Neighbourhood Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2017-01-17
Topic: Housing
Andrew Colin Renfrew (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, this is a welcome and necessary Bill. The need for new housing is generally recognised, freeing up more land is desirable and reducing the time taken to get planning permission is an admirable aim At the same time, there are natural resources—my noble friend Lord Ridley referred to bats, newts and toads—and cultural and historic resources which are always under threat and which the present planning system serves to safeguard effectively. I am concerned that the Bill’s provisions, particularly in Clause 12, may endanger that situation. This country has a good record of safeguarding our historic and archaeological monuments, both by taking key monuments into care and by safeguarding many thousands more through the listing process for historic buildings and the scheduling process for ancient monuments, including archaeological monuments Furthermore, there is the clear understanding that when a significant archaeological site has to be sacrificed, whether by the construction of a motorway or by building new homes, where appropriate, rescue excavation will be undertaken before the building works start, and the situation can be alleviated. The system of county archaeological officers, usually working in planning departments, provides the necessary expertise. Local planning authorities regularly impose planning conditions on applications to meet those needs. However, there is widespread concern that in placing restrictions on the power of local planning authorities to impose planning conditions, the Bill risks disrupting that system The Government have given some rather vague assurances that the existing exemptions for archaeological recording and recording of the historic environment will not be unduly affected by the Bill. The Minister in another place made constructive references to that effect when resisting an amendment to delete Clause 12. However, the outcome of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s review of the National Planning Policy Framework has not yet been published. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can say when it will be. It is also a matter for concern that the number of local planning authority archaeology officers and conservation specialists has fallen. Archaeology officers are fewer by 33% than they were in 2006 There is real concern that local planning authorities will not feel able to press for archaeological pre-commencement conditions under the system proposed in Clause 12. Historic England has put down a cautious marker: "Historic England does not feel it necessary to have explicit support for archaeological conditions on the face of the Bill, but would like instead to see a clear Government commitment that any subsequent guidance will be positive about the importance of heritage and of necessary conditions, and that local planning authorities should certainly refuse applications where appropriate conditions are resisted, and harm would otherwise ensue" Will the Minister give a clear commitment on future guidance being positive about the importance of heritage and of the necessary conditions to protect it? If he cannot give that explicit assurance, it will be necessary in Committee to set down amendments to Clause 12 to enable and facilitate such conditions I certainly support the Government in their aim of streamlining and facilitating the planning process, but we do not want that streamlining to operate at the expense of giving due respect to the historical and archaeological heritage.