Baroness Pinnock (LD)

My Lords, I am moving this amendment because I have my own amendment at the end of this short group of three. If other noble Lords wish to speak to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, that is fine by me. I have discussed the issues of accessibility and provision of older people’s housing with the noble Lord, Lord Best, on many occasions, because I feel as strongly as he does that it is a neglected area of housing policy. We have an ageing population and a need to enable people who are getting older and perhaps less mobile, who need a bit of support, to retain their independence. They can do that if the right provision for housing is made within their locality. For example, currently, where I live, 80 units of housing with extra care are being built by a registered social landlord—Housing 21, I think it is—so that people who are older will have a home with social rent and on-site provision and support where they need it. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Best, makes the point in his second amendment that it would be important for that provision to be included in the housing policy. That means spatial development strategies having a requirement to consider the needs of our ageing population and provision for them so that people can retain their independence. That is Amendment 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. His Amendment 139 simply says that, if 300,000 homes are being built a year, it is important that all of them are designed so that people with disabilities are able to use them and are not restricted to only a handful of homes that have been converted. That makes good sense and is in line with all the other proposals that we have been considering today. We should look ahead and make the right provisions for the population rather than trying to retrofit later. My Amendment 153 is designed to try to get more public involvement in considering the spatial development strategies. What I have asked in this amendment is that the “strategic planning authority must prepare and consult on a statement of community involvement which provides for persons affected by the strategy to have a right to be heard at an examination”. If the Minister can agree to that, it will take away some of the anxieties and frustrations built up by people who see a plan being developed, see that it will affect local plans—and therefore, in a very practical way, their lives—and yet are not able to have their say at the strategic plan level. Most of us in the practical world of politics know how hard it is to engage people in consideration of theoretical planning. Strategic planning and local plans are less theoretical but still are theoretical in the minds of many people because they are not actual practical planning applications. That is what my amendment asks for, and any way in which we can encourage involvement with people who are affected by a strategic plan only has to be good. With those few words, I move Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and look forward to the Minister’s response.