Lord Jamieson (Con)

My Lords, I rise to speak to a series of amendments in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 135HA is a probing amendment, which seeks to explore the Government’s decision to move from an optional approach to a mandatory requirement for designated strategic authorities to prepare spatial development strategies. We have a number of concerns. First, making SDSs mandatory removes the discretion that local councils currently hold. It risks overriding the principle of localism. Secondly, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to intervene or produce an SDS directly. This shifts influence away from locally elected representatives and hands it to Whitehall. Thirdly, requiring every designated authority to prepare an SDS risks producing frameworks that are inflexible and detached from the distinct economic, environmental and social needs of different communities. Finally, there is a question of consistency and certainty. In opposition, Labour accused the Conservative Government of chopping and changing planning rules so often that sectors never knew whether they were coming or going, but is this not also chopping and changing? This amendment does not seek to strike down the principle of strategic planning; it asks the Government to justify why compulsion is necessary. Amendment 135HB seeks to probe the definition of a strategy area in relation to a spatial development strategy. We need clarity on its geographic scope, the criteria for designation and, critically, how it interacts with existing local and regional planning boundaries. Amendment 136A addresses the uncertainty facing local authorities over the geographical scope of SDSs, particularly during periods of local government reorganisation. Planning authorities face the dilemma of pressing ahead with local plans or pausing to prepare for SDSs, rather than risk duplication, wasted effort and delay. Amendment 136B raises an equally pressing issue: planning capacity. Principal authorities will be tasked with preparing SDSs, yet many planning departments already operate with limited staff. Too often, the solution has been secondment from lower-tier councils, but that simply robs Peter to pay Paul. It drains district and borough councils of the very staff they need to deliver their own local plans, creating knock-on delays across the systems. If we are serious about spatial planning, we also need a workforce strategy. Amendment 151A seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide a clear timetable for the preparation of SDSs. Timetables give participants realistic expectations of delivery and avoid drift. Linked to this is Amendment 152A, a probing amendment that seeks clarity on how competing objectives, regulations and aspirations will be prioritised when preparing these strategies. As we have heard tonight, there are many competing objectives for development. While these may all have merit, it is often not possible to achieve all of them. Having clear priorities and clarity on what these decisions are will enable and facilitate decision-making and help local councils and those producing spatial development strategies to deliver on time. Finally, Amendment 153A asks about the phrase “from time to time”. I note that the Minister has frequently made comments such as, “This will be delivered soon”, “It is in the works” and other such phrases. It would be good if we could have greater clarity on what such phrases might mean. Does “from time to time” mean annually, every five years or only when it suits the Secretary of State? In conclusion, these amendments all seek to achieve the same thing: clarity, certainty and capacity in the planning system. Without them, we risk inconsistency, delay and inefficiency, which is exactly what our communities and developers cannot afford. I beg to move.