Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review
National Planning Policy Statements to assess whether they are
aligned with the United Kingdom’s commitments under the Paris
Climate Agreement and section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing,
Communities and Local Government () (Con)
National policy statements set out the planning policy framework
for nationally significant infrastructure, including energy and
transport. It is for relevant Secretaries of State to review
their national policy statements whenever they consider it
appropriate to do so.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, that rather ignores the major problem facing us. The
whole of the national planning statement needs to be revised in
light of the commitment to net zero, and that applies to all
sectors. Take construction, for example: the energy efficiency of
much new-build housing is way below the Government’s own
ambitions and what is needed. Does the Minister agree that
planning needs to set out basic energy efficiency standards for
new builds? Developers too often prefer demolition and rebuild to
retrofit options, but should that preference not be reversed in
planning guidance? When are the construction industry and
developers going to be forced to recognise that one of our major
commitments is to get on the path to net zero?
(Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of climate
change and responding to a commitment in the manifesto towards
that net-zero objective. We have a plan in place to do so, and we
recognise the important part that the planning regime plays. It
is something that needs reform, and that is why we have set out a
new approach to planning in the planning White Paper.
(Lab)
[V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the Royal Town Planning
Institute and of its January 2020 report, Five Reasons for
Climate Justice in Spatial Planning. Therein it makes clear that:
“As the climate crisis deepens disadvantaged communities will
bear the brunt.”
Among the strong recommendations, it identifies a need for
consultation with these often neglected communities in developing
planning guidelines and policy statements. To what extent have
the Government incorporated that clear advice into their ongoing
planning assessments?
(Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the climate change strategy team has
read every single report on the matter and recognises the
importance of having clear planks to be able to achieve the
target. Obviously, at the moment those are the national carbon
budgets, the net-zero target strategy and, of course, the
10-point plan.
(GP)
My Lords, this is such a wonderful, wide open Question that it is
very difficult to know where to go for an answer, but let me try
a very small point. The Government seem to be doing a slight
U-turn on onshore wind farms, which have quite harsh rules at the
moment within planning documents. Is there going to be a new
document for onshore wind?
(Con)
My Lords, I am not going to take the prompt from the noble
Baroness. We need to write to her on the matter, because I do not
want to make policy on the hoof.
(Con)
[V]
My Lords, in view of our dire financial situation and the huge
cost of reducing our carbon emissions, should we not give
priority to reducing air pollution and the pollution of the sea?
(Con)
My Lords, Mark Carney, who is the finance adviser for the UK
presidency of COP 26, made the point that we make our choices
today very rationally, and around two-thirds of the journey will
be made because it is the right thing to do—because the right
choice is actually a green choice. He called on more creativity
from business to be able to get that extra leap to hit the
target. That is very salient; we are a long way down the right
path. We need to focus on air pollution and sea pollution and
ensure that it is not only right morally but the right thing to
do in business terms as well.
(LD)
My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework states that:
“New development should be planned for in ways that … help to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions”,
so why are the Government refusing to introduce the future homes
standard until 2025? How is this crazy policy approach—to build
homes that will later have to be retrofitted—compatible with our
obligations under either the Climate Change Act or the Paris
Agreement?
(Con)
I do not recognise that the commitment to a net-zero standard in
the future homes standard is anything other than very bold and
brave. This Government are pushing that. We recognise that the
industry needs to move in line with that as well; that is why we
are promoting modern methods of construction and other ways to
ensure that we hit that net-zero target, and strengthening the
planning guidance so that we hit that end point.
(Con)
My Lords, not updating the policy statements has led to some
perverse planning decisions, in particular the one by Cumbia to
allow coal mining. When will my noble friend’s department decide
whether that planning application should be called in? Does he
realise that there will be great anger all around the House if it
is allowed?
(Con)
My Lords, I point out that the National Planning Policy Framework
was updated to deliver commitments in the 25-year environment
plan and on other matters, but there is obviously more to be
done. The framework on planning for this issue is quite clear and
makes sure that everything that comes forward is environmentally
acceptable.
(CB)
[V]
Are the Government satisfied that state-sponsored infrastructure
projects, such as the Lower Thames crossing, meet the
safeguarding of environmental standards? Given that retaining and
strengthening the role and voice of local councillors in the
planning and decision-making process should be a priority, and
following in a logical sequence from the point of the noble Lord,
, I ask whether
councils are using compulsory purchase powers to develop
brownfield sites for new homes before taking land from the
metropolitan green belt.
(Con)
My Lords, the point around brownfield is very well taken. It is
much better to build on brownfield than on greenfield land,
although I have to say, from my own experience of 16 years as a
local councillor, that CPO powers are not frequently used by
local authorities. This is something that we need to think about;
that power could be used to good effect.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out
in the register. Many local authorities have declared a climate
emergency, but at the same time have opposed renewable energy
developments or other developments in their areas that would be
consistent with their policy intent. There is a real tension and
a real inconsistency here, and it is the responsibility of the
Government to deal with that. Does the noble Lord agree on that
point and, if he does, what plans does he have to deal with it?
(Con)
My Lords, there is a tremendous commitment to the objective that
my noble friend—well, not my noble friend; sorry, I am not good
on the protocol yet, but I consider the noble Lord a friend, even
though I cannot say so. The Prime Minister set out his ambitious
Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. It covers clean
energy, transport, nature and innovative technologies. There is a
real ambition in this Government to ensure that we meet our
climate change commitments, and we will continue to work on
delivering that plan. It is no good having a plan unless you
implement it.
(LD)
I too am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The White Paper proudly proclaims to be sweeping away red tape
and simplifying requirements for environmental assessment and
mitigation. How will the Minister guarantee that this
deregulation will not lead to a rollback of environmental
standards? What will be the role of the local authority—if at
all—with regard to monitoring and enforcing new standards when
they eventually arrive? They do not appear to be involved in the
drawing up of them, according to what I can read in the White
Paper.
(Con)
My Lords, that is a misrepresentation of the thrust of the
planning reforms. We need to engage with communities. The idea of
the planning reforms is to ensure that engagement happens up
front and that it works within a framework to make sure that we
get sustainable development and that we also hit the objectives
that we have set as a Government.
(CB)
[V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a potential
conflict between the Government’s intention to build 300,000 new
housing properties each year and the risk that, under pressure to
deliver this ambition, local authorities and local planners are
ignoring advice from the Environment Agency in approving housing
schemes that are at serious risk of flooding if, as it is
assumed, global temperatures rise by more than two degrees
centigrade due to climate change?
(Con)
My Lords, in 89% of cases, the advice from the Environment Agency
is followed. There is a commitment to maintain and enhance the
objectives on avoiding environmental damage in the White
Paper—certainly to maintain if not to enhance. There is also a
commitment to review whether the current protections via the
National Planning Policy Framework are enough, and, importantly,
to boost transparency, data collection and reporting where the
Environment Agency or the lead local flood authority advice is
given; so they are shining the spotlight of transparency. There
is a pledge to review what is done in those cases where the
Environment Agency flood advice is not taken, as well as to
review the current approach to flood resilience design. I hope
that that is a full enough answer for the noble Lord.
