Been there, got the t-shirt.
I support grassroots music venues. I’ve blogged a few times in the past about the agent of change principle. And I’ve just read today’s report by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the steps it recommends to halt the worrying rate at which these venues are closing (two a week and the total number in the country declining last year from 960 to 835), which includes recommendations to strengthen the agent of change principle. Music Venue Trust has played a vital role in drawing attention to the issue.
Previous relevant posts:
- To The Centre Of The City, In The Night (28 October 2021)
- Sajid Javid: Agent Of Change? (19 January 2018)
- Noise Annoys (24 October 2016)
As with many public policy issues (housing, the economy, climate change, inequality, health disparities), we in our planning bubble need to remember that when it comes to protecting the conditions for grassroots culture to flourish, whether for its own sake or to grow the next stadium acts, the operation of the planning system is only one part of the problem – but the planning system does need to put its shoulder to the wheel.
The report includes calls for:
- A comprehensive review by the Government (by summer 2024!) to fully examine the long-term challenges to the live music ecosystem
- A voluntary levy on large venues by September 2024 and “if a widespread voluntary levy is not in place by September 2024, or if its level does not stem the tide of closures, the Government should introduce a statutory scheme.”
- Temporary VAT cut and simplification of processes for grant applications, as well as resolution of disputes within the industry on performing rights payments and the like.
- Placing the “agent of change” principle, which has been in the National Planning Policy Framework since 2018, on a statutory basis.
Briefly on that last point, the agent of change principle forms paragraph 193 of the current NPPF:
“Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.”
Paragraphs 90 to 95 of the report consider how the policy is applying in practice. It was recognised that policy represented progress, however concern as to how local planning authorities interpret and apply it. The Committee supported calls for it to be given more teeth by way of being placed on a statutory footing “at the earliest opportunity”.
Everyone of course calls for legislation about everything. I hope that any subsequent Government review examines this specific aspect in more detail: to what extent is the policy not working and in what respects and in what ways would legislation assist without unintended consequences?
Those with long memories may recall that Labour tried to include such a provision into the Housing and Planning Bill back in 2016.
Just reflecting on what we gain from protecting and encouraging these venues (have you been to the relatively new, cosy but fabulous, Lafayette venue in Argent’s Kings Cross development?), it’s not just about nurturing artists – one great quote from the report, courtesy of a participant from Manchester: “Taylor Swift’s lighting director didn’t start out as Taylor Swift’s lighting director”.
These venues can sometimes even be the catalyst for the rebirth of a whole city – I recommend the excellent book Manchester Unspun – How A City Got High On Music by Andy Spinoza for a description of possibly the world’s most extreme version of this (and let’s not currently mention Co-op Live shall we?).
Simon Ricketts, 11 May 2024
Personal views, et cetera
SIMONICITY 
Dear Simon
Thank you!
On my usual hobby horse of general aviation, the Agent of Change principle was specifically addressed in relation to airfields by PPG Para 012 Ref ID:30-012- 20190722. And of course in the NPPF wording airfields could be covered as all general aviation activities are classed as ‘sports’ by Sport England. As with music venues many airfields have closed or under threat of closure.
I believe that the provisions of NPPF 110(f) point to at least ‘strategically important’ airfields being protected by local plan policies – very few are at present.
You may also have seen a Petition to Government to classify airfields as ‘greenfield’ rather than ‘brownfield. This could be a dangerous tactic. Airfields in the original PPG 3 were specifically excluded from the definition of ‘brownfield’. That reference was not carried forward to PPS3. On 9 November 2015, Brandon Lewis stated that ‘Currently all airfields, as land that has been previously developed, are regarded as brownfield land.’ There is nothing that I am aware of that substantiates the basis for this.
The current NPPF PDL definition does, in my view, offer some basis for arguing on a case by case basis why airfields should not be defined as brownfield.
Whilst the principle of a new definition for airfields could be helpful, I think there is a risk that the petition, particularly in the way it is worded, might lead to a reinforcement of Lewis’ statement and that is highly unlikely that anyone would specifically say that all airfields are ‘greenfield’.
Just musing but planning policy for airfields is a mess and if more airfields are to survive needs to be clearer. The Aviation APPG has been relaunched which I hope can increase awareness of these issues.
Kind regards, Ann
LikeLike
Many thanks indeed Ann – this issue for airfields was new to me. I see the concern.
LikeLike