Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)

I thank noble Lords for their amendments relating to the contents of a spatial development strategy, or SDS. I turn first to Amendment 139A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, which seeks to make it mandatory for strategic planning authorities to specify an amount of distribution of housing, including affordable housing. I understand the concerns that authorities may interpret the current drafting under new Section 12D(5) as meaning that they can opt out of addressing this important issue in their spatial development strategies, or at least not fully address it; in practice, however, I think it very unlikely that strategic planning authorities will be able to justify not addressing this issue in their SDSs, for two reasons. First, the Bill sets out that spatial development strategies must include policies that are of strategic importance to the area. It is very unlikely that the SPA will be able to make a credible argument that housing is not of strategic importance to their area. Furthermore, the Bill sets out that SDSs must have regard to the need to ensure consistency with national policy. We intend to set out clearly in national policy that SDSs should address housing needs. If SDSs are not consistent with national policy, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the ability to exercise intervention powers to rectify this. I hope that, for this reason, the noble Baroness feels reassured and will not press her amendment. Amendment 139ZA, from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require spatial development strategies to set out how infrastructure would be funded and what the potential implications would be of that funding not materialising. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his concern, which I share. It will be essential for SDSs to be based on realistic assumptions about the availability of infrastructure and the likelihood of investment in infrastructure, where that is required. As I mentioned earlier, it will also be important for SDSs to be kept under review and updated to reflect changes in circumstances, one example of which could be where infrastructure improvements or investments do not happen, or happen to a different timescale than anticipated. It is also important, however, to acknowledge that, as long-term spatial strategies, SDSs will look beyond current local plan time horizons and beyond many confirmed investment programmes of infrastructure providers; indeed, SDSs will be part of the more integrated and joined-up approach to infrastructure provision that this Government have already set out, notably via the 10-year infrastructure strategy, published in June, and forthcoming spatial plans for specific infrastructure sectors, such as the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan. We can expect a degree of iteration between SDSs and these national and regional approaches, with each being updated to take account of other strategies. The Bill already contains provisions about the need to keep SDSs under review, and the Secretary of State has powers to intervene where SDSs are not being updated. SDSs will be tested at examination. While it will be for the examiner to determine the matters to be considered at examination, it is likely that the implementation of the strategy can be expected to be one of the key aspects to be considered. One idea that was raised in an independent report by Prior and Partners earlier this year about our strategic planning proposals is that of creating an infrastructure board for each SDS, where the main infrastructure providers engage with each strategic planning authority. This is something that I am keen to explore and will give consideration to including in planning practice guidance for SDSs. While I therefore agree with the thrust of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I think that his concerns area already covered. On that basis, and in the knowledge that I agree that this is a key issue for SDSs—just not one that requires a legislative approach—I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I now turn to Amendment 140, which would expressly enable a spatial development strategy to specify or describe an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistics or commercial purposes. While I fully appreciate and support the intention behind this amendment, I do not believe it is necessary. This is because new Section 12D(1) already requires that an SDS must include a statement of the strategic planning authority’s policies, however expressed, in relation to the development and use of land in the strategy area that are of strategic importance to that area. In making this requirement, I would fully expect a strategic planning authority to plan for employment, industrial, logistics and commercial development, as we have seen the London plan do, which operates under similar legislative provisions. I turn now to Amendment 140A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, which seeks to specify housing needs, including of those who are homeless, sleeping rough or on housing waiting lists. This Government have taken some significant steps to address the issue of homelessness, including making a £1 billion investment into homelessness and rough sleeping services this year. We confirmed at the Spending Review that this will be protected for the next three years, along with the £39 billion for the Social and Affordable Homes Programme—the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. We are also developing a cross-government strategy, working with mayors and councils across the country, to get back on track to ending homelessness. While I support the noble Baroness’s goal in ensuring that the housing needs of homeless people can be addressed through spatial development strategies, I believe that this is already addressed in the Bill. New Section 12D(5) allows a spatial development strategy to specify housing requirements, including affordable housing, to meet the needs of homeless people, providing they meet the test of being of strategic importance to the area. I should also be clear that the Government expect strategic planning authorities to plan for—as a minimum—the cumulative total of housing needs for the constituent authorities of the SDS area, as calculated using the local housing need standard method. I hope that this gives the noble Baroness sufficient reassurance to withdraw the amendment. I turn next to Amendment 144, which seeks to enable a strategic planning authority to consider the implications of viability of development on the SDS’s approach to the provision of infrastructure, affordable housing, nature recovery and restoration of biodiversity net gain. Again, I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord in principle; SDSs will need to consider the implications of viability for their spatial strategy and broad locations that they set, and any policies that they include, and vice versa, and the implications that the SDS itself may have on development viability will need to be considered. However, the National Planning Policy Framework and the planning practice guidance deal with how viability should be considered. I am keen to allow a degree of flexibility here, rather than using what inevitably would be a rigid approach set down in primary legislation, especially as these SDSs are intended to be long-term and bold strategies which of themselves may well affect what is currently considered to be viable. In terms of the last part of this amendment, which seeks to enable the Secretary of State to set out guidance on the assessment of benchmark land values or other aspects of viability, this is not necessary as the Secretary of State is already able to issue guidance on these topics or other matters. Indeed, there is already planning practice guidance on viability, which sets out the Government’s recommended approach and includes reference to benchmark land values and developer returns. I finally turn to Amendment 145A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which would require SDSs to contain a design vision for the strategy area, which is developed with the local community and stakeholders. I reassure the noble Baroness of the importance that I attach to ensuring that the planning system creates well-designed new development. To support this, a clear framework exists through the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance on design, including the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code. They encourage plans at the most appropriate level to set clear design visions and expectations through local design policies, master plans, codes and guides. The key aims for SDSs are to set a spatial strategy for their area that delivers the development that will enable the economy to grow, the housing that is required and the environmental protection and restoration that is needed, and for this strategy to guide local implementation through subsequent local plans. As previously mentioned, new Section 12D(1) already requires that an SDS must include a statement of the strategic planning authority’s policies, however expressed, in relation to the development and use of land in the strategy area that are of strategic importance to that area, which could include policies on design. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.