I’m very interested in this petition, actually, because it does interest me that existing Welsh national planning policy is not already interpreted in a way that protects venues that have already been cleared by planning and environmental health as not exceeding acceptable noise levels. These are businesses that they themselves have applied for planning permission or licences in the past, usually at some cost, and were accepted as being within the bounds of social acceptability when they made and succeeded with those applications.

Local authorities can already take existing sources of noise into account when deciding subsequent planning applications and they can take into account that new uses shouldn’t be introduced into an area without considering the nature of existing uses. So, I am curious about what is actually driving the need for the petition today. This is not a negative, because I think what the petition is asking for is a good thing. So, is it that there’s suddenly a need for homes that is so great that every square inch of land must be built on as quickly as possible, and that that big social imperative outweighs the future of wicked businesses who are out there to make a buck regardless of the consequences to their neighbours, old or new?

Well, on this occasion, of course, capitalism is wearing its happy face, isn’t it? We’re talking about live music, and it’s easy to make the wider cultural argument about the place of live music in our personal and community identities, the value of this art form as entertainment, through the therapeutic purposes, its cohesive force, its ability to transform an individual, and even, of course, the benefits to the local economy raise their head in this argument.

All these arguments are right. Venues are much loved for these reasons. Yes, they can be noisy, which maybe limits the kind of neighbours that you can have, but the land adjacent to these businesses will be valued accordingly. And, as a former property lawyer, I can’t stand here and argue that landowners should be prevented from making a decent profit from their investment. But I can argue that if they want to enhance the value of that land by seeking planning permission for higher value building, then they should be the ones who invest in the mitigation that allows that to happen. So, in short, why should existing businesses pay for a new neighbour to make more money?

I do have a few words of caution, however. I remember a potential housing site in mid Wales, next to a metal fabrication unit. The owner of the unit was worried because, even though he had all his relevant permits for noise levels, odour reduction, waste disposal and so on, he was nervous that he might have to take the further mitigation action should housing be permitted on the site next door, as was, indeed, the case. So, to be consistent, we need to think about the agent-of-change principle applying for businesses like that as well, surely.

Now, as it happened, the housing proposals were reduced in size and orientated away from that factory. But what would have happened if the developer had said, ‘Well, do you know what, I’m prepared to throw some money at the mitigation myself in order to have more houses. The profits I will make will more than pay for it and I want to build as close to the factory as I can. I will argue that my obligation gives me a corresponding right—if I can mitigate, the presumption will be that the planning authority must find in the favour of my development.’ That’s the argument I’m putting here.

How long will it be before landowners are looking to develop parcels of land for higher value residential use, challenging LDP zoning decisions, and relying on a planning condition to mitigate, when, actually, their land is just far from ideal for a site as a home, anyway? I’m not talking about full-scale redevelopment of brownfield sites, which I think we probably all approve of, but infill in areas that are heavily industrialised.

The second point is how well this principle rubs up against the well-established principle of ‘polluter pays’, and I think David Rowlands was talking about that. It applies to noise nuisance as much as any other kind of nuisance. The inclusion of the agent-of-change principle into planning law would be very, very welcome, indeed, but the unintended consequences and questions that arise from that also have to be worked through, I think.

The petition also asks the National Assembly to legislate for local authorities to recognise an area of ‘cultural significance for music’ within the planning framework. I just would leave it at recognition of areas of ‘cultural significance’. Why not? That would easily capture music, but also areas where there have been concentrations of artists working, or theatres, or landscapes famous for their place in film or paintings, or even the Dylan Thomas trail, which some of my constituents are hoping to engender new interest in. I don’t think they’re captured by the historic environment Act, and maybe not by conservation area status, and I don’t think they could be by an outright ban on development either.

So, in short, what I’m saying is: I support the basic premise of what’s being asked for by the petition, but can I just ask us to remember that it may not be the straightforward answer that the live music venues on Womanby Street were looking for? Thank you.