The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Paul Davies, and amendment 3 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

The next item is the debate on the role of the planning system in placemaking. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to move the motion. Lesley Griffiths.

Motion NDM6721 Julie James

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises having high quality, well designed developments and places is essential to the long-term health and well-being of the people of Wales.

2. Believes the town and country planning system is well placed to make holistic decisions on the built environment which maximise the well-being goals.

3. Acknowledges that having strong national placemaking policies in Planning Policy Wales and the National Development Framework shows leadership to planning authorities and others in shaping and making good places.

4. Recognises the role of built environment professionals to deliver placemaking and calls on local authorities to effectively resource planning departments.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. The quality of the places where people live and work has a direct impact on well-being. It is vital that people can walk from their homes to work, to the shops, doctors' surgeries and schools their families use without having to get in their cars. This has a positive impact on mental and physical health, as well as reducing emissions and improving air quality. Access to services by walking, cycling or using public transport must be a key consideration.

In thinking about any new development we must also look at how the design or layout will affect the residents' daily lives. Our green spaces, which improve health and well-being, and provide habitats for flora and fauna, must also be considered. Placemaking is the way to bring these issues together to create sustainable, thriving communities. Placemaking embraces the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and puts it at the forefront of discussions that affect the built environment.

As we all know, none of this is easy. There are many competing interests to think about. The planning system is integral to balancing these interests. We must ensure we build high-quality developments that have a positive impact on the economy, the environment and our communities. We must manage new development in the public interest.

Placemaking is essential. It must become the central feature of our planning system. To achieve this we must focus on outcomes rather than simply counting the number of homes we build or how long it takes to determine a planning application. These things are still important, however, we need to consider quality as well as quantity. The Welsh Government is leading on this issue. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act sets a template for public organisations to consider sustainable communities and placemaking. We've revised 'Planning Policy Wales' to put placemaking at the heart of our national planning policy. It clearly states the consideration of creating good places must be done early in LDP development and the design of individual schemes. Consultation on the draft PPW closes on Friday, and I look forward to reading the responses. I will publish the final policy in the autumn.

I'm pleased the draft document has been welcomed across sectors, particularly when compared to policy across the border. In a recent comparison between draft PPW and draft English planning policy, Hugh Ellis, director of policy in the Town and Country Planning Association, commented positively. He said England had fallen very far behind the ambition and competence of the Welsh in developing coherent policy with strong objectives and outcomes identified.

The national development framework raises our ambitions for effective placemaking. It will look at what infrastructure and strategic policies are needed to shape Wales. I'm currently seeking views on the preferred option for the NDF and the policy direction it should take in leading major development decisions in Wales for the next 20 years. Consultation on this continues until July.

An adopted local development plan is essential for a planning authority to express its vision for an area. Where issues are complicated, impacting on a number of authorities, a strategic approach to placemaking through strategic development plans may also be necessary. This whole package of planning policies at the national, strategic and local levels must work together to ensure we achieve placemaking on the ground through consistent decisions on planning applications that help to create a better place. To achieve our placemaking ambition we need local authority planning departments to be adequately resourced. This should include individuals from the wide array of the built environment professions, including planners, designers, ecologists, conservationists and regeneration officers.

I continue to support local planning authorities' work with the planning advisory service to fully understand their costs. I'm committed to moving toward full cost recovery with increased application fees retained to improve delivery of planning services. I'm currently supporting work by the Royal Town Planning Institute to produce a toolkit to better understand the value the planning system brings to an area, and will be announcing the results for Wales next month. The toolkit will allow each local authority to estimate the value generated by the planning system for their area, and meet the case for increased resources. We must work together to achieve a shared vision of what Wales can be like in the future, where people and placemaking are put at the centre of our decisions on development. I look forward to hearing Members' views on this important topic this afternoon.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion, and I call on David Melding to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. David Melding. 

Amendment 1. Paul Davies

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Believes the town and country planning system needs adaptation to make more holistic decisions on the built environment which maximises well-being goals and increases the supply of land for housing.

Amendment 2. Paul Davies

Delete point 3 and replace with:

Recognises the need for a strong national placemaking framework to give guidance to planning authorities and others to shape and make good places.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and I'm pleased to move the amendments, and I'm pleased to take part in this debate. I'm not sure we discuss planning very often, but it's very, very important. To reciprocate the generosity of the Minister in bringing this forward this afternoon, I'd like to start in an area where there is undoubted agreement, and that is that good planning and development of coherent places is essential for the long-term health and well-being of the people of Wales. If I could quote the Royal Town Planning Institute:

'cities will be the places that determine the health and the wellbeing of the majority of the population in the twenty-first century. As the costs linked to health conditions are increasingly unsustainable and are expected to increase in the years to come, we need to take a long-term, preventive and proactive view to promote healthy cities.'

And, of course, this goes for towns and even for villages as well. It's very important that we have effective and ambitious planning. For instance, green spaces provide a natural escape within densely populated and bustling neighbourhoods, for residents and workers alike. As a recent study reported in The Guardian said, researchers found that each degree of increase in surrounding greenness led to a 5 per cent improvement in the development of short-term working memory over a period of one year. Additionally, if we analyse the impact that a well-designed development with better transport infrastructure could have on air quality, there are also significant benefits to be made for the long-term health and well-being of residents.

So, I agree that we need to be more ambitious in our vision, and I'm delighted to say, Llywydd, that the Welsh Conservatives will be bringing forward our own ideas in a policy document that we're publishing on Thursday, in advance of our conference on Friday; I'm not supposed to give that a plug, I suspect, but you are generous as ever.

If I can turn to point 2, we've amended this just because I don't want to give such an open endorsement to the Government's approach, though I am pleased to watch their work in progress, if I can put it that way. So, our first amendment just emphasises the need to adapt our systems and make them more holistic, so that the built environment, in particular, can ensure there's an increase in the supply of land for housing. This is not a housing debate, and I've often pointed out the UK's housing crisis, which unfortunately is as bad in Wales as it is in any other part of the country. So, I do want to see a more effective system that increases the supply of land for housing, and then for that housing to be built, and for it to be built to a high standard, both in the design of each house, but also in the overall neighbourhood design and integration of green spaces, and sustainable transport systems and the like.

We really do need to do this at pace. I think that's the argument I would make here, and I'm very much hoping that the affordable housing review will say that we need to increase very significantly the supply of new homes. Of course, that will require very high-quality planning. Those homes are going to be around for decades and decades to come, so we want to ensure that we make the best of things for future generations as well.

And point 3, then, the only issue I have here, really, is that these matters are pretty much out to consultation, so I'm not sure they need to be so strongly endorsed as coherent national placemaking. At the moment, though, as I said, I do see this as work in progress and we look forward to taking part in this, because I think there can be many areas of real deep agreement, and it's certainly in the public interest that we find those and that we do our best for present and future generations. So, I would just like to see the consultation responses to the two documents, one of which only went out a couple of weeks ago, come back. So, I think we need a bit more information. But, as I said, it's meant to be a constructive amendment, though I suspect it won't get much support from the Government, but it's important that we put it on record.

And then, point 4. I think it's important—I'd agree with this, what the Government said—to emphasise the role of professionals in delivering the highest quality places that we can get. There is an issue around that expertise in the planning departments, and that's a welcome review.

I see time is rapidly running out. Can I just say we will support the Plaid Cymru amendment, because I think it's very important that TAN 20 does get reviewed and the place of Welsh-speaking communities in this is really important? I'm not going to commit the Welsh Conservatives to having a separate Welsh planning inspectorate. I'm open to the argument, but I don't think it's been made yet, and it's really important we get the highest quality expertise and professionals coming from England to work in Wales and vice versa. So, I'm not so sure about that bit. But I still want to support your amendment, because of what it says about TAN 20. Thank you, Llywydd.

I call on Siân Gwenllian to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 3. Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new points at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to amend technical advice note 20 urgently to make it clear that assessments of the impact of individual applications on the Welsh language in specific circumstances need to be carried out.

Calls on the Welsh Government to ensure that the National Development Framework contains a clear statement on the importance and relevance of the Welsh language when planning how to use land.

Calls on the Welsh Government to create a separate Planning Inspectorate for Wales, so that the inspectorate can develop its expertise in a Wales-only planning system.

Amendment 3 moved.

Thank you very much. At the outset, Plaid Cymru would like to bring a slightly different vision to the table—different to what is outlined in the Government’s motion, or perhaps additional to what’s included in the Government’s motion, because we believe that we need to recognise that the planning system has a role to play in maintaining and creating viable communities as a means of securing the health and well-being of the people of Wales. We believe that the planning system in Wales should reflect the need for appropriate housing in the right places, in accordance with local need, and that the planning system should give a greater voice to communities in terms of developments in their areas. Also, the planning system should enable holistic planning at the appropriate level.

In turning to the Government motion, placemaking—and I see that that’s where the emphasis is, on placemaking—that can mean a number of different things to different people. What’s important in our view is securing a balance in the planning system. We need more than warm words about the future well-being of people and communities to ensure that the system works in a way that delivers that. In order to deliver placemaking that improves the long-term well-being of people and communities, you need a balance in the planning system, between developers on the one hand and communities on the other. You also need a balance between giving guidance to local planning authorities at a national level and, on the other hand, securing a strong voice for our communities.

This is true in all areas, but Plaid Cymru has taken this opportunity today to table an amendment that emphasises the role of the Welsh language and the position of the Welsh language within the planning regime. At the moment, there is a lack of guidance from the Welsh Government as to how the Welsh language should be dealt with within the planning system. There is an opportunity with the national development framework to show clear leadership in planning. From the point of view of the Welsh language, the new framework should include a clear statement on the importance and relevance of the Welsh language in delivering spatial planning. The Welsh language needs to be there at the top of the agenda in all policy areas so that it will be truly meaningful. If we are to safeguard and promote the Welsh language through the planning system, then we need to be aware that that isn’t an easy issue for local authorities because there isn’t much information or expertise available in this area.

Joint strategic planning between local authorities is a means of sharing expertise and resources. The joint local development plan by Gwynedd and Môn, adopted in 2017, was contentious in certain aspects, but it does deliver a policy on a local housing market and it lists specific areas, usually where there’s been major development in the past or where there’s a high percentage of holiday accommodation, and in those areas there are planning conditions on new homes in order to restrict their occupation to people with strong local connections. The opinion of a number of planning experts is that this is an innovative policy and that good practice should be shared, as should the methodology and processes used by Gwynedd and Anglesey, with a view to rolling out this policy more broadly.

Turning specifically to TAN 20, yes, there is a need to reform and amend TAN 20 as a matter of urgency, because it is unclear and, according to some experts, contradicts what is in the Planning (Wales) Act 2015. So, Plaid Cymru is calling on the Welsh Government to amend TAN 20 urgently in order to make it clear that assessments of the impact of individual applications on the Welsh language in specific circumstances need to be carried out and also to make it clear that it’s possible for local authorities to carry out assessments of the impact of individual planning applications on the Welsh language on all occasions if they choose to do that.

Finally, in discussing the Planning Inspectorate, and accepting that you may need some further persuasion in order to deliver this over the next few months—not this afternoon; I don’t have time to persuade you this afternoon—the four nations of the UK do have separate legislation and policies for planning, and Scotland and Northern Ireland have systems that correspond to the England-and-Wales Planning Inspectorate. With planning legislation in Wales continuing to develop, I do think that it’s time to create a separate planning inspectorate for Wales, so that the inspectorate can develop expertise—the kind of expertise that David Melding mentioned was necessary. If the system is changing, then the expertise needs to change too, and we could do that in a Wales-only planning system. I look forward to continuing this discussion over the next few months. Thank you.

I very much welcome this debate. I think that planning is something that impinges on everybody's lives and I've actually seen petitions coming in where more people have signed the petition in a council area than voted in the previous council election. It really does—it's an issue that gets to people. I don't think that anybody who's sat as a councillor would not be able to tell you of the literally hundreds of letters they've had, and petitions, opposing a planning development somewhere or other. 

Of course, until 1948, or 1 July 1948, you could build what you liked where you liked as long as you owned the land. And that was a major success. I often speak very highly of the 1945-51 Labour Government, but that was another one of its successes—one of the ones that is less heralded but probably has had as much of an effect on people's lives as anything apart from the health service—when owners could just build what they liked where they liked as long as they owned the land. We've got to remember there's still land today that had use prior to 1948 where that right still exists, it hasn't been extinguished, and every time the local development plan or the old county plan goes there, they keep that in. There was land in Swansea East that was designated for coal duff pre 1948, and they kept that planning permission until the 1990s and it was only extinguished when the land was used for housing development.

I recognise that high-quality, well-designed developments and places are essential to the long-term health and well-being of the people of Wales, but we also need transportation. There are estates built continually—and I can think of one in Rebecca Evans's constituency, I can think of one in my own—that are almost isolated in terms of public transport. If you haven't got a car, you're in trouble. 

We need homes to be built. We need industrial and commercial development. Can I just praise something the Welsh Government did well before I came here, which was the Swansea Vale development, which was a Welsh Development Agency and Swansea council development where housing, commercial and industrial development have been built in the same area very successfully? If you drive through it, you probably wouldn't know about some of the industrial development and commercial development because they're down little side streets and they are all well covered with trees to such an extent that, unless you know where you're going, you wouldn't know what was down there.

Of course, we have the major planning dichotomy: local residents oppose a development; the landowner wants the development—the land is going to make people large sums of money. The planning committee decides. If it ended there, residents would generally be happy. While other local government decisions can go to the ombudsman, can go to judicial review, planning decisions have this intermediate step. I've never understood why we need this intermediate step of a planning inspector. They come in, they make decisions, they don't know the area—they make decisions that are quite often baffling. They allow developments that cause serious problems. They don't have to come again. They don't have to live with the problems they've created. A little problem in the ward I used to represent—a single house was knocked down and it had enough room for two houses. They built three. The three houses have never been sold. So, I think it really is very important that we do have decisions made locally. I would abolish planning inspectors tomorrow if it was up to me. There's no rhyme or reason for them, and I don't know anybody who would actually—[Interruption.]—actually can argue why is that. They're an intermediate step, which—judicial review, if you don't like it.

As a county councillor, like others here, I was involved in creating a county structure plan that designated land for different uses. The district councils then produced district plans, similar to the current local development plans. Areas could be designated across the county for housing, but others could be designated for forestry or mining at that time. So, you designated areas so you knew what was happening in each area. Individual councils are too small; the county councils were, in many respects, too small for making decisions on that regional basis. That's why I support decisions made on the city regions and north and west Wales regions because that would mean that we have this integration. This isn't something that Alun Davies wants to merge, actually, but a development at Trostre had a serious effect on retail in Swansea—[Interruption.]—a serious problem with retail in Swansea. So, I think it really is important.

Can I just turn to Plaid Cymru on their view? I think it really is important that the Welsh language is treated exactly the same as the environment and, instead of technical advice notes, we have a language impact assessment, in the same way as you have an environmental impact assessment. I would hope that that is something that people would look at. See how the language—. There's a difference between building 200 houses in Caernarfon and building 200 houses in Chepstow in the sense of the effect it has on the language. I know what Caernarfon's like. I've spent a substantial amount of time there, and it's one of the places where Welsh is spoken by so many people that it becomes the natural language of the community. I speak Welsh most of the time when I'm in Caernarfon, because it's the language of the community. I think, when you've got 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the population speaking the language, it becomes the community language. When you've got under 50 per cent, you know that the chances are that, when you speak to somebody, they won't speak Welsh so people don't go ahead with it.

And I'd just finally say that I'd love to hear an argument for why we need planning inspectors—why judicial review and the ombudsman, which is good enough for every other decision made by local authorities, isn't good enough for planning.

Thanks to the Minister for bringing today's debate. There is a phrase, a particular phrase that we're using here today, and that is 'placemaking'. It's a pretty phrase, but we do have to make sure that it actually means something. The Welsh Government's chief planner recently spoke about planning needing to take a holistic approach so that planners can shape places that are attractive and sociable. Yes, we do need a holistic approach—that's beyond doubt—but often it seems that, at the moment, there is no really holistic approach to planning.

Mike Hedges made some very valid points just now. He was talking about a particular area in Swansea, Swansea Vale, I believe, but the problems that he highlighted there are probably endemic. We have in Cardiff similar issues of many new residential estates being built that are far away from employment opportunities and also there is a lack, in many cases, of public transport. So, we need to be building residential areas with access to jobs.

We also need to be thinking about where the jobs are actually created. In and around Cardiff, there are plenty of places where jobs have been created in the past 30 years that are not particularly accessible. There are factory units in an area known as Wentloog, and informally as 'the Lambies'. A few years ago, I was having a look at job vacancies down there, but it was pretty much impossible as I didn't drive and there weren't any buses going over there. I've just had a look at the Cardiff Bus route map today, and there is more development down there now in terms of employment—we now have, for instance, a major film studio down there—but there are no buses going down there still; it's a complete black hole as far as public transport's concerned. So, we do still have these problems.

Business parks are a particular issue because they're often built far away from residential areas, so I think it really would be a good idea to think about embracing this idea of the Swansea Vale-type development where you do have the employment opportunities close to the new residential areas.

There are other things that could help in urban places. For instance, in Cardiff, we don't have many circular bus services. It seems that everything has to go into and out of the city centre. So, if you have a business park on one edge of the city and you have a new housing estate on another edge, you have to get a bus in, let's say from Pontprennau—40 minutes into town—and then a bus out to St Mellons business park, which is another 40 minutes, when they're only three miles apart. London has plenty of circular bus services, but in Cardiff we don't really have them. We're having this whole debate in Cardiff about the local development plan, which will see lots of new housing developments in the west of the city, without the transport infrastructure to back it up. So, we have to wait for the south Wales metro to turn up at some point in the future. In the meantime, until that arrives, we are heading for traffic gridlock in the west of the city.

We've been talking a lot about strategic planning recently, and again today, and there doesn't seem to be any real strategic thinking there. Now, the placemaking system, we're being told, is being reworked, to take account of the well-being of future generations Act, but the well-being goals are coming in the midst of a massive concreting over of the green belt. The bus station in Cardiff has disappeared; we now have a lovely collection of shiny new office blocks in Central Square, which means more people coming into the city centre to work. Why? Jobs are going from the edge of the city, such as the tax office in Llanishen, so that more people can work in the middle of the city. Again, this doesn't appear to be great planning. And many of these jobs are public sector jobs, like HMRC and BBC Wales. We seem to have no control in this place, or perhaps in any other place, over decisions that are taken on these issues, even in major public sector organisations.

Mike Hedges makes lots of points on these issues. Now, he's raised again today the county plans. I'm very interested when he raises them, because, essentially, it seems that when the Welsh Office scrapped the county councils, in the mid 1990s, so that we had unitary authorities, nobody seemingly thought to replace the county council strategic planning functions. So, I'm rather intrigued as to why nobody thought of this, because we didn't get the Welsh Assembly—maybe Hefin can enlighten me when he speaks in a minute—until a few years later. So, certainly, it wasn't the intention at that time that the job of strategic planning would be moved up a level to the Assembly, because the Assembly didn't exist. So, I await to be enlightened, and I'm sure it will be very interesting.

Looking at the motion, we in UKIP agree broadly with the motion today regarding placemaking, but we hope that the process we end up with will be more than just platitudes—we hope there will be meaningful change. Of course, we do like the idea of local referenda when there are major planning decisions affecting people in their neighbourhoods. We do broadly support the opposition amendments. There are issues with the Conservative amendments. We don't really want—. Of course we want housing, but we don't want major developments that aren't welcomed by the established residents. We share doubts over planning inspectorate Wales; we may be replicating mistakes that led to the creation of Natural Resources Wales, with expertise being lost. So that's certainly an issue. We do agree with the broad thrust of what Plaid Cymru are generally saying. Yes, there is a role, theoretically, certainly, for—. Welsh speakers have struggled in the housing market in parts of rural Wales, but we know there are differing opinions, even within Plaid, as to how far local housing and planning decisions should be and can be influenced by Welsh language considerations. But of course Siân is right, it is a major consideration; we have to think about these things.

We're not actually disagreeing with anyone today, but we do need to get beyond platitudes, and to get to a planning system that actually works for local people. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'm really pleased to be able to just contribute a few minutes on this, having spent my previous life working through, on the Conwy County Borough Council planning department, with them and their LDP. It was a nightmare. We had to take so many evidence sessions, we had to prove the Welsh Government wrong when they sent two Government officials up, and told us the numbers of houses we had to have. It wasn't about placemaking at that time, and we're now living—. It was a previous Welsh Government Cabinet, but we're now living with some of those problems. And the annoying factor is, not only have we deposited our LDP here, applications are now coming in thick and fast for areas that have never been identified in our LDP, and of course the finger of blame is pointing to TAN 1. When you speak to some constituents of mine, they probably think TAN 1 is about a particular shoe leather colour, but when you actually look into the actual implications of TAN 1, it has turned around what we had, which was an 8.1 year supply, I think, now, to three, and it's all about residual building house numbers. I won't bore you with the detail, but if ever you want a one-to-one lesson on TAN 1, and the mess that it is at the moment—. And the Cabinet Secretary, to be fair, has said to many questions that I've raised on it that she is listening and that she's going to be looking at it in some further detail.

On larger planning applications, we've heard, 'Oh, brownfield sites must be used first', but yet, we still see this good agricultural land, good-quality grade agricultural land, coming forward, and the policy of where it shouldn't threaten the well-being of the farm. All that seems to be is that we say one thing here in policy, but in real terms, it doesn't apply. And the latest application—in September, I'll be speaking at a planning inquiry again. That should have been in March, then it was put off until May. And this is an application that has raised well over 1,300 objections. It has local councillors, it has the ward members, cabinet members—it has everybody saying, 'No, no, no, we cannot take any more infrastructure on this particular piece of land.' But when planning members were trying to defend it, they were trying to use the Welsh language and make relevance to it in policy, and actually wanting assessments. And on the ground, literally, it's not coming through. As stated in the draft 'Planning Policy Wales' edition,

'when identifying sites to be allocated for housing in development plans, planning authorities must follow a search sequence, starting with the re-use of previously developed land and buildings within settlements'.

It isn't happening. I've raised countless times in this Chamber about the changes to methodology for calculating the housing land supply. This was proposed in 2014. Seventy-nine per cent of planning authorities, including Conwy, disagreed with the proposals, with those opposed favouring the past build rates methodology instead. As a result of the subsequent changes to the methodology outlined—as you can see, I'm keen to get this on the record—under TAN 1 guidance in 2015, many planning authorities have seen their housing land supply figures absolutely skewed now. And this is placing a huge amount of pressure on the local authority planning officers, and it's actually setting them at a disadvantage with elected members. And let's not forget, in a true democracy, it is the elected members who are there to represent their constituents, who should really be able to be part of the decision process.

I know that there's been strong sentiment here today about getting rid of the Planning Inspectorate. I've even been asked recently on some applications that have gone forward why there is a planning inspection for failed developments going forward that could be overturned at planning inspections, but there's not an appeal process for people who have things granted that they don't agree with. So, maybe that needs to be looked at. There needs to be some balance to the planning process full stop.

'Planning Policy Wales' paragraph 2.14 states that if

'policies in an adopted LDP are outdated for the purposes of determining a planning application...local planning authorities should give the plan decreasing weight in favour of other material considerations such as national planning policy'.

TAN 1 paragraph 6.2 states that

'Where the current study shows a land supply below the 5-year requirement...the need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications provided that the development would otherwise comply with development plan and national planning policies.'

Now is a very timely moment for you to be looking at this in a most strategic manner, Cabinet Secretary. I'm fully behind and back a lot of the proposals in the well-being of future generations Act, and I think that the planning policy of our communities is a really good way to start to implement a lot of not just the aspirations, but the goals and ambitions of that Act. So, thank you, and just make sure you listen about TAN 1. Thank you.

For some time since I was elected, there's been some distance between my view and the Welsh Government view. And, in recent days, Janet Finch-Saunders will be glad to know that the Welsh Government, in the form of the Cabinet Secretary, has gone some way to bridging the distance between us, and I'm very pleased—and I'll elaborate on why in a minute—that the Cabinet Secretary has taken the steps to do that. I've long felt that planning policy delivered through the mechanism of individual local development plans has been skewed too far in favour of the big housing developers and too far against local people and SME house builders, which I've mentioned before. The market has created a gap between local democracy and planning policy. We need to change that market, and we need to use market intervention to change that market. 

In 2016, Caerphilly County Borough Council scrapped its LDP after listening to the views of local people. I've not seen stronger views expressed on many other issues, as Mike Hedges alluded to. Part of the problem, the reason that the local development plan wasn't working, was because viability of land meant profitability for the big developers, and land that was not viable, not profitable, wasn't being taken up by developers. There were brownfield sites in Caerphilly's LDP going back to the Rhymney Valley District Council days, which had been in there but weren't developed because they weren't viable. The result of Caerphilly's problem has been speculative planning applications, many of which have been overturned—overturned decisions of the local authority—and, indeed, the Cabinet Secretary herself felt forced to overturn one decision last year, which did cause great problems in my community.

When appealing against rejected planning applications, developers have often used the local authority's lack of a five-year land supply as a justification for overturning the original decision of local residents, leading to that great anger. The importance of the provision of a five-year land supply comes from technical advice note 1, as Janet Finch-Saunders noted, set out by the Welsh Government. Therefore, I am delighted to hear that the Cabinet Secretary says she's going to disapply TAN 1, thereby reducing the pressure on local authorities and removing the ability of developers to use the lack of a five-year supply as grounds for overturning the decision of democratically elected local authorities. I note, when it comes to the provision of local development plans in the draft 'Planning Policy Wales', edition 10—and I've underlined the point on page 13—

'LDPs have to be in general conformity with the NDF and SDP and cannot be adopted unless they are.'

I think that the Caerphilly plan, had it been according to that 'Planning Policy Wales' document, would not have been in line with a national development framework and strategic development plan, had one been in place.

Since being elected, I've campaigned for local authorities in south-east Wales to have a strategic development plan, and the footprint that I'm arguing for is alongside the Cardiff capital region. In answer to Gareth Bennett's point, when has this strategic plan been introduced? Well, it was part of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, which the Welsh Government introduced. The Welsh Government had taken proactive action, before we were elected to this Assembly in the fourth Assembly, to introduce strategic development planning, and now it's been reflected in the draft 'Planning Policy Wales' document, which is a good thing. It's received cross-party support, the strategic development plan from the Cardiff capital region, which is something that we should welcome. The disapplication of TAN 1 removes a further hurdle to local authorities being able to get together and work on a comprehensive strategic development plan. What they need now from the Welsh Government is the buy-in and support for the creation of an SDP, and more flexibility in terms of the requirement to produce LDPs. Due to several years of austerity, our local authorities are under increasing pressure in terms of finance and resources, and therefore their individual planning departments are stretched. I recognise point 4 of the motion, and I support it, but in putting our resources into planning policy, the best place to put it, I think—certainly in my area, south-east Wales—would be towards the development of a strategic development plan.

As a result, I'm calling on the Welsh Government to take a more sympathetic view of light-touch LDPs from local authorities, as councils pool their increasingly scarce resources to focus on the common endeavour of producing a strategic development plan. According to 'Planning Policy Wales', the draft edition, SDPs form a huge part of that planning jigsaw, as does the national development framework. The problem we currently have is that we are working from the bottom up, doing our LDPs first, then our SDPs, and then fitting in with the national development framework. The pyramid is upside down; I think we need to start from the other end. Individual local authorities are currently expected to produce their LDPs first, and only after that can they move on to their SDPs. I think that builds the jigsaw the wrong way. I think you need to start with your strategic development plan. I call on the Government to recognise that and not to not have LDPs, but to have those light-touch LDPs. I think we can get this right. As I say, I've been incredibly persistent on planning. I've been described by someone I won't name as a 'planning bore' and I know that the Chamber would not agree with that, I'm sure. [Interruption.] Thank you.

Our planning system can address these issues. I'm not going to give up. I'm going to keep on to this. I believe that it's now up to the Welsh Government, and the Welsh Government is taking significant steps, enabling our planning policy to improve.

I think what Janet Finch-Saunders said about policy saying one thing and the reality being something different is very apt. The motion here acknowledges that having strong, national placemaking policies and planning policies, blah, blah, blah—. The reality is that we don't have these things in place. I support the Conservative amendments, saying that the country planning system needs adaptation—it clearly does. I support the Plaid Cymru amendment—the language needs to count and also we need a separate planning inspectorate for Wales. It's basic common sense.

The issue for me with planning, and especially the local development plans, is that our communities in Wales have already been sold out. For people in the west of our capital city, it is too late: 8,000 houses going up and no infrastructure. I dread to think how bad it will be. Local development plans don't work, as my colleague from Caerphilly said—he is completely correct; it's the wrong way around. Every public meeting I go to, of which there are a lot nowadays, housing comes up every single time. Local people cannot afford housing in their locality and the properties that are being thrown up are far too expensive.

The whole planning system needs a huge overhaul. The system allows speculation. Land has been reclassified and a huge amount of money has been made—billions of pounds. I refer you to the Lisvane land deal, which will go down in history really: £39 million lost on just one deal. The irony of planning is that there is no real planning in the system. What you have is basic anarchy, and the developers rule. We are losing really good agricultural land, as has been said, with farms being built on, and if you look at food security in the future, then that's a huge worry. Also, in terms of flooding in certain areas, that's another issue, as concrete is spewed on top of really beautiful country fields and woods at the minute.

Finally, I think the biggest gap in the whole system is a complete lack of democracy, where you have just one or two inspectors who can dictate to whole local authorities, elected by the people. If you look at our experience in the west of Cardiff, where I have a current interest as a councillor and where we ran a referendum, thousands of people voted—thousands—and all those people were ignored, and it's about time that we had community sovereignty in Wales, where communities are sovereign and they decide what happens in their locality, because the rights of people have been ridden roughshod over by this Government and the policies that they've implemented. It's such an irony, because there is a huge disconnect between what is happening on the ground and what is said here, because they bear no resemblance. Diolch yn fawr.

It is high time that placemaking is placed at the centre of the planning system and I'm delighted also to see it mentioned prominently in the economic action plan. We've seen too many large housing developments created with no local shops, no community centres, no schools—essentially without souls. We've placed the car at the centre of our planning system for the last 30 years and witnessed a dramatic expansion of car-based development. In the time from 1952, cycling, for example, has fallen from making up 11 per cent of journeys to making up just 1 per cent in 2016 and, at the same time, journeys by car have grown from 27 per cent to 83 per cent.

A generation ago, 70 per cent of children walked to school. Levels of walking to school have since steadily declined, sinking to 42 per cent in 2016 according to Living Streets. The planning system and planning policies have supported car-dependent developments, which have been the key drivers behind these trends, and we talk, Llywydd, familiarly about preserving the habitat of wildlife and creating an ecosystem that supports this growth, but we don't talk about planning and preserving a habitat for children to play, for neighbours to meet and for people to walk and cycle.

And today, as we are talking about mental well-being, it's appropriate that we touch upon the loneliness impact of this trend. Seventeen per cent of people in Wales report being lonely today. The Minister for Children and Social Care has recently declared loneliness to be a Government priority. There's been extensive research on the impact of traffic flows on social isolation. A study in Bristol showed that the average number of friends of each resident in a lightly trafficked street was 5.35 compared to 2.45 on a medium-trafficked street, and 1.15 average friends on a heavily trafficked street. Residents on the lightly trafficked street also reported more of a sense of community and togetherness. Yet, we continue to design residential streets that subject residents to constant streams of traffic.

So, it's essential that we place placemaking at the heart of the new edition of 'Planning Policy Wales', and in particular, if I may say in coming to a conclusion, Llywydd, bearing in mind the time of day, the active travel cross-party group has submitted evidence to the review of 'Planning Policy Wales' that points out the paucity of useful guidance and a lack of basic knowledge and skills amongst planners and other built environment professionals regarding how active travel facilities should be designed and integrated within development layouts. We need to build this into the hardwiring of the way we create new communities. It's all very well and good having declamatory statements in our policy documents, but it's the plumbing of it that makes a difference. And for placemaking to really have a practical effect, we need to change the detail of 'Planning Policy Wales' to allow our communities to be friendly to walking and cycling, so that neighbours can meet and talk and children can play without fear of traffic. Diolch.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd really like to thank Members for their contributions to the debate this afternoon. I think the broad range of topics that we have discussed exemplifies the broad scope of the planning system and how it can affect our lives in many ways. As Mike Hedges referred to, it's often a very large post box that we receive as Assembly Members.

If I could just turn to the amendments first, David Melding will be very pleased that we are supporting both of the Conservative amendments. The reason being that, with respect, I don't think they add a great deal to the original motion, but we are supporting both of them, and I very much look forward—[Interruption.] That's fine. I certainly look forward to reading the document that you're going to bring forward. I certainly won't be at your conference, but I'd be very interested if you would send me a copy of the document.

Plaid Cymru's amendment 3, we will be opposing. Technical advice note 20 does provide detailed advice on implementing planning law, and that includes the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, to enable planning authorities to take lawful decisions on planning applications. As you know, Siân Gwenllian, TAN 20 was issued last autumn and it does provide local planning authorities, developers and communities with clarity on how the language can be supported and protected by the planning system. The role of the Welsh Government is to set national planning policies. It's for local planning authorities, who I think are best placed, to develop local policies and take decisions affecting their local areas. I think it needs to bed in, and you talked about a separate planning inspectorate. Again, I'm very happy to keep that under review, and I'm sure we will have further discussions on that.

Last week, we had an early meeting around the national development framework and you know that the preferred option outlines the key issues that that will address, and cohesive communities and the Welsh language, again, are an absolutely central element of the strategy.

What is clear, I think, from everybody's contributions is that we need an efficient, well-resourced planning system in Wales if all these competing issues can be considered in a timely manner by professionals who have the best needs of the communities they serve at heart. There's a great deal of activity happening in the planning sphere at the moment. We're consulting on our national planning policies in 'Planning Policy Wales', as I said in my opening remarks, along with the direction in which our NDF will take the next 20 years and how our new consenting powers as a result of the Wales Act will be implemented. I'll also be shortly consulting on changes to permitted development rights. That will reduce the need for planning permissions in certain circumstances, as well as continuing our work on consolidating planning law in Wales to make it easier to use and navigate. I do accept that making high-level policy changes is a relatively simple task, but what I want to look at is the best way to implement this change in outlook and to make sure that local authority officers and the built environment professions operating in Wales, whether it's in the public or the private sectors, embrace this new way of thinking.

If I can just turn to some specific contributions from Members, in defence of the Planning Inspectorate, Mike Hedges, they are independent, they do take decisions in accordance with both local and national planning policies, and they cannot take decisions perversely. Gareth Bennett made the case for placemaking, about all houses and transport and jobs being integrated and more sustainable, and that's exactly what 'Planning Policy Wales' is promoting. I think a lack of strategic planning is something that I highlighted with all local planning authorities across Wales. I wrote to them back in December about that lack of strategic planning.

If I can turn to TAN 1—and I think Janet Finch-Saunders might have missed this—I did announce my intention to undertake a wide-ranging review of the interrelationships between the LDP process and the monitoring of housing land supply, and to examine the issue in a much more systematic and considered way. Hefin David, I'm delighted that you're delighted. I want to correct that I'm only consulting on my intention to disapply paragraph 6.2 of TAN 1, not the whole of TAN 1, just to make that very clear. But I think it is important that we do help alleviate some of the immediate pressures that there are on local planning authorities when they're dealing with speculative planning applications for housing.

You referred to the south-east Wales strategic development plan. I met with several of the leaders a couple of weeks ago, but I am still awaiting further proposals. But it was a very positive meeting, and, if they can all come together, they need to decide on which local authority is going to lead. But it was a positive meeting, so, hopefully, when the plan does come to me, it will be a very positive one also.

Neil McEvoy referred to local democracy working and that's why it's so important that each local planning authority has an LDP in place. Obviously, we're encouraging strategic development plans to come forward, too. I think Lee Waters makes a very important point about loneliness and the ability I mentioned in my opening remarks to be able to open the door and walk to meet your friend or your family and be able to do things without relying on cars. You mentioned the active travel cross-party group, who have put forward a proposal to the PPW consultation, and I think you called it the 'paucity' of officials in local planning authorities being able to assess the active travel, and that's something that we need to look at too.

So, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, I believe the changes in policy and practice we are leading on as a Government can be the start of real change in this sector, and people and places become the foremost consideration in development decisions that affect our everyday lives. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.