Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for these amendments relating to the preparation of spatial development strategies. As other Peers have said, this is a really important issue with a lot of potential to transform the planning process. I turn first to Amendment 135HA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which seeks to probe why the Government are providing for a mandatory system of strategic planning instead of a voluntary system, as provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. I was aware of the voluntary system because—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, will recall only too well, I am sure—in Hertfordshire, we worked for many years across all 11 local authorities to deliver two strategic plans, one for the south and one for the north, based on the economic clusters in Hertfordshire. I always felt that it was a successful process; it worked very well, although it needed a lot of data collection and so on. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I am a fan of strategic planning. Although there are lots of issues around the regional planning process, it was very successful in identifying both the housing and the economic development that was needed across the region. This is an important step forward. The Government have been very clear: we cannot meet the housing need without planning for growth on a larger-than-local scale. We are not persuaded that a voluntary system would deliver this outcome, as strategic planning authorities could simply choose not to prepare a spatial development strategy. This would, in effect, continue the current position where strategic plans have only limited coverage and only London has a spatial development strategy in place. Through this Bill, we will introduce national coverage of spatial development strategies so that all parts of the country can benefit from more effective cross-boundary strategic planning, enabling us to meet our housing needs, to grow the economy and to improve the environment. I turn to Amendment 135HB, which seeks to remove the part of the Bill that defines the area for a spatial development strategy. As I mentioned earlier, the Government have been clear that we need strategic planning coverage nationally, so the Bill provides for this. In Clause 52, proposed new Section 12A(4) sets out that a spatial development strategy must cover the entirety of any strategic planning authority; and that, in the case of a strategic planning board, the SDS must cover the entirety of all of the constituent authorities of that board. Without such a definition, the extent of the SDS coverage would be unclear. A strategic planning authority could choose to produce an SDS for only part of its area, or it could produce multiple SDSs covering its area. Our proposals are the most straightforward definition of SDS coverage. I am concerned that this amendment would cause confusion and potentially make the legislation inoperable; it also may not achieve the ambition of national coverage of strategic plans. Amendment 136A sets out to probe the impact of local government reorganisation on plan-making and whether authorities should prioritise preparing a spatial development strategy or a local plan. First, it is important to emphasise that local government reorganisation is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to work together both to put local government on a more sustainable footing and to create simpler structures that will deliver the services that local people and businesses need and deserve. Spatial development strategies will be prepared by strategic planning authorities. In the case of combined authorities, combined county authorities and upper-tier county councils, these are distinct from local planning authorities, which obviously have the duty to prepare the local plan. However, where unitary authorities are in place, they will have responsibility for producing both a local plan and an SDS, albeit that the SDS may be produced in partnership with other authorities as part of a strategic planning board. As we move forward to further devolution, this distinction will become clearer. However, I accept that some authorities will have to balance local plan production and producing an SDS, including as part of a strategic planning board. The production of an SDS should not, however, be seen as being in competition with local plan production. SDSs are intended to deal with strategic and cross-boundary issues that many local plans have struggled to address successfully over the past 15 years. Therefore, the production of the SDS should make the local plan production more straightforward. In addition, we expect that local government reorganisation will simplify structures and lead to possible efficiency savings as we move to a single tier of unitary authorities in all parts of the country. This will reduce resource pressures on local authority planning teams; I do not want to overestimate that, but there are some savings to be made. The Government also expect the usual functions of local government to continue while reforms to both the planning system and local government are being implemented. Continuing with these functions will put the successor authorities in the best position to be able to continue service delivery post reform. Removing the stated lines from proposed new Section 12C(4) would inhibit the Secretary of State’s ability to establish effective strategic planning boards for areas not covered by a strategic authority. Amendments 136B and 152A seek to probe how principal authorities will secure sufficient planning staff to prepare Senior Deputy Speaker. It raises an important issue around how strategic planning authorities will balance competing objectives, policies and legislative requirements when preparing their SDS. I have previously set out what the Government are doing to support capacity and planning. We envisage that all strategic planning authorities will have a dedicated planning team, which will lead the preparation of a spatial development strategy regardless of whether there is a combined authority in place. On certain topics, we also expect the core team to draw on the expertise of individuals in the constituent authorities—for example, for advice on environmental or economic issues. Where there are capacity constraints or capability gaps, strategic planning teams can use consultants. It is important to emphasise once again that strategic planning will make the job of local planning authorities easier in terms of producing local plans. Furthermore, as we look to the next two to three years, we will see a process of local government reorganisation, which will see a move to a single tier of unitary authorities in all parts of the country. Through this process, we expect to see simpler structures and the potential for efficiency savings; this will mean that, overall, there will be fewer local plans, which, again, could reduce resource pressures on local authority planning teams.