§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
2.35 pm§ Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North)I am delighted to reach that part of the day's business normally described as the graveyard slot.
The vexed issue of planning and funeral parlours is of great concern to my constituents. For many years, one of my constituents lived next to an excellent local newsagent and tobacconist shop, where sustenance for mind and body was available through a wide display of specialist magazines and tobaccos from many continents. To her horror, one day she found that a funeral parlour had appeared almost overnight in the small parade of shops.
My constituent came from Northolt, and immediately contacted the council and demanded to know what it was going to do. The response from Peter Causer and Janet Thomas in the planning department was that nothing could be done, because of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Extraordinarily and bizarrely, that order places newsagents and many other retail outlets in the same use category as funeral parlours.
I have no objection to funeral parlours and funeral directors operating in the high street. They provide an essential service with considerable sensitivity, which is greatly appreciated, and they are extremely supportive of the local community. I do not consider their presence in the high street in any way inappropriate. By and large, they make good neighbours—there are few complaints about loud music, for example.
However, Mike Churchman, speaking for one of the larger groups of funeral directors in the country, has drawn attention to the fact that many people object to funeral directors operating in the high street. In many ways, that stems from English people's fear of death. We still believe that it will never happen to us, and that death is an awesome and frightening thing. I do not subscribe to that view. I have been told that there will be great rejoicing when news of my death sweeps west London. Death is not something to be especially sad about.
The relevant planning regulations appear ludicrous. Elsewhere in my constituency, a funeral director's establishment is located between a barber and a balti shop. That may seem appropriate to some, who perhaps believe that all tastes are catered for in that parade of shops, but there is something about it that does not seem right.
The deeper I looked into the 1987 order, the more I realised that the Government have failed people in the past because the use classes are so ill drawn. I had intended to confine myself to funeral directors and funeral parlours, but I have found it impossible to resist the temptation to wander slightly further afield—although remaining within the ambit of the use classes order.
The old pie and mash shop next to the Methodist church in Greenford closed down and was reopened, on the following Monday, as Crikey O'Reilly's Irish pub. I take second place to no one in the respect in which I hold Greenford's teetotal Methodist community, and the placement of the pub was completely inappropriate.
Fortunately, after several discussions with a small focus group at the pub, it was agreed that the name would be changed to the Belmullet Tavern, in honour of one of the 962 most delightful parts of County Mayo. I have been honoured to visit that tavern on many occasions since. However, the difficulty is that the A3 use categories permit a food retail outlet—in this case the pie and mash shop—to be changed into a pub.
It gets worse. The categories are so badly drawn that the old unrestricted A3 uses have led to an over-concentration of pubs and, even more sinisterly, such things as super-pubs. I believe that the Minister is familiar with the concept of super-pubs and will discuss them later. Planning fails in these cases and it is left to licensing magistrates to resolve the difficulties, which is impossible.
The distinction between the A3 use class, which covers super-pubs, and the D2 class, which covers dancehalls and nightclubs, is extremely blurred. It is ludicrous that a cinema can be converted into a late-night dancehall without permission. The primary use of a building can vary depending on the time of day, and enforcement is extremely difficult if sui generis use is not proven.
The A1 use category—traditionally known as the coffee bar and sandwich bar category—and the A3 use category have a blurred distinction. In modern, fashionable outlets of a type completely unknown to me, but which those who live in more fashionable parts of London tell me are called Pret a Manger—does it mean ready to eat?—seating is a dominant feature. In many cases, on appeal, inspectors have used an extremely broad definition of primary use and allowed considerable change so that Al units have become A3 units by default. We clearly need a separate classification.
As I delved deeper into planning law, I found out about business use classes B1, B2 and B8, and the situation is even worse. Permitted development rights to change units of 235 sq m to B8 use are being exercised in conjunction with amalgamation, which is causing extraordinary problems for local amenities and roads and the character of areas. The difficulties are significant, but nothing can be done.
Finally, the position of museums, art galleries and libraries is worse still. I freely admit that Northolt is not over-blessed with those. In fact, to be perfectly honest, there is none. I have a large collection of old Fulham football club programmes that could form the basis of a library, and we have a lot of graffiti that could start off an art collection, but, within the D1 non-residential institution category, any museum, art gallery or public library—some hon. Members may have such things in their constituencies—could turn into a place of worship, a nursery or, worst of all, a private school. I wonder how any of my hon. Friends would like it if their cherished local art gallery suddenly became a private school or a place of worship without any need for public consultation or planning approval.
There is a dichotomy in the regulations. In 1987, the Bromley and Chislehurst tendency ruled the roost, and the Government supported the idea that there should be no restrictions on business men and business women—probably just men in those days—so that they could ride rampant and roughshod. The idea was that life should be made easier for business people: if they were allowed to do what they liked, a thousand flowers would bloom. We have moved on since the days of that absurd, libertarian, laissez faire philosophy, recognising that regulations and restrictions in planning law provide sensible guidelines and parameters, and should involve public consultation and participation.
963 What most upset my constituent in Northolt was not the funeral parlour in the high street—she did not object to that, and nor would most sensible people—but the fact that the local authority planning department was not involved in any way and that there was no public consultation. The normal process of democratic accountability simply did not work. Her experience tells me that the categories are clearly wrongly drawn.
I understand that there may possibly still be an instinct within the House to go against regulation—we have a Select Committee on Deregulation and, by and large, deregulation is a good thing. However, we must recognise that the amendments in 1987 to the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 drew the lines too widely and have created too many problems. Like all Londoners, I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction to resolve that and many other problems in his response.
Many hon. Members come to the House with great and noble ambitions. Many come through these doors determined to bring world peace and amity by the end of their first term. Many of us seek to increase the sum total of human happiness by our activities. I am a modest man—many of my friends say that I have much to be modest about—and I do not immediately seek world peace and the happiness of all. I want a reclassification of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Is that too much to ask?
Would it not be possible for the Minister to say—graciously, as ever—that among many other things it is the task of the Government to correct some of the wilder anomalies fuelled by the free market dogma of the previous Administration and to recognise that an important principle is involved? Planning officers are trying to do a job and to consult and work with the local community, but they are being prevented from doing so by the ways in which the use classes are drawn. The consequences for the local community, not merely in terms of democratic accountability, but of the changing nature of an area, are profound and, in many cases, to be regretted.
I suppose that I should, but I make no apologies for taking the time of the House on this matter, which may seem of specialised interest to most people. It affects us all. I offer that to the House and I finish in earnest anticipation of the response of my hon. Friend the Minister.
§ The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on securing this debate and giving us a subject that is of grave importance to his constituents and others who are concerned about the planning system.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for writing to me in advance with further details of his concerns, which as he said, wandered slightly wide of the designation, "Planning regulations for funeral parlours".
Referring to one of the more memorable comments by the former Prime Minister, Lord Attlee, my hon. Friend described himself as a modest man. I am not sure that my 964 hon. Friend should be so modest. He has made a most significant contribution to the House in the two years or so in which he has been here, and he has certainly enhanced the sum of human happiness and amusement in this Chamber. I hope that in my response I will be able not merely to answer his questions, but to respond to some extent in kind.
I noted the example with which he opened his speech. Some people who take an interest in health matters might well consider that the change of use from a tobacconist to a funeral parlour was a related use. I leave that thought with my hon. Friend.
I disagree that there will be any cause for rejoicing in his constituency at the death of the Pound—a situation that none of us look forward to. I congratulate him in his success in securing the change of name from Crikey O'Reilly's to the Belmullet Tavern and I will not ask how long it took his focus groups to secure that happy outcome.
Finally, before I come to the serious side of the debate, I suggest that the flexibility to allow a change of use from a museum or art gallery to a place of worship or a school, about which my hon. Friend expressed concern, might be to the benefit of Ealing, North because it can work in the opposite direction. The change of use to a museum or art gallery might be easier without the requirement for specific planning consent. The creation of the hon. Gentleman's museum of Fulham football club memorabilia might therefore be easier to achieve.
It may helpful if I set out the legislative and policy background. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, which I will refer to as the UCO, sets out classes of land use. Changes within each of those classes do not require planning permission. In addition, the town and country planning general permitted development order grants a general permission for specified changes of use between some of these classes.
Both the UCO and the permitted development order are well-established measures in the town and country planning system. The UCO was introduced on the ground that the changes of use that it permits will have a broadly similar impact, for instance, in terms of noise, traffic and visual appearance. The intention is to strike an appropriate balance between the need to facilitate development and to protect local amenity and the environment.
The UCO plays an essential role in delivering a positive, proactive planning system that helps business and local communities to thrive. It removes from businesses and others the requirement to seek planning permission from the local planning authority for uses that are generally uncontroversial and do not adversely impact on local amenity. The UCO is kept under review so that problem areas can be addressed or particular matters clarified. Since 1987 only five amendments have been felt to be necessary.
I shall now move on to the first specific area of the UCO about which my hon. Friend commented—funeral businesses. Funeral directors' premises are included in the Al shops class of the order, so a change to use by an undertaker from a shop does not require planning permission. That is on the basis that they have similar land use implications and provide a service to visiting members of the public. However, any works arising from the change of use may require a planning application to be submitted to the local planning authority.
965 Following a review of the UCO in 1991, the previous Government decided that funeral directors' premises should remain in the shops class. They felt that when people have to cope with bereavement, they should expect to be able to contact an undertaker in the locality. I agree with this view, and I think my hon. Friend does because he spoke warmly of the quality of service provided by funeral directors in meeting genuine needs. If such businesses had to be located well away from other shops and people's homes, it would only add unnecessary inconvenience to the distress of the bereaved.
We know that some would like funeral uses to be removed from the shops class of the UCO. Difficulties have, on occasion, arisen when shops in residential areas have changed to that use. Clearly, the siting of such businesses close to neighbouring developments such as old people's homes can be a delicate matter and may cause disquiet. However, those are isolated instances and we have no evidence that there is a widespread problem that would justify removal of funeral directors' rights under the UCO.
As my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, funeral businesses traditionally conduct themselves with discretion and sensitivity appropriate to the nature of their work. They adhere to their trade associations' code of conduct, which sets standards to address the more delicate aspects of their work. Funeral directors are well aware of the need to minimise as far as possible the distressing connotations of the service. Funeral businesses are generally perceived in their communities as an uncontroversial and, indeed, valued presence in residential and shopping areas.
While funeral directors' premises fall within the UCO, funeral directors' chapels of rest are generally treated separately. If I may lapse into Latin, the technical term is sui generis, that is, outside the use class system. Mortuaries would also be sui generis unless ancillary to some other use of land, such as a hospital or clinic. That is because such activities are more likely to have an impact on local amenity and generate concern. Sui generis uses require specific planning permission for any changes to or from that use. A planning application would, therefore, be required for a new chapel of rest or a mortuary. That gives the local planning authority the opportunity to assess the impact of the proposed change of use on amenity and on the environment, and to consider any representations from interested parties. Local authority environmental health officers also have responsibility for ensuring that the required public health and safety standards are in place in chapels of rest. In addition, Government guidance sets out recommended standards of siting and design for public mortuaries.
In cases where a chapel of rest forms part of a funeral directors' premises and is ancillary to it, it is for the local planning authority to determine, on the particular facts of each case, whether the premises as a whole should fall within the shops class. That is very much a matter of fact and degree. Ultimately, of course, interpretation of the law is for the courts.
Where a planning application is necessary, local authorities are required to determine the application in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Development plans must take account of central Government policies. Those policies may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications. The Government have 966 not issued specific planning guidance relating to funeral directors uses. However, planning policy guidance note 6, on town centres and retail developments—PPG6—promotes Al shop use in existing centres where they are easily reached by public transport and conveniently located for those without a car. PPG6 also promotes the retention of facilities in local centres and neighbourhood shops. The aim of the Government's planning policy is to contribute to the regeneration of existing town centres and high streets.
Sustaining town centres depends on flexibility in the use of floor space. It is widely recognised that vacant properties can blight town and district centres. The presence of outlets that provide essential services, such as funeral parlours, may, therefore, actually have the effect of protecting, and enhancing the prospects of, other businesses.
My hon. Friend also referred to changes of use within the A3 class. That class comprises uses for the sale of food and drink, and of hot food for consumption on the premises. Class A3 uses may include restaurants, cafes, wine bars, public houses and takeaway establishments. The class was introduced to reflect the loosening of the traditional boundaries between the different types of catering establishment. When my hon. Friend referred to Pret a Manger, in a sense he made my case by pointing out the difficulty of distinguishing between those premises where people may eat on the premises and those where they may take food away for consumption elsewhere. Those boundaries are increasingly blurred in the patterns of retailing that are becoming more familiar to us. The aim of the use class order is to enable the trade to adapt to changing trends and demands without making businesses operate in an unduly rigid framework.
In general, the freedom to change use within the food and drink class has caused little difficulty. However, we have received a number of representations, including comments from the London Planning Advisory Committee and the Local Government Association. Their anxiety is that some changes of use within the class—for example, the change to use to a themed pub or super-pub, to which my hon. Friend referred, or from a pub to a drive-through takeaway—can lead to new, or more, intensive activity and give rise to concerns about such issues as parking, noise and public order.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, there are extensive controls outside the planning system that local authorities can use to remedy problems such as those. For example, local authorities have wide-ranging powers to prevent or abate noise under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In addition, under sections 93 and 94 of that Act, local authorities can issue a street litter control notice, which requires the occupier to take steps to keep the area free of litter. That may involve sweeping, or providing and servicing litter bins. Failure to comply with the order could result in action through the magistrates court.
Under the Licensing Act 1964, it is open to magistrates to revoke, or to refuse to renew, licences for public houses and to impose certain other remedies where local residents are suffering unreasonable noise and nuisance. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Office is currently undertaking a review of liquor licensing laws. Those controls are all part of the wider picture. Having said that, I know that there are concerns about the existing planning controls and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are 967 giving them very careful consideration. I hope that he will accept those assurances in the spirit in which he opened the debate.
My hon. Friend is concerned about the change from light industrial to office use permitted by the B1 class. The 1987 UCO amalgamated those formerly separate classes. The change was, in part, prompted by the changing relationship between industrial and office uses, especially in the field of high technology, and because those uses appeared to have no significantly different environmental impact. The changes were designed to afford more flexibility in the use of premises and thus to foster enterprise in local communities.
My hon. Friend is concerned that the freedom to change to office use might have had an adverse impact, and other hon. Members have made representations on the grounds that it might lead to a fall in light industrial premises and a decline in business diversity. In the past few years, we have received few representations about the issue, other than from the City of Westminster in respect of specific local problems. As with the issues relating to the A3 class, we are considering the points that have been made.
The recent White Paper, "The Future of Transport" contained a commitment to look for ways of improving the planning system's delivery of an integrated transport 968 strategy, including a review of the UCO and relevant aspects of the permitted development order. Our intention is to examine the changes of use allowed under the UCO and part 3 of schedule 2 to the permitted development order to establish what transport implications they may have, in terms of traffic generation and car parking. That work might involve considering some of the use classes mentioned in today's debate.
In conclusion, the Government are well aware that there are aspects of the UCO that have caused concern in some locations and in some particular cases. However, we would need evidence of more widespread and significant problems to justify amending the UCO, which currently affords valuable freedoms and flexibilities that enable businesses to respond appropriately to changing economic and market circumstances and trends. We shall continue to monitor closely the operation of the order.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues to my attention today. I assure him that the debate will contribute significantly to the Government's continuing interest in those matters, and to the monitoring of the performance of the use class order and the general permitted development rights.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.