1% of the county’s population engaged with a consultation on local government reorganisation in Cumbria. The fact that they were ignored probably explains why people do not engage so much: never have we been more consulted as a society, and never have we been less listened to.

It is important to flesh out the status of neighbourhood priority statements. When people make representations on the future of their communities, we need to know whether they hold any status whatsoever. For example, a parish might identify a specific need for supported living for younger people with learning disabilities or for older people. There may be a specific need, as is the case in many parishes in my constituency, for on-farm agricultural dwellings for farmers to retire to or for agricultural labourers to live in while working on site. Such special needs identified by district and parish absolutely should be incorporated into the planning process.

Furthermore, neighbourhood priority statements should be taken into even greater consideration in planning discussions and decisions in those areas where the planning committee is not elected. I mentioned national parks earlier. Not a single member of the national park planning boards in England and Wales is directly elected. They are good people—most of them are very good people—who do their very best, but it does not seem right that people who make decisions are not directly accountable to those affected by them. That should be addressed in other ways, but in the meantime it is important that even greater consideration is given to neighbourhood priority statements in those communities where democracy is not part of the planning process.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I welcome the Opposition’s support for neighbourhood planning. However, I do not agree that the amendment is necessary to ensure that neighbourhood priorities statements are properly considered in the planning process. The amendments made by schedule 7 set out that local planning authorities must have regard to any neighbourhood priorities statements in their areas when preparing their local plans. That will be tested independently at examination, which I think is an important point. The new local plan will be informed by any neighbourhood priorities statements and, alongside any neighbourhood plans in force, will form the basis for decisions on individual planning applications and enforcement decisions.

To respond to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, the intent is not for neighbourhood priority statements to replace a community’s ability to engage and form a neighbourhood plan. However, we do not want to create another layer to the formal development plan by turning priorities statements into a form of plan. That would make the planning system more complex and go against what we are trying to achieve with our reforms.

We are clear that the planning process must be more democratic, which is why we are making it easier and simpler for communities to engage. In addition to neighbourhood priorities statements, communities will be also be able to engage through new measures, including mandatory design codes, allowing communities to be directly involved in making rules on how they want developments to look and feel, with a much greater emphasis on environmental sustainability; street votes, allowing residents to propose developments on their street and for a vote to be held on whether planning permission should be given; and measures on street names, removing a local authority’s ability to impose street name changes on a community and instead requiring it to first obtain support from a majority of the local electorate on the street.

We are clear that communities should be at the heart of the local plan-making process, which is why we intend to include a requirement for two rounds of community engagement, for a minimum of eight and six weeks respectively. That is longer than the current statutory minimum.

We will create new guidance on best practice in community engagement, including digital approaches to engagement with sector experts, to provide local authorities and developers with a toolkit to improve local engagement. We will ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to engage if they wish, supported by digital tools to make engagement easier and more accessible, bringing the current system into the 21st century. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I welcome the Minister’s response and the clarification he provided. I am largely reassured, although I am still not entirely clear on the weight that those statements will have in development management decisions on individual applications. I will, however, review what he said, so on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 101, in schedule 7, page 270, line 31, at end insert—

“(4) In this part—

‘mitigation of climate change’ means compliance with the objectives and relevant budgetary provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008;

‘adaptation to climate change’ means the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including the mitigation of the risks identified in relation to section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the achievement of the objectives of the relevant flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”

This amendment requires references to climate change mitigation and adaptation in the inserted sections on plan making to be interpreted in line with the Climate Change Act 2008.

The debates we have had so far in relation to planning have focused heavily on the detailed procedures for how plans are made. We have spent far less time considering the practical outcomes that we want the planning system to help achieve and its role in enabling us to meet a number of significant challenges that we face as a country. I recognise that we will have time to do so after the summer recess, when we consider any proposed new clauses on the purpose of planning. However, we feel it is important that we also seek to amend those parts of the Bill that touch on some of those challenges but that do not necessarily ensure that we are doing what is necessary to meet them.

Of all the challenges we face, the most pressing is that of runaway global heating. Despite the desire of several Conservative party leadership candidates to abandon it, there is broad public support for bold climate action, and a strong cross-party consensus about the importance of the UK’s net zero target. Yet, in its latest annual progress report, the Committee on Climate Change found that the current Government’s policies

“will not deliver Net Zero”,

that the country is on track for only eight of 50 key indicators of progress, with 11 significantly off track, and that no credible plans exist for 61% of required emissions cuts.

When it comes to planning, one can point to a few exemplar development schemes across England, but, in general terms, we have failed to ensure that the planning system is playing its full part in tackling the climate emergency. Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that it is actively hindering our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change in myriad different ways, whether that be planning decisions enabling the building of new homes in places prone to flooding or unplanned development resulting in new communities that are entirely dependent on cars. More must therefore be done to ensure that the planning system effectively contributes to the delivery of our emission reduction targets and that new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places.

The amendment seeks to achieve that aim by ensuring that the process of plan making is fully aligned with the commitments set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. It would do so by clarifying the meaning of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Bill in such a way as to tie them directly to those Acts, thereby strengthening the duty placed on plan making via a 2008 amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that ensured that all plans contribute to the mitigation and adaptation of climate change.

By ensuring that there is genuine coherence between the country’s planning system and its climate commitments, the amendment would also provide the foundation for more detailed national policy on how planning will contribute to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and mitigating climate change as fully as possible in the forthcoming NPPF review. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will be able to pick that up and provide us with an update on when we might see that issue addressed in that NPPF review.

To conclude, we all know that the planning system must be aligned with net zero if we are to achieve our legally binding interim targets. I can think of no reason whatsoever that proposed new section 15LH, set out in schedule 7, should not be amended to give effect to that objective in relation to changes made to plan making in the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I, too, am deeply concerned by the noises from some of those seeking to become leader of the Conservative party, and therefore Prime Minister, on issues to do with climate change and net zero. I think that they are unwise, politically. When all is said and done, the public are convinced of the need to take serious and radical action. They recognise it as the biggest earthly threat that we face. We must face it together, or we will indeed fall together.

This is where local authorities have the opportunity to make a huge difference in the planning process. I am going to pull out two examples to illustrate why it is so important for the planning system to be tied very closely to the need to comply with the terms of the Climate Change Act 2008. The first is, of course, zero-carbon homes. When we are building new buildings, whether they be homes for us to live in or business properties, we should ensure that they are all compliant. We know that planning committees currently want to make new developments zero carbon, to ensure that they are contributing to renewable energy and minimising any wastage of energy whatsoever, and yet in the final analysis they cannot do so, because it is not enforceable. This Committee has the ability to make the law so that they could do that. Why would we not do that? Why would we not give communities the power and agency to actually enforce zero-carbon homes and buildings in our communities?

As I said earlier, at some point in August—after an eight-month delay—we expect the inspector to announce whether the UK will open its first coalmine for 30 years, in west Cumbria. We obviously should not do that. We will wait and see what the inspector says, and then we will wait and see what the Secretary of State says in response. It should be a no-brainer. If we are acting in line with the terms of the Climate Change Act, we are not going to be sanctioning the digging up of more fossil fuels for any purpose at all.

Those powers should be held by local authorities so that planning authorities can put in practice what we as a national community and family have agreed are our priorities. That power is not present. This amendment, I hope, provides the possibility that it could be.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I am sure we all agree that climate change is one of the central issues of our time. It is therefore critical that the reformed planning system addresses that issue effectively. That is why the Bill sets out that local plans

“must be designed to secure that the development and use of land in”

the local planning authority areas

“contribute to the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change.”

I think we can all see from the last few days and what is likely to happen early next week that things have changed even since a few short years ago, when you and I first came into this House, Mrs Murray. Also, the national planning policy framework already requires local planning authorities to plan in line with the objective and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. But we recognise the need to do more. That is why the Government also made a commitment to update the framework to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible. I heard what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said. I have undertaken previously during this sitting to write to him about the review of the national planning policy framework, and I will include the response to the question that he has just asked.

We will also be consulting on this as part of wider changes needed to deliver on the Bill’s ambitions after Royal Assent, and we will consult shortly on some immediate changes to deliver on commitments in the British energy security strategy, to help lower energy bills and increase our energy security.

Therefore, although I understand the spirit of this amendment, the Government must oppose it to ensure that this important issue can be properly considered and addressed through a review of national policy, which will go out to consultation next year, but I will come back, with further information, to the hon. Gentleman. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the Minister for that detailed response, but what I did not hear was a convincing argument as to why the Government cannot accept this amendment, which would simply alter the definitions of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Bill so that they aligned with the legislation that we have been talking about. We feel quite strongly on this matter, and I will press the amendment to a Division.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

On the basis that we have today spent significant time debating the content of schedule 7, I would like to commend schedule 7 to the Committee.

Written evidence reported to the House